look at all the Americans' that are against the values of capitalism.... the legislators of this country have no clue on the seriousness of our intentions. Good luck big brother.....
He is misrepresenting (and overgeneralizing) the libertarian position. For one, because there are many variations within the libertarian "movement". Libertarians do define capitalism quite clearly actually. He is right on libertarians avoiding the discussion of the moral basis of individual rights. And yes, many "austrolibertarians" actually believe in altruistic morality.
He is absolutely right on conservatives believing that capitalism is actually immoral. Kudos for that.
The tank example is actually very, very weak. If I collect vintage tanks and want to keep one on my property, what business it is of anybody else's?
What he fails to delineate in talking about "threats" is the concept of "clear and present" threat. A tank per se is not clear and present threat. A tank driving around and pointing its cannon at houses is much closer to being a threat.
Yaron is wrong by saying that Mises Institute scholars do not discuss or endorse morality. Of course they do, Rothbardian rational ethics as espoused in "Ethics of Liberty" by M. Rothbard, is precisely the strongest case for absolute libertarian ethics based on property rights out there. And to be frank, only they can be considered serious libertarians who haven't sold out like Cato or other beltway establishment 'libertarians'.
I agree with all points on economics. Yaron is dead wrong on government. Governments require income, even if its just for one role. To take from A in order to punish B for stealing from C is a violation of A's sovereignty and liberty that is immoral and wrong. Also if punishing C from stealing from A is moral when the government does it, then how can the same action be immoral when B does it instead. Who decides, according to yaron the government.
@JordanViewer Good points. I expected better from Brook. But then again, since he is a minarchist (he kind of has to be), he knows he is treading dangerous waters and so avoids getting into details. If he defined taxes and gov't as fee for service, his minarchist position would begin to crumble, so he remains intentionally vague on these subjects.
If I were wealthy enough, I would LOVE to have a tank. I would take it to the desert and . . . blow things up. Individual neighborhoods could have clauses in housing leases to prohibit the ownership of tanks, but I would live in my own place with my own firing range (or store it at a range). I would draw the line at nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. Even if only from the possibility of accidental release, they pose an imminent threat to all neighbors within 200 miles or so.
@hapspir Of course a Randian government would not allow chemical or biological weapons to be owned by private people because of their real and immediate threat, but owning a tank would be cool... As long as the person that owns it is psychologically stable...
I enjoyed this series, thanks for posting. I liked the Q&E. It proves there is no perfect social (by social I mean a population of people) living environment, but a libertarian way does indeed seem to be close. I consider myself a conservative libertarian I don’t mind some gov to regulate certain issues in order to help maintain a standard. Maybe that’s because I haven’t been fully convinced that a purely libertarian way is the best, but do find the more I learn the more I lean towards it.
@SouthernKudzu If you still think regulation of some things to maintain a standard is good, you will find lucid counter-arguments for your consideration:
1) The Assault on Integrity, an essay in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, by Ayn Rand.
2) The chapter on medical licences etc from Capitalism and Freedom, by Milton Friedman.
Ayn Rand nor any individuals at the Ayn Rand Institute are libertarians. On specific politicail issues they may agree, but Objectivism rejects libertarianism.
@Eta49 Yes, I know Ayn Rands feelings about Libertarians. Being a cult group following Ayn Rand, I’m sure the institute has those same feelings, but in reality, Libertarianism is currently the closest political party resembling the Objectivism way. There are very few political leaders in office that call themselves Libertarians and so it probably want be in our lifetime that there are any who call themselves Objectivist. Either you find a party that best suits your beliefs or stand alone.
I disagree about the tank. He's right that the weaponry on the tank are designed only to blow things up. But what if I want to blow things up that are either my property, or unowned? What if I want to take a 55-gallon drum that I own, fill it up with water, take my tank and my drum into the middle of nowhere, and blow one up with the other? Should I be prohibited from doing so, simply because Mrs. Johnson next door thinks my 120mm artillery piece is scary? I don't think so.
