How Govt. Ruined The Movies

[Chris Nuzzaco]

Here's an interesting way to look at private VS public.

When a govt. agency screws up, it gets to stick around and keep on screwing up. It's very hard to eliminate an agency once its created.

When a private company screws up in a true free market, with no govt. interference, it can go out of business, and many have.

Now I'm sure big govt. advocates will point at all these "example" companies to fight this argument, but its premature, because the govt. has given them all kinds of protections they would not have in a free market. See? Your big govt. working against you. It doesn't matter who is in charge, left or right, they both want different versions of big govt. Once you realize this, things become more clear.

GM is a perfect example of govt. meddling. They said they would keep it out of bankruptcy, and guess what? BILLIONS of dollars later, and they are preparing for bankruptcy. If we let the free market do it it's thing, we could have saved those billions.

 

[jpp]

Lets look at this logically: I own an operation that sells access to water.

One day someone kicks the bucket from drinking it, and people panic, no longer buying my service giving access to water. Where do they go? Some would hit up the bottled water companies, others might just go with juices, etc... In the end, people stop using the service, and I loose my business, which means I could be shut down. Whats the answer? Keeping the water clean, to keep my customers happy.

See? How simple is that? All you have to do is think logically.

Your example is fairly flabbergasting: industrial companies, including some of the biggest, among them oil companies, *have* been polluting the drinking water in this country for years, with no consequences to themselves or their shareholders. Have a look at EPA surveys of the current quality of the American drinking water supply. Who's putting the companies responsible out of business? The consumer?

As for the specifics of your own example, what satisfaction is the local community suppose to derive when it stops buying your products , if you've already contaminated the local water supply -- and even assuming your deed is discovered immediately, rather than thousands of cancers and birth defects later, when you've already left town?

Still worse, the incentives of your system actually *favor* pollution: if you're confident that thanks to a lack of regulation your crime won't be discovered immediately, what economic incentive do you have for avoiding contamination? And, even if you don't pollute knowingly or intentionally, lack of regulation ensures that you will be able to do so out of ignorance or incompetence.

And this is how you want to run a huge economy? Sounds suicidal, more than logical.

 

[Chris Nuzzaco]

Your example is fairly flabbergasting: industrial companies, including some of the biggest, among them oil companies, *have* been polluting the drinking water in this country for years, with no consequences to themselves or their shareholders. Have a look at EPA surveys of the current quality of the American drinking water supply. Who's putting the companies responsible out of business? The consumer?

This argument has no grounds. Here's why: oil companies SELL OIL, not drinking water, so clearly this makes no sense.

Furthermore, you're precious govt. agency, the EPA, clearly isn't getting the job done if all that pollution is going on, and I already pointed out govt. inability to insure quality by using DC, our nations capitol mind you, as a blazing example. People die in DC due to a govt. run water supply that is poisonous. Did you see the $200 million law suit being filed? I provided a link to the article...

As for the specifics of your own example, what satisfaction is the local community suppose to derive when it stops buying your products , if you've already contaminated the local water supply -- and even assuming your deed is discovered immediately, rather than thousands of cancers and birth defects later, when you've already left town?

Again, this statement also makes no sense. How do you think problems are found? Do you think every problem can be predicted? The answer is they can't, but one thing is certain, the free market figures it out faster. Do you remember the first swine flu scare decades ago? The govt. rushed out a vaccine that killed far more people than the swine flue itself. No one in the private sector endorsed the govt. position of pushing out a drug as fast as they did, low and behold, the private sector was correct. Recently there was an issue discovered with Hydroxy Cut. Do you know who found this issue? It was NOT the FDA, it was the private public. After all of that, it makes you wonder if govt. agencies are even worth the tax dollars required to fund them.

Still worse, the incentives of your system actually *favor* pollution: if you're confident that thanks to a lack of regulation your crime won't be discovered immediately, what economic incentive do you have for avoiding contamination? And, even if you don't pollute knowingly or intentionally, lack of regulation ensures that you will be able to do so out of ignorance or incompetence.

And this is how you want to run a huge economy? Sounds suicidal, more than logical.

Again, this is more non-sense. If I kill off my customers, who in the world will I sell my product to? I'd be eliminating my market. Your logic isn't even logical. Furthermore, you totally ignore all the various PRIVATE consumer advocacy groups we have. You ignore the fact that choices and options exist in a free market. Don't like the dirty water being sold (assuming it even is), go drink milk or juice instead.

