I fucking hate libertarians

Rocinante wrote:That is all.

Turtleneck wrote:

Rocinante wrote:That is all.

What the fuck is so great about you?

tGreenWay wrote:

Turtleneck wrote:

What the fuck is so great about you?

It's Floyd. That's the only necessary response, and one you must accept. Floyd is the man.
/inquiry

tGreenWay wrote:In a Libertarian society, where there are no health codes for restaurants nor codes or tests for airplane parts and pilots, I'll be eating in and traveling by foot.

Turtleneck wrote:

tGreenWay wrote:In a Libertarian society, where there are no health codes for restaurants nor codes or tests for airplane parts and pilots, I'll be eating in and traveling by foot.

I believe that restaurants and airlines that were responsible for illness and death would do little business, and the market would reward those that maintained healthy and safe standards.

Turtleneck wrote:

tGreenWay wrote:

It's Floyd. That's the only necessary response, and one you must accept. Floyd is the man.
/inquiry

I was responding to Roc, resident statist and hater of all things freedom.

Turtleneck wrote:

tGreenWay wrote:In a Libertarian society, where there are no health codes for restaurants nor codes or tests for airplane parts and pilots, I'll be eating in and traveling by foot.

I believe that restaurants and airlines that were responsible for illness and death would do little business, and the market would reward those that maintained healthy and safe standards.

Turtleneck wrote:What evidence do you have that less regulation would decrease safety? It's simply a conclusion you jump to after discounting the power of market forces. I would eat at any restaurant or fly any airline with good health and safety records.

You seem to be saying deregulation means every restaurant will immediately start serving rat feces in the rice, or every airline's planes will start falling out of the sky. Not true. Based on profits and wanting to avoid a steady stream of lawsuits, there is still plenty of incentive to operate by health and safety standards that benefit the consumer.

Turtleneck wrote:What evidence do you have that less regulation would decrease safety? It's simply a conclusion you jump to after discounting the power of market forces. I would eat at any restaurant or fly any airline with good health and safety records.

You seem to be saying deregulation means every restaurant will immediately start serving rat feces in the rice, or every airline's planes will start falling out of the sky. Not true. Based on profits and wanting to avoid a steady stream of lawsuits, there is still plenty of incentive to operate by health and safety standards that benefit the consumer.

Turtleneck wrote:Really, Travis? That incident is somehow relevant to what we are discussing here? It was an isolated incident, which by the way the state participated in when he was removed by airport security.

Simple question. Do you think the market would react if United started killing its passengers by not maintaining their aircraft? By market I mean consumers purchasing products in the marketplace. I suspect people would stop buying their tickets and another airline that maintains their planes would benefit. United would certainly be punished by the market.

Turtleneck wrote:I did not bring up the airline example. I am working with the examples I was provided with. So please enjoy a nice cup of STFU.

tGreenWay wrote:An avowed enemy of the EPA now heads the agency. Will people be better or worse off by all the relaxed/eliminated regs and rules coming out of the EPA? How about the environment? Answer me that one, you damn fool.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

tGreenWay wrote:An avowed enemy of the EPA now heads the agency. Will people be better or worse off by all the relaxed/eliminated regs and rules coming out of the EPA? How about the environment? Answer me that one, you damn fool.

Better because climate change and pollution are a hoax invented by the alt left and by ignoring them corporate profits will go up 0.25% which will help small town America immensely

tGreenWay wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Better because climate change and pollution are a hoax invented by the alt left and by ignoring them corporate profits will go up 0.25% which will help small town America immensely

Okay. Your points make sense, unlike those of that mindless buffoon Turtleneck.

tGreenWay wrote:No evidence, just years of watching companies cut corners to maximize profits.

tGreenWay wrote:I wouldn't ever expect to find rat feces in my food, but maybe the owner or chef decides s/he can get just one more day out of that fish or chicken before it goes bad. As for airlines, you have to consider every company that supplies the parts that go into building each plane. Somewhere along the line, somebody, at some point, will decide they can go with a slightly cheaper and lower quality part in order to squeeze some extra cash out of their contract, if for no other reason than simple greed.

tGreenWay wrote: I submit it it would get worse due to sloppiness, laziness, or pure greed. I grant you that I t's a cynical view, but it's based on a lifetime of experiences and observations.