I think Yaron didn't get the point of commons for example if the state does not provide basic health services there is the problem that sick people can cause other people to get sick thus it is in the collective interest for society to provide basic health services.
Also for intellectual property there is the issue of common intellectually property (public domain) and when intellectual property is allowed to become public property so we don't have stagnation of ideas.
I think Yaron understand both examples you just gave quite well
He said, unless there is an immediate threat of harm, the Gov has no role; if you have a highly contagious disease that causes your organs to turn into liquid shit, you are an immediate threat, and the Gov has a role. But thats GOV, not COMMONS
He said he believes in intellectual property. But obviously, you can't be paying the decedents of the person who invented the wheel every time you use it
After the property rights expire, the ideas are put into the commons. But again, commons is different from Gov.
You don't have to pay Gov to use the wheel
You're confusing Gov and commons, on purpose I would think, so you can justify the Gov doing things it shouldn't be doing. The same way people intentionally confuse the meaning rights for the same end
Actually disease is both, it is a commons as you can't divide it into property as disease doesn't respect even governmental jurisdictions let alone property lines. Thus in game theory it is a commons as you can't limit the benefit of controlling diseases.
You're trying to get to a place, where, if the Gov can protect me, or heal me from disease. Then why not a broken bone?
NO. I'm not letting you go there. That it is different. Unless your medical issue, creates a DIRECT threat to my life, it is not in the sphere of Gov, in a FREE SOCIETY
The benefits of disease control is a commons as you can't control access to the benefits/costs. This is simply game theory, if there is 5 people on the entire planet and 4 people pay for disease control the 5th would get the at least partial benefits for free. This in game theory is a commons as benefits/costs can't be divided between players. For example pollution is a commons as it negative effects are shared by everyone.
So then the Gov should pay for soap correct? Cause my using soap, creates a benefit that cannot be contained to myself
The Gov should also pay for gas, because my going to work allows the company to make money, which allows them to have the money required to hire people other than myself, its also a benefit that can't be contained to myself
In fact, we should have pure communism, using your definition, there is nothing that is not "commons"
Government paying for soap and that inability to limit access to the benefits of using soap is two different things. A commons is a non-property meaning giving soap to the government would not make it a commons as the government can limit access to soap.
Using another example we don't have to give the government the rights to what is in public domain as they are non-property thus a commons.
You said, "sick people can cause other people to get sick thus it is in the collective interest for society to provide basic health services [...] benefits of disease control is a commons as you can't control access to the benefits/costs [...] 4 people pay for disease control the 5th would get the at least partial benefits for free"
So the soap example qualifies as commons. My using soap provides a benefit to everyone that comes into contact with me. Everyone who does not get a disease, because I don't leave germs on door handles. Everyone who does not have to smell me, etc
You can't control the access to the benefits/costs in this example either, so I don't understand why its different. According to the logic you laid out, isn't it in the "public interest" to provide soap?
The soap is still not a commons unless there is no restriction to access to it, even if soap was nationalized it would then be state property not a commons as the state would be the gate keeper to access to soap. It is in the public interest that soap and the process to make soap is not patentable with all advances in soap technology going strait to the public domain.
The side effects are part of the commons and of course you have public medical knowledge as part of the commons and the issue of patenting medical technology. One could make disease prevention more of a commons simply by refusing to recognize patents related to it and encouraging R&D be handled by academic institutions working in the public domain. This would mean anyone with educational background can help disease prevention research due to the free flow of information.
"One could make disease prevention more of a commons"
So now we're into the business of making things more a commons, and less a commons?
Now we have a continuum in the amount of "commons"-ness do we?
....... What I'm getting out of this, is the "commons" is more or less what I've already said. Its a completely arbitrary concept, and has no real meaning. You're just throwing around the word as though it granted some leverage to your position, which it doesn't
Yes as one make make something more or less a property thus commons is not arbitrary concept as that would make property itself a arbitrary concept and have no meaning since commons is the opposite of property.
so something is only a commons up until the point we define property rights then?
Example, oceans. Currently no property rights exist, so its commons. But tomorrow, if we establish law for governing the ownership of oceans it ceases to be commons then?