Whats your stance on the UL? You seem awfully quiet about the UL, a private institution that is keeping you safe right now, as you read this on your computer. When you typed your "rebuttal", they kept your hands safe by testing your keyboard. I just checked my wireless keyboard, yep, it has a UL mark on it....

Do you see how long it takes to dis-spell one of the many myths in these big govt. rebuttals? This is why I can't address every single one. This one however, it was too glaring a myth, so I took the time out of my day to do it.

 

[Joel Kaye]

This argument has no grounds. Here's why: oil companies SELL OIL, not drinking water, so clearly this makes no sense.

Uh... a company doesn't have to sell water to pollute it.

You need to see the movie "The Corporation" if you never have.
Corporations are driven by profit and often will do harm if the penalty for the harm costs less money than preventing the harm. Very typical.

As far "big gov't being evil I somewhat agree... to the the extent big gov't is controlled by big corporations it is pretty evil. Big corporations absolutely rip off the taxpayers via gov't.

 

[jpp]

Cardmaverick,

Based on your arguments above, we shouldn't have any pollution at all, because pollution won't be to any business's economic advantage (except, of course when it is). So it seems to me your beliefs require that reality be other than what it demonstrably is. Or you argue, circularly, that if reality doesn't behave the way you predict, it's because all your pre-conditions haven't been met.

You could always blame government incentives for private sector pollution (of which we have numberless tons), but this assumes that businesses are so fundamentally depraved that they'll pollute freely if they think government will bear the costs of the cleanup or indemnify them legally. However, if businesses are depraved or amoral by nature, that's the best case yet for regulation.

You might want to look further afield. There's no environmental regulation in China, which is great for their emerging industries. Just don't breath deeply, eat the food or drink the water. You know the phrase "blue sky"? Well, there are no blue skies in China, all you see is this sickening miasma which blots out all color. It won't help that the consumers of Chinese goods are thousands of miles away, and are unlikely punish these industries for destroying the land, water and air in China, even if your model actually worked.

In the end, all this discussion proves is that we're not using the same system of deduction to arrive at conclusions. There's no point in any more of it, at least not between the two of us. Bad as the government is, I can only celebrate that people with your views are no longer in charge. As for UL saving the world -- good luck with it, it's grand to know that American appliances don't routinely electrocute people, and all without government interference. If only UL had been in charge of the credit-rating agencies these past few years, instead of, well, highly profitable non-government private sector credit rating agencies....

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

I would say the years prior to regulation are an excellent example of what happens without environmental regulation.

Also the water company thing is kind of confusing because a large number of municipalities have a government sanctioned private sector monopoly providng water. So water is handled by the private sector... just under extremely close regulation.

I'm confused as to how though you think the private sector would find it provitable to run two sets of pipes into each house. As far as bottled water is concerned that already is a largely free market enterprise. And if it doesn't need regulation then obviously the government isn't impeding those companies... they're happily doing it themselves.

As far as safety is concerned though it's INCREDIBLY difficult to pin pollution to the cause of illness. The drinking water company could be killing half of the people in town... but proving that would be difficult. Or if it were proven it could take decades at which point the damage has already been done on the company it laughing all the way to the bank.

And what if I'm not in the drinking water business? If I'm a nuclear power plant there's nothing financially incentivizing me not just dumping all of my waste into the river to float down stream. "Not my problem. Not my cost."

I would google "Tragedy of the Commons". It's a very basic principle. 8th Grade Sociology stuff. Tragedy of the Commons is the reason we have regulation.

 

[Tom Lowe]

With all due respect to my friend Chris, it's unwise to argue on a public forum for scrapping environmental laws. This is a major problem the LP (Libertarian Party) runs into, and why it never gains much traction. LP message boards are full of guys sitting around talking about closing down fire stations and making all the public roads into toll roads. The public aint gonna go for this at all, nor should they, IMHO.

Do you know how many toll roads I would have to pay for when I travel from Orange County to the High Sierras? No thanks.

In order to grow as a movement, liberty-minded people need to present a more mainstream agenda. All of politics is a compromise, and if you're not willing to compromise at all, you will never get anywhere. It's much better to concentrate on the big-ticket items that many can agree on -- balancing the budget, cutting spending, increasing personal liberties, ending our overseas empire and putting a stop to counterproductive foreign interventionism.