Turtleneck wrote:

tGreenWay wrote:No evidence, just years of watching companies cut corners to maximize profits.

I think think your statement could be improved by adding "because of regulation" at the end. Your assumption is that companies cut corners in a regulated environment so they would cut more corners in a deregulated environment. However, what if regulation was the variable that produces corner cutting? In other words, regulation is costly. When you regulate too much you take away revenue, and firms turn to corner cutting to enhance profits. So, if you deregulate, you grow revenue and decrease incentive to cut corners.

tGreenWay wrote:I wouldn't ever expect to find rat feces in my food, but maybe the owner or chef decides s/he can get just one more day out of that fish or chicken before it goes bad. As for airlines, you have to consider every company that supplies the parts that go into building each plane. Somewhere along the line, somebody, at some point, will decide they can go with a slightly cheaper and lower quality part in order to squeeze some extra cash out of their contract, if for no other reason than simple greed.

There are two things to be said here. First, and consistent with what was stated above, this happens now in an environment of regulation. If it happen now when the variable of regulation is present, maybe the absence of that variable is what can decrease that behavior. Second, and as I have stated above, when this happens and it leads to tragedy, the market will likely punish the greedy behavior.

tGreenWay wrote: I submit it it would get worse due to sloppiness, laziness, or pure greed. I grant you that I t's a cynical view, but it's based on a lifetime of experiences and observations.

What is interesting is that libertarianism does not suggest there is no punishment. It does not say that if a restaurant intentionally cooks spoiled food, or an airline buys cheap accident prone parts that they cannot be held liable in civil courts, and even in criminal courts. The justice system, including the criminal justice system, does not go away.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Turtleneck wrote:

I think think your statement could be improved by adding "because of regulation" at the end. Your assumption is that companies cut corners in a regulated environment so they would cut more corners in a deregulated environment. However, what if regulation was the variable that produces corner cutting? In other words, regulation is costly. When you regulate too much you take away revenue, and firms turn to corner cutting to enhance profits. So, if you deregulate, you grow revenue and decrease incentive to cut corners.



There are two things to be said here. First, and consistent with what was stated above, this happens now in an environment of regulation. If it happen now when the variable of regulation is present, maybe the absence of that variable is what can decrease that behavior. Second, and as I have stated above, when this happens and it leads to tragedy, the market will likely punish the greedy behavior.



What is interesting is that libertarianism does not suggest there is no punishment. It does not say that if a restaurant intentionally cooks spoiled food, or an airline buys cheap accident prone parts that they cannot be held liable in civil courts, and even in criminal courts. The justice system, including the criminal justice system, does not go away.

Lol

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

tGreenWay wrote:

Okay. Your points make sense, unlike those of that mindless buffoon Turtleneck.

You remember last weekend when he couldn't figure out what happened to his thread that "wasn't" about soccer? Lolololololol what a dipshit

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Turtleneck wrote:Really, Travis? That incident is somehow relevant to what we are discussing here? It was an isolated incident, which by the way the state participated in when he was removed by airport security.

Simple question. Do you think the market would react if United started killing its passengers by not maintaining their aircraft? By market I mean consumers purchasing products in the marketplace. I suspect people would stop buying their tickets and another airline that maintains their planes would benefit. United would certainly be punished by the market.

I think if a company beats the shit out of its consumers then it should be somehow punished by said market however the airline industry has been run over by monopolies and such so ultimately consumers will choose the $15 in savings when they only have 2 choices over the slightly higher risk of being beaten the shit out of, thus no decreased profits thus no decreased market performance thus no change.