And if that is the case, we've already defined property rights for disease prevention, or rather, the tools used for it, thus it is not commons, so, again we reach a point where I'm not sure why you're even talking about it
Commons is the lack of property, meaning even public property is not really a commons as it is property of government. For disease it is a commons in the sense disease doesn't respect any property boundaries be they private or public. So even if disease prevention is property the effects are not.
In related news, strippers are found at strip clubs, and 2+2=4
Why are we talking about this? All you've said is, "If no one owns it, then its not property"
Sorry for being a dick, but, you realize how much of my time you've just wasted? This was a completely meaningless exchange. I thought we were having a legitimate debate about policies. MY MISTAKE
Because of externalities in that due to commons it is impossible for the market to properly value stuff like disease control as you have people benefiting without having to consume thus with Game Theory we can say logical thing to do is let everyone else pay for disease control while you gain the benefits without paying for them.
Yeah, and my being educated and building things, benefits everyone
So when you think about it, you actually owe me money, how dare you not pay for your externalities?
And you do something valuable....too... I bet. So I owe you money too.... Do I owe you more than you owe me?
Wow, this is going to get complicated quick, when you think about it, we all owe everyone, so lets just have straight communism and be done with it, right?
Its the logical conclusion of what you've laid out
What is the point of talking about self-interest without talking about Game Theory that theories what is in ones self-interest? You either have to debunk Game Theory of make self-interest meaningless by generalizing it without getting into the details.
Well I base my opinion on physics, so you have to debunk that
Citing authority, or making a vague reference to a theory is not legitimate. State YOUR opinion, put YOUR ass on the line, NOT someone elses. And certainly not a general field or theory
Put YOUR opinion out there and take responsibility for what you think. If I agree with you, I'll say, "I agree". If I disagree, I'll say that instead
Game theory is a theory that allows us to try and figure out what is the most logical action for an individual and how it relates to the big picture. In the case of disease prevention it is a collective action problem.
There is the cost of public education programs for example heath boards that inform people to wash their hands and health boards punishing food handlers for not following public safety laws in regard to handling food. Good health boards also lay the law on other government institutions like shutting down school cafeterias for repeated failures to follow food safety guide lines.
In the case of public schools, the Gov should be involved. But its not because its a "commons" or a true externality, it is a MAN MADE externality, so it doesn't count
cost for educating public on health matters; who gave them that job? I agree, while they are doing it, it is a cost that must be shared, but they shouldn't be doing it. EXCEPT, in the case of an extremely contagious and deadly disease. Its not the Gov job to protect me from the common cold
Most food handlers won't take undue risk. They might very breaking health codes, but they aren't doing anything that would endanger lives. And if they did, they would be sued and put out of business pretty quick, therefore it is not an externality, because the cost and benefits are completely contained and priced into the market
So each example you have, is either a MAN MADE externality, or not an externality at all
Health is still, with the exemption I have laid out, a personal responsibility
Most food poisoning is very hard to trace back to the source thus the free market can't punish business for most cases of food poisoning (since most people don't get their stomach pumped and analyzed when they get mild food poisoning to find where they got it from). See it possible for food to be good but still toxic thus consumers are just too unqualified to judge what food is safe for them to consume that should be left to governments and their technicians.
In terms of goverments standarizing food handling proceders here too the goverment has to as markets won't since capitalists don't hold the technical understanding required to make such desisions and workers are expected to just follow orders. So you need the goverment to set the tempature window of fridges and freezers of all busniesses (which they do).
For example how if you watch fast food training videos they don't follow recommendations from governmental food handling agencies. IE they only visually check meat not measure the internal temperature of the meat using a thermometer even though sometimes you can't tell by a visual check alone and the meat might still be under cooked. Thus businesses don't even follow recommendations of governments when it makes sense they needed to be forced to adopt public safety measures.
