Is it the responsibility of government to protect people from themselves?

It is fine and logical for you to believe that. But, you are not a libertarian.

 

I agree, one example is laws requiring one to see a doctor if they prefer to treat themselves... IE Asthma medication, ect... (people should be able to treat themselves when they know what is wrong or the gov should cover the cost of the doctors)

I agree with Einstein that many of the current prohibition laws actually contribute to a higher crime rate as it is a "gateway" to crime for many

I have no issue with health and sanitation issues for food service workers as that will harm others....

...now requiring people to wear seatbelts, that crosses the line IMO, even though it is usually a good idea to wear one, wearing one has never saved anyone I knows life, so all those years people have been forced to wear them and they did not "need" too

requiring car manufactures to include seat-belts though is ok, as it could harm others not to include them

idiots should be allowed to be idiots as long as they are not harming anyone, look at the crazy sports many participate in, real harm potential... legal

"no phone calls while driving etc...", CB's existed for years, the accident rate was lower cause less people had them, more people have communication devices now, more harm is done to others.. thus hands free laws (BUT I would only apply the law when harm was done, not as a "it had the potential" to happen, so you get a ticket
.

 

How's that?

 

Then are you willing to bear the consequences of that? Anarchy HAS been tried before you know - funny thing is people tend to drift back into some form of law and order.

Even here on the internet there have been countless forums started with the intent they will be "unmoderated" so people can "work it out amongst themselves"

never works

 

Ahem Re seat belts


Meet an old duckie who remembers the time "before" and talking to the medical staff about the introduction of the laws. Our ICU's were full of people who had central flail chest injuries - from steering wheel impacts. Of course that did not also include those with facial and head trauma

Victoria was the state of Australia that was the first place in the world to introduce seat belt laws - they kept the stats. AMAZING reduction in injury/death rate approx 50%- that is why everyone else followed
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seat_belt_legislation

 

Exactly. I find it remarkable American libertarians want to get rid of them - to me this is against a moral sense of libertarianism, since such basic precautions are necessary for general road safety - ie ensuring safety and liberty of individuals. A person driving unsafely can be a threat to everyone else as well as themselves after all. If someone was on a dusty road in the middle of no where, driving by themselves with no traffic, then I would see nothing wrong with them taking their seat belt off - they can get (*)(*)(*)(*)ed if they get in an accident and expect me to pay for the healthcare costs though.

 

Seen more than a few "no seat belt" injuries in my time - mostly young kids in stolen vehicles in a police car chase thinking they were some Hollywood Hero - Apart from the Flail chests (more than 2 ribs broken in more than 2 places - the bit moves in and out with breathing) and the La Forte 1,2 and 3 fractures of the middle third of the face there were those who went through the windscreen and slid along the road face first usually

 

(*)(*)(*)(*), sounds colourful.

 

Yeah! Nice stuff

I just get blown away by those people like the poster earlier who write things like "Well I never heard of..................... so it does not happen". What blows me away are these some people are often anti-vaccination on the basis of "I never heard of anyone having a bad time from one of those diseases they supposedly stop" Yes well that is because the Vaccines have stopped them but believe me when people do get those diseases they still kill!!

 

Not every libertarian sees eye to eye, some may believe in food quality control, however, based on several posts I have seen from you, it appears you are more center-left on the statist side. A statist will believe that the government needs to protect its citizens from food companies making poor quality food and therefore regulate and hold these companies to a certain standard. That is a logical position to have, and I am not here to debate which system is more necessary. However, a libertarian would believe that in a healthy market these companies will produce a product in the best interest of its consumer because if not, people will no longer buy their product. Libertarians believe it should be the consumers choice that dictates quality. Now of course, every now and then a company will abuse the system, and try to cut corners. But, it is no different than today, if a company harms its consumers, those consumers can boycott, bring a class action suit, and those company executives can be brought to justice in the court system for harming the public. Unfortunately, I think in todays society, we rely too much on regulators, which aren't very effective, when we need to streamline the judicial system, and really bring people to justice who harm others.

 

What other comments would those be? I'd prefer a market deal with everything, but outcomes need to be raised by the state where they can. If the government can serve a purpose the market is incapable of doing at a particular time, then I have no qualms allowing it act.

Or one could argue a libertarian seeks the best outcome for all individuals in protecting their interest in purchasing products with the full knowledge of what they are buying and in turn require, where companies do not do so voluntarily to ensure basic standards.

Its certianly logical, but also subjective - its merely depends on your perception and position.

Correct. However, as I have said here and other places, a "healthy market" is hard to come buy - if not impossible today. Our goal should be to work so as to produce such a system, but ensure positive outcomes where such a system is yet to emerge. I hope that makes sense.

I completely agree.

I completely agree again, although Australia's condition is different. My principle, as I describe above, remains the same however.

 

Short answer,No.

Governments JOb is to work FOR the People, BY the people and OF the People.


Oh How I miss the 70's when Funk, Free Love and Peace was the movement.