A lot of my libertarian friends recently decried the federal government's move to set aside large swaths of the Eastern Sierras as a nature preserve with the Eastern Sierra and Northern San Gabriel Mountains Wild Heritage Act. This includes parts of the White Mountains. I for one applauded it! I want that land to remain as untouched by man as possible.

As Sun Tzu advised, all battles are won or lost before they are fought. Advocates of limited government need to wisely choose their battles.

 

[jpp]

It's much better to concentrate on the big-ticket items that many can agree on -- balancing the budget, cutting spending, increasing personal liberties, ending our overseas empire and putting a stop to counterproductive foreign interventionism.

But that's just it! We don't agree on these issues. The permanent political/industrial elite in this country -- and I don't mean Harvard liberals -- loves foreign intervention. And it's highly profitable (for some).

And why would the poor and lower-middle class demand cuts in government spending if they have kids in public school and depend on government funded health programs?

And balanced budgets are fine only if want government to stop investing in infrastructure and economic development, or you prefer that government lack the power of stimulus, or you don't believe in fiscal stimulus and want to return to the Hoover era. Where's the popular support for these ideas?

Even as a Trojan Horse, to put libertarians in control, these dogmas are not necessarily winning issues. Your program is much less universal than you may think.

 

[Tom Lowe]

But that's just it! We don't agree on these issues. The permanent political/industrial elite in this country -- and I don't mean Harvard liberals -- loves foreign intervention. And it's highly profitable (for some).

That's my point. If you offer young people, for example, a true agenda of ending counterproductive foreign interventionism, they will flock to that message. Or offer them increased personal freedom. Look at Joe Biden for example. Here is a guy who favors foreign interventionism, and is a leading proponent of the "war on drugs." That's not what many young people are looking for.

Your program is much less universal than you may think.

We'll see about that.

 

[jpp]

A lot of my libertarian friends recently decried the federal government's move to set aside large swaths of the Eastern Sierras as a nature preserve with the Eastern Sierra and Northern San Gabriel Mountains Wild Heritage Act. This includes parts of the White Mountains. I for one applauded it! I want that land to remain as untouched by man as possible.

That's maybe because you have values which, in this instance, transcend strictly monetary or mercantile concerns.

Well, a lot of people have values which transcend strictly monetary and mercantile concerns, in lots of other areas. When we defend those values, the result is called "civilization".

Libertarians would be a lot more convincing, if they were as avid about supporting the ACLU, prosecuting U.S. war crimes and ending torture, as they are defenders of the rights of capital and so-called free enterprise.

 

[Tom Lowe]

Libertarians would be a lot more convincing, if they were as avid about supporting the ACLU, prosecuting U.S. war crimes and ending torture, as they are defenders of the rights of capital and so-called free enterprise.

Are you kidding me? Libertarians have teamed up with the ACLU on the torture question, the "Patriot Act," closing Guantanamo, truly ending the warmongering, etc. We are the only ones calling for real change! jpp, I think you should learn more about the liberty movement before making these massively incorrect statements.

Watch this video and tell me if you still hold the same opinion:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSZ8FF8iMAM

 

[Andrew Kimery]

Again, this is more non-sense. If I kill off my customers, who in the world will I sell my product to? I'd be eliminating my market.

Know any smokers?

The glaring problem w/this position is the assumption that everyone, especially those in a position of power, will follow the golden rule. If no one committed any crimes we wouldn't need cops or the judicial system but people do commit crimes. Things like OSHA, child labor laws, and the 40hr work week weren't created in a vacuum. Our history is littered w/examples of companies exploiting and/or endangering the lives of others in the name of profit (the Pullman company town near Chicago, Love Canal, Triangle Shirtwaist Company, etc.). How many companies today travel to third world countries for manufacturing and/or waste disposal because of fewer labor and environmental regulations?

Running a more profitable business, not necessarily creating the best product or service, 'wins' in the free market game. Why make a better mouse trap when you can just undercut, or buyout, the competition (did the deregulation of the 90's create less or more media companies)? Are government regulations perfect? No. Is it easier to wash one's hands of the entire thing by saying "let the market sort it out"? Yes. But just because it's easier doesn't mean it's right. I don't want government controlling everything but I do want them to have some presence (kinda like refs at a football game).