Have you even worked at a fast food place? Things are very carbon copy, the meat has the same thickness, cooked for the same amount of time, they have it pretty much to a science, which is why the burger you get, is exactly the same every time
mild food poisoning? That sounds a lot like a mild having my arm ripped off. Have you ever had food poisoning before? I call bullshit. You either get food poisoning, or you didn't. I know its a gradient, but if the food is bad, YOU'LL know
If you're unsure about getting food poisoning, you didn't get it. Again, I understand if you eat the food, AS its going bad, you might get something mild, and that is a cost. Just like the two cars on the highway today, going the EXACT same speed, delayed me, and cost me time
Mild costs are incurred all the time. Its kinda one of the downsides of being here. If you want to eliminate all the minor costs, and live a risk free life, you're on the wrong planet my friend
Capitalists don't hold the technical expertise of the Gov? You mean like, when the Gov told BP they had to drill in deeper water, even though BP said they had never done it before, and its not as safe as closer to shore?
Or, like the SEC, telling us repeatedly that Berney Maddoff was a legitimate businessman, and it took his KIDS turning him in to catch him?
Or the Federal Reserve telling us that the housing market was stable, when investors were pulling their money out?
Or maybe it was the Gov experts, that told me I couldn't pump the flood water out of my home, because "they were handling it", so my basement sat in water for nearly 5 days, which destroyed the structural integrity of my house, so it had to be torn down
And the "capitalist architect" told me, that the house is probably safe for the first couple days, and could have been saved if I had been allowed to pump it
You know, you're right. Why trust someone who does something for a living, a livelihood, for a purpose in life
When you can trust a faceless bureaucrat, that isn't punished when they make a mistake, are not liable to anyone, (yeah you can vote them out, sure that will make you feel better, when you lose your house, and they say, "tough luck")
I have to amend something, I'm pretty pissed, and more than a little drunk, and I lied
I apologize
I didn't have to tear down my house, luckily for me, I told the Gov to shove it up their ass after 2 days. And against the their orders went into my house, and pumped the water, and I had to gut and redo the entire basement, which I pay for
The architect told me my house was fine, and said you shouldn't let it sit in water, I didn't really get a time frame
BP laid off most of their engineers when they were privatized.
Also I don't trust lawyers I trust government technicians and engineers as they at least have more say then technicians and engineers in the private sector. Think back to the Nader controversy over car safety, private engineers knew Nader was somewhat right but their option was hidden from the consumer where it is much harder to hide public findings.
You know nothing of food poisoning. Most cases are mild with mild symptom that starting hours later this is because human bodies can deal with mild cases of food poisoning it is just not good for us. With mild cases you won't know if it was food poisoning or something else.
Health boards still recommend measuring meat temperatures as grills can fail to maintain set heat and human error is more likely without the step of checking the temperature.
If capitalists knew what they were doing few would rarely be in breach of safety regulations as they would mostly be doing what is outlined in regulations anyway yet that is not case. IE before governments worker safety regulations businesses did not always warn workers of what chemicals they were working with.
Food poisoning. Did I ever say there is not mild food poisoning? No
I said people have minor costs incurred on them all the time. Most of us live with it. Its called life
If you want to eliminate all minor costs, and live a risk free life, you're on the wrong planet
And by the by. We have food regulations RIGHT NOW. So, where are these mild cases you speak of? Cause either a) they don't exist. Or b) even with the regulations they STILL HAPPEN
There is a concept in the circus, when someone is walking a tight rope, the stage people may set up everything, but it is the responsibility of the walker himself, to check and tighten the final turn buckles
If YOU are working with chemicals, it is YOUR responsibility to check what they are, and to make sure you're safe. If YOU don't, it is not MY fault
I don't understand your point with BP. So, even with laying off engineers, they still told the Gov it was safer to drill by shore
Doesn't that still prove my point, the people whose business was drilling oil, knew better than the Gov. The fact they laid off engineers doesn't change the fact they were right, the Gov was wrong
Nader on car safety, this still does not require Gov. I design electronics, I have to lay out every possible safety hazard I can think of, it must be documented, and in the user manual. Because Gov tells me? No. Its called due diligence
If someone gets hurt, we have to prove we made a reasonable effort to inform them of the danger. We do this, because if the user manual clearly lays out the risk, in court we can point to it, and say, "we warned them"
In the case of the nader car gas tank thing, the company DIDN'T warn them! They would have and probably did get raked over the coals in court about it. The company made a mistake, an error in judgment, welcome to the world. People make mistakes
Most companies don't do that, for exactly the reason I laid out
And you make this assumption that the Gov is different. Look at new orleans and katrina, the army core of engineers, the GOV ENGINEERS! Told them, the levies wouldn't hold up to a category, what? 4 hurricane? Kartina was a 5, and levies didn't hold?
