I fucking hate libertarians

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.

Rocinante wrote:

Turtleneck wrote:

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.

No you don't.

Turtleneck wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

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

It was Greenway's example you dumb jizz trumpet.

Rocinante wrote:

Turtleneck wrote:

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.

No you don't.

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:Who said there would be no regulations that prevent monopolies? What you suggest sounds like a monopoly, and it was never suggested in this thread that there would be no protections againt monopolies.

Turtleneck wrote:Who said there would be no regulations that prevent monopolies? What you suggest sounds like a monopoly, and it was never suggested in this thread that there would be no protections againt monopolies.

Rocinante wrote:

Turtleneck wrote:Who said there would be no regulations that prevent monopolies? What you suggest sounds like a monopoly, and it was never suggested in this thread that there would be no protections againt monopolies.

You are a sorry excuse for a libertarian if you want laws preventing monopolies.

Rocinante wrote:You went to a god damn state college for Christ sake.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Rocinante wrote:You went to a god damn state college for Christ sake.

Roc. He's playing contrarian. I sorta noted that. He doesn't believe these things. It's more fun when there's a bad guy. Turtleneck is the bad guy.

A bad one, since his argument makes no sense. But a bad guy nonetheless.

Turtleneck wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Roc. He's playing contrarian. I sorta noted that. He doesn't believe these things. It's more fun when there's a bad guy. Turtleneck is the bad guy.

A bad one, since his argument makes no sense. But a bad guy nonetheless.

It does not make sense to a guy wearing statist blinders, but it makes sense to those people who value personal liberty and property rights.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Turtleneck wrote:

It does not make sense to a guy wearing statist blinders, but it makes sense to those people who value personal liberty and property rights.

I'm not going to retype the clapping thing but just trust that I'm retyping it

Rocinante wrote:I identified myself as libertarian for a while in college, before i realized I live in a fucking society and not an apocalyptic dystopia.

Rocinante wrote:I know guys. I've known you all (virtually) for a while now.

Turtleneck wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

I'm not going to retype the clapping thing but just trust that I'm retyping it

I do not have to give you a list of individual regulations to know that over regulation is costly, and theoretically can "reduce compliance, discourage innovation, and fuel uncertainty, ultimately making Americans less safe."

AMERICANS love to laugh at ridiculous regulations. A Florida law requires vending-machine labels to urge the public to file a report if the label is not there. The Federal Railroad Administration insists that all trains must be painted with an “F” at the front, so you can tell which end is which. Bureaucratic busybodies in Bethesda, Maryland, have shut down children's lemonade stands because the enterprising young moppets did not have trading licences. The list goes hilariously on.

But red tape in America is no laughing matter. The problem is not the rules that are self-evidently absurd. It is the ones that sound reasonable on their own but impose a huge burden collectively. America is meant to be the home of laissez-faire. Unlike Europeans, whose lives have long been circumscribed by meddling governments and diktats from Brussels, Americans are supposed to be free to choose, for better or for worse. Yet for some time America has been straying from this ideal.

Turtleneck wrote:

AMERICANS love to laugh at ridiculous regulations. A Florida law requires vending-machine labels to urge the public to file a report if the label is not there. The Federal Railroad Administration insists that all trains must be painted with an “F” at the front, so you can tell which end is which. Bureaucratic busybodies in Bethesda, Maryland, have shut down children's lemonade stands because the enterprising young moppets did not have trading licences. The list goes hilariously on.

But red tape in America is no laughing matter. The problem is not the rules that are self-evidently absurd. It is the ones that sound reasonable on their own but impose a huge burden collectively. America is meant to be the home of laissez-faire. Unlike Europeans, whose lives have long been circumscribed by meddling governments and diktats from Brussels, Americans are supposed to be free to choose, for better or for worse. Yet for some time America has been straying from this ideal.

http://www.economist.com/node/21547789

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

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.

Cameron wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Turtleneck wrote:

Cameron wrote:

He hears that from a lot of women, too.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Turtleneck wrote:

He hears that from a lot of women, too.

You lost this thread pages ago. Give it up old man.

Turtleneck wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

You lost this thread pages ago. Give it up old man.

You're in over your head. Once the conversation needs more than an emoji, you're no good and have to go sit on the bench.

Floyd Robertson wrote:That's funny, the older I get the more I feel like one.

Rocinante wrote:

Floyd Robertson wrote:That's funny, the older I get the more I feel like one.

Well stop it. Its disgusting.

Turtleneck wrote:

Rocinante wrote:

Well stop it. Its disgusting.

Public education...

Rocinante wrote:

Turtleneck wrote:

Public education...

Your reaching their.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:Turtleneck you're in my waters now bitch.

A CEO has one job. Just one.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:I guess it makes sense that our substitute conservative poster would be worse than the original at standing out on a totally indefensible position.

tGreenWay wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:Turtleneck you're in my waters now bitch.

A CEO has one job. Just one.

He's adorable when he's this naive.