If planes dropped out of the sky, yes obviously that would be a problem. I don't think we need to address your obvious being a contrarian in that regard. We know. But apparently beating the hell out of a consumers is not. Which, yeah, financially it wouldn't be (aka "market based" solution.) as long as it's somewhat isolated beatings. Not when there's a lack of choice. Airlines were a really bad example to bring up. You stupid fuck.

Turtleneck wrote:

tGreenWay wrote:No evidence, just years of watching companies cut corners to maximize profits.

I think think your statement could be improved by adding "because of regulation" at the end. Your assumption is that companies cut corners in a regulated environment so they would cut more corners in a deregulated environment. However, what if regulation was the variable that produces corner cutting? In other words, regulation is costly. When you regulate too much you take away revenue, and firms turn to corner cutting to enhance profits. So, if you deregulate, you grow revenue and decrease incentive to cut corners.

tGreenWay wrote:I wouldn't ever expect to find rat feces in my food, but maybe the owner or chef decides s/he can get just one more day out of that fish or chicken before it goes bad. As for airlines, you have to consider every company that supplies the parts that go into building each plane. Somewhere along the line, somebody, at some point, will decide they can go with a slightly cheaper and lower quality part in order to squeeze some extra cash out of their contract, if for no other reason than simple greed.

There are two things to be said here. First, and consistent with what was stated above, this happens now in an environment of regulation. If it happen now when the variable of regulation is present, maybe the absence of that variable is what can decrease that behavior. Second, and as I have stated above, when this happens and it leads to tragedy, the market will likely punish the greedy behavior.

tGreenWay wrote: I submit it it would get worse due to sloppiness, laziness, or pure greed. I grant you that I t's a cynical view, but it's based on a lifetime of experiences and observations.

What is interesting is that libertarianism does not suggest there is no punishment. It does not say that if a restaurant intentionally cooks spoiled food, or an airline buys cheap accident prone parts that they cannot be held liable in civil courts, and even in criminal courts. The justice system, including the criminal justice system, does not go away.

Turtleneck wrote:

Turtleneck wrote:

I think think your statement could be improved by adding "because of regulation" at the end. Your assumption is that companies cut corners in a regulated environment so they would cut more corners in a deregulated environment. However, what if regulation was the variable that produces corner cutting? In other words, regulation is costly. When you regulate too much you take away revenue, and firms turn to corner cutting to enhance profits. So, if you deregulate, you grow revenue and decrease incentive to cut corners.



There are two things to be said here. First, and consistent with what was stated above, this happens now in an environment of regulation. If it happen now when the variable of regulation is present, maybe the absence of that variable is what can decrease that behavior. Second, and as I have stated above, when this happens and it leads to tragedy, the market will likely punish the greedy behavior.



What is interesting is that libertarianism does not suggest there is no punishment. It does not say that if a restaurant intentionally cooks spoiled food, or an airline buys cheap accident prone parts that they cannot be held liable in civil courts, and even in criminal courts. The justice system, including the criminal justice system, does not go away.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Turtleneck wrote:

Your gif is a fraud because you can't answer why a corporation wouldn't have an incentive to further increase profits.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Turtleneck wrote:

Your gif is a fraud because you can't answer why a corporation wouldn't have an incentive to further increase profits.

Turtleneck wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Your gif is a fraud because you can't answer why a corporation wouldn't have an incentive to further increase profits.

I have answered that throughout, but you are so dense you belong on the periodic table.

American business must comply with a lot of rules. There are over 165,000 pages of federal regulations, almost 20,000 of which were added in the past four years. One of the chief rationales for many regulations is safety, and, as Congress expands regulators’ mandates, regulators concentrate on writing highly detailed and specific rules to cover perceived gaps in the law. For the sake of protecting the health and safety of workers and consumers, the federal government accepts the significant drag regulatory compliance puts on the U.S. economy and the burden it places on all businesses, but especially small ones.

Psychology, economics, and organizational science, however, suggest that too many regulations—particularly highly detailed regulations—may make society less, rather than more, safe. In “Regulatory Overload: A Behavioral Analysis of Regulatory Compliance,” occupational psychologists and economists look at the behavioral effects of regulatory overload on businesses. They find that too many, and too detailed, regulations can reduce compliance, discourage innovation, and fuel uncertainty, ultimately making Americans less safe.