-Andrew

 

[jpp]

Are you kidding me? Libertarians have teamed up with the ACLU on the torture question, the "Patriot Act," closing Guantanamo, truly ending the warmongering, etc. We are the only ones calling for real change! jpp,

If that's really true, I just wish the libertarians would carry more of the water, because the whole thing is being painted as a conspiracy of commie-loving eastern liberals, like the ACLU and the Center for Constitutional Rights, who want to coddle terrorists rather than Keep Us Safe, or of people who hate Bush and are just looking for revenge.

If libertarians were more visible in this fight, it wouldn't be so easy for the other side to demonize government critics as pampered elites who are trying to criminalize policy differences.

 

[Joe G.]

See? I told you. Dogma trumps common sense with those guys every single time.

"Furthermore, you're (sic) precious govt. agency, the EPA, clearly isn't getting the job done if all that pollution is going on..."

And what was the water situation before the EPA started enforcement?

I agree that it could do a much better job AT REGULATING CORPORATIONS MORE, not less.

I'm all for JAIL TIME and stiff penalties when a corporate decision-maker knowingly endangers or harms anyone. Period.

 

[Michael McLaughlin]

I think this is perfect for this thread

I think this is perfect for this thread

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QDv4sYwjO0&feature=channel_page

I have cholera!!!


:couch:

 

[Chris Nuzzaco]

If you read my posts, you'll understand I'm not against protecting our people, my opinion is why do we always need the govt. to do it? The UL is a fantastic example, and I have yet to find anyone willing to take that one on. I don't own a Red, but I bet it has a UL stamp on it. Just because a private sector version of the UL for environmental protection hasn't been started yet, does not mean it couldn't be started.

I was coming back from a shoot out west once and I was talking to a young women who works for a DC "Think Tank", which is private of course, and guess what she said... this is not a direct quote, but essentially it went like this:

"The govt. pays us to fix its problems."

Think about that.

Again, Libertarians want small govt., essentially what we had from day one, and actually still have, we just need to practice it again. Thats what is so genius about the framework, its horribly hard to change it, no matter how much the current govt. breaks the rules (almost always via the court system), we can still point this out, because they never changed to begin with... beautiful even in dark times.

 

[Chris Nuzzaco]

How much power do you keep giving failing agencies?

I want to hear an answer to that question. It seems awfully similar to the "inflationist" approach to fixing our economy... just keep on printing and printing and printing... before you know it, your in a huge pile of problems.

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Nobody is complaining about the UL because it has nothing to do with large or small government.

The government mandates standards. The UL certifies people live up to those standards. I have no problem with companies getting independent verification of compliance instead of a government employee. It's a question of regulation.

 

[Peter Weisberg]

someone has to set the rules and enforce them and i sure as hell wouldn't want to leave that to the free market

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Especially if "losing me as a customer" means me losing my life.

How much is human life 'worth' is the problem. Conservatives demonize trial lawyers so a life should only be worth what it costs to 'fix it'. So if a product lops off my arm and 100,000 other people's arms. But it's still profitable then the company will continue to push the safety envelope up to the point of maximum profit. And since it's difficult to make a truly informed decision there's nothing to inform the customer as to which is less likely to lop off an arm or give you cancer.

If you go to an auto showroom and see the new 2010 cars... how do you know which are going to be the most reliable? "Oh the market will straighten itself out." Yeah sure... after I've bought it. I would much rather not have to be one of a million other people who die in a fireball before the company determines the amount of customers its losing is costing more than than the fix.

The point of regulations is to apply value to things which have no intrinsic value. And take a look at cellphones. "Just go to the company which has great customer service." Uhhhh... ok. yeah... I'll choose *that* company. If you need a cell phone but let's say all cell phones killed you then there would be market option for a safe cell phone.

We didn't get seat belts in cars because of any sort of market pressure. It took the government forcing car companies to install them.

There was no economic incentive to add catalytic converters to cars. "My neighbor can get worse gas mileage and less performance to save the environment." The "correct" decision for each customers is to maximize their own gain. The "correct" decision for each seller is to maximize their own gain. In such a system the commons become worthless and everyone loses even though it's the best market decision for each individual company/buyer.

I'll say it again. Tragedy of the Commons.