 

The problem Mega is that food quality control brings a burden on the business. The businesses have to pay attorneys and other costs in dealing with the FDA. They often cannot control their timeline while they wait for certain approvals. Government can take a long time to make that approval. If there are people at the agency that do not like you, they can make life hell for your business; I see this all the time in my industry. Agencies have a lot of power and can create rules that favor certain companies over other companies. Then it becomes complicated, and takes an act of congress to repeal rules created by the agency. All this interference raises the cost of business, and in turn raises the price on consumers. From a libertarians perspective, that is unnecessary harm. For the practical person, the question is, do these quality controls outweigh the disadvantages of regulatory cost and slowing the market and would there really be rampant abuse if these controls were taken away? That is up for debate, however, it is easily arguable that government controls do harm onto businesses and consumers while trying to protect them at the same time.

 

also did not include airbags, but like I said, it's a good idea to wear one, but if your just going down the street on a 25 mph road, it most likely wont kill ya, but it is illegal

only vehicle I have ever been in that flipped over was a School Bus, and there were no seat belt requirements for children in a Bus or adults in a bus for that matter

would some of been helped in the Bus if they had seat belts, of course, but why are they not only not required, but not even available?


.

 

I doubt it is the law more than it is education and common sense.

 

and some things like pink slime still make it to market without the consumer ever being informed...


.

 

I agree, but of course you can get a ticket for using common sense sometimes as crazy as that may be


.

 

They were sort of going with that idea in China until someone decided to make more money by adulterating infant formula and milk with Melamine - and has happened elsewhere. Me? I would rather not wait until people are dropping dead around me to boycott a product

 

I was not debating which system is better, only what a libertarians point of view would be. The question I pose to you is, do you think that kind of activity does not happen today? There are drugs released all the time that end up killing people regardless of the FDA approval. There are cribs that kill infants. There are cars with brakes that fail. Those companies are sued and may or may not go bankrupt. Like I said before, the question is, without the government controls, would this happen on a much larger scale? If the government was not so involved, would the public respond by being more involved and be better educated to make smarter purchases? The answers to those questions are not as clear as it would seem.

 

Indeed, a necessary one.

This is a problem with the function of the institution - not its aims. Ie, having a crap system does not mean the goal of the system is also flawed.

Indeed, hence why institutions should be reformed and improved as regularly as possible to achieve the best outcomes.

Most contradictory thing I've heard all week.

Sure, but that doesn't change the fact there SHOULD BE standards. It doesnt change the fact the regulatory system can be improved. It doesnt change the fact it would be devastating for a society to allow any product be sold with no information provided to consumers. You talk about harm in a very shallow sense - dont forget its not just people's wallets you have to worry about.

 

You are asking an Aussie

WE EXPECT our government to put legislation in place to keep the bastards even half way honest

 

It is not contradictory, is is fact. The regulatory burden is questionable in its protection of consumers and without a doubt expensive for business, that is harmful to the business and the consumer.

You want reformed agencies, that is cute, but you advocate for the state and its power to protect consumers. That is fine, but that does not resemble libertarianism by any standard. Perhaps you can call yourself a social libertarian depending on what your economic views are.

 

What makes you think the government is always being honest? What makes you think they are acting in the public interest? I see government pass legislation all the time that favors certain companies over others disguised as protecting the consumer. These issues are not so black and white.

 

Then we vote the bastards out!! Aussies are pretty intolerant of anyone "on the take" and so it should be.

 

That is matter of opinion unless you want to go into a lengthy cost-benefit analysis, which I'm happy to see, but until it is shown, all you have is an opinion which I find wanting.

I disagree. The material cost placed on businesses and consumers to have standards for food is outweighed by the security of consumption and trade that is acquired by having such standards. People can buy food knowing its expiry - knowing it has been tested and ensured with a standard of quality not harmful to their well being. Fruit, veges, meat - all these things have quality assurances - all mandated by regulations. There are also basic medical implications - kids with allergies know if something has nuts in it so they dont risk fatal accidents. People can steer clear of products with ingredients and contents particularly or generally harmful to them - something vital to someone like me who is a type 1 diabetic. All of the regulations mentioned contribute to the freedom of the consumer as it broadens their purchasing power; greater confidence, knowledge of products, greater general health and thus competition between businesses.
Sorry mate, the fiscal and material harm brought about by standards is a cheap cost for the prevention of horrific harms that would otherwise be encountered by consumers on a daily basis.

As I said, I do not advocate for state intervention - I only entertain the use of the state where market forces are not adequate or in conditions where state intervention would render better results. It is quite clear in some cases today this entirely reasonable. I think we should continue to work toward a society with a smaller government and perhaps one day a state-less society, But today is not the day for such a social structure.

What I have described is libertarianism - a desire to promote the freedom and development of individuals with an active inclination toward a scaling back of the state. The problem you are having is with the idea the state should be removed slowly. If you have a band-aid on a recent cut - you dont rip off the band-aid quickly if the cut is still recent, open and bleeding. You leave it on until it is safe to remove it - until the cut is safe enough to be without the band-aid. Same with the state. There are plenty of historical precedents.