Turtleneck wrote:

American business must comply with a lot of rules. There are over 165,000 pages of federal regulations, almost 20,000 of which were added in the past four years. One of the chief rationales for many regulations is safety, and, as Congress expands regulators’ mandates, regulators concentrate on writing highly detailed and specific rules to cover perceived gaps in the law. For the sake of protecting the health and safety of workers and consumers, the federal government accepts the significant drag regulatory compliance puts on the U.S. economy and the burden it places on all businesses, but especially small ones.

Psychology, economics, and organizational science, however, suggest that too many regulations—particularly highly detailed regulations—may make society less, rather than more, safe. In “Regulatory Overload: A Behavioral Analysis of Regulatory Compliance,” occupational psychologists and economists look at the behavioral effects of regulatory overload on businesses. They find that too many, and too detailed, regulations can reduce compliance, discourage innovation, and fuel uncertainty, ultimately making Americans less safe.

https://www.mercatus.org/publication/do-more-regulations-equal-less-safety

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Turtleneck wrote:

https://www.mercatus.org/publication/do-more-regulations-equal-less-safety

I am not, nor are you, an expert on every single regulation in existence and which could be cut without negative consequences. However, there is no doubt whatsoever that going totally unregulated would have a negative impact.

If you would like to debate which specific regulations you would like to cut then let's do it. Otherwise, eat shit with your generalities asshole.

Libertarians are not opposed to reasonable safety regulations, sensible compromises of civil liberties to enhance national security, or even selective gun controls. Moreover, we recognize that markets are not perfect. But neither is government. The proper comparison is not “unfettered” freedom versus a perfectly managed world. Instead, the relevant tradeoff is free markets versus the reality of government intervention. No doubt, government occasionally does good things. But the equation isn’t complete without considering the bad things that inevitably accompany the good.

Turtleneck wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

I am not, nor are you, an expert on every single regulation in existence and which could be cut without negative consequences. However, there is no doubt whatsoever that going totally unregulated would have a negative impact.

If you would like to debate which specific regulations you would like to cut then let's do it. Otherwise, eat shit with your generalities asshole.

Who said totally unregulated? Deregulated does not mean totally unregulated. That is like me saying decriminalization of drugs is a good thing and you screaming your head off about the horrors of legalization. That does not make much sense.

There will certainly have to be some regulations in place. Even the libertarian CATO institute says as much:

Libertarians are not opposed to reasonable safety regulations, sensible compromises of civil liberties to enhance national security, or even selective gun controls. Moreover, we recognize that markets are not perfect. But neither is government. The proper comparison is not “unfettered” freedom versus a perfectly managed world. Instead, the relevant tradeoff is free markets versus the reality of government intervention. No doubt, government occasionally does good things. But the equation isn’t complete without considering the bad things that inevitably accompany the good.

Please fuck off now. Thank you.

GRR Spartan wrote:Tavis, Travis, Travis.

You live in a United hub city like Chicago you are going to fly with that airline.
Their stock took a small hit but they have a decent size fleet that's well maintained.

They are making money by charging fuel surcharge per ticket although jet fuel has dropped from $1.51 per gallon in April '17 to $1.27 this week.

The airlines are charging additional bag fees in addition to the per bag tax that was supposed to improve security with no Federal interference.

Thet all should be making money like United.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

GRR Spartan wrote:Tavis, Travis, Travis.

You live in a United hub city like Chicago you are going to fly with that airline.
Their stock took a small hit but they have a decent size fleet that's well maintained.

They are making money by charging fuel surcharge per ticket although jet fuel has dropped from $1.51 per gallon in April '17 to $1.27 this week.

The airlines are charging additional bag fees in addition to the per bag tax that was supposed to improve security with no Federal interference.

Thet all should be making money like United.

See turtleneck? Your airline example is so dumb because no one can do shit about it. They just gotta deal with their occasional beating.