So the politicians put the lives of every person in New Orleans in danger, and everyone that died, they killed. Will they be sued or going to jail anytime soon?
And you think if a businesses was they would have done different? The problem is the goverment engineers didn't have enough power thus the solution is that the goverment workers didn't have enough say in the democratic process.
As for chemicals before goverment regulations businesses did not have to have chemical safety sheets from the manufacture on hand, manufactures also did not have to put on hazard symbols. You have to remeber other workers encounter chemicals like those in shipping that just know there is stuff to be moved and the hazard symbols warm them when to take extra caution.
As for BP if they had those extra engineers would mean skill to make it safer even off shore.
Most cases of mild cases are because most health boards put little effort into enforcing their regulations, same with worker safety since odds are a government safety inspector won't visit a workplace till after a accident there are workplaces that simply ignore safety regulations.
Yet this is the point, if it was the self-interest for businesses to take safety precautions then the lack of government enforcement wouldn't be a problem as the markets would theoretically keep businesses in line but in reality they don't. Sure there are class actions but that businesses see it as a gamble were the odds are in their favor that nothing bad will happen if they rollback safety
BP again. Their point was they HAVE NEVER DRILLED THAT DEEP, they didn't KNOW what to prepare for! All they knew, is they could drill closer to shore SAFELY. Thats ALL THEY KNEW
My point on Gov, is not that they are less or more smart, its that they are NOT LIABLE. For ANYTHING. Most of time, if they fuck up so bad people die, their lives continue unchanged. And worse case for them, they have to find a new job, with a pretty healthy pension, THATS IT
Chemicals, if I ship an unmarked box of nitroglycerin, and some shipper drops and it kills him and 20 other people
You think without Gov regulation, I'm going to.... what? Say, "Oops! La La La" and continue with my day?
One court case. ONE court case. And the judge is going to say, "You guys were dumb as fucking rocks, 50 million to each family". And no company will ever do it again. They will put warning labels all on their own
I just don't get you man.... First you say, its a commons, its a commons! We need Gov to get involved and protect us from externalities not priced into the market!
Then you say, most of the time the Gov isn't really even trying to enforce its regulations, so companies are pushing the externalites on people anyway
I think you fundamentally don't get something....shit happens
These are yearly stats, for the US
3,300 people die from drowning
41,000 people die from car accidents
36,000 people die from the flu
1,809 people die from ALL the types of food related problems (this is the direct cause of food, eating big macs and dying of heart condition is NOT counted in this)
Shit happens my friend. When you come forth with a plan to stop shit from happening, I'll actually entertain what you're saying
And THIS is the point. The free market place isn't there to make you completely safe in everything you do. The free market does not create perfection
What it does do, is weed out the really bad stuff, and what we're left with, is pretty good. Not perfect. But pretty good
Paradise is not for this earth. Its life, you need to grow up, and deal with it. We call it life and not paradise and utopia for a reason, we have words for paradise and utopia..... its called paradise and utopia
As for the market place weeding out the really bad stuff when has that happened? Take airlines that all have horrible track records for customer service yet the markets don't punish them for treating customers like dirt and service only getting worse and worse. It has gotten to the point that it is very hard for nationalized airlines of other nations to offer worse service then private US airlines.
The goverment does enforce the regulations but it doesn't put much effort into it. Adoption to regulations mostly accrue as accidents happen and the goverment finds out they were not following regulations when it goes to court and from larger businesses that decide due to their size the odds are not in their favor to not follow regulations (somewhat).
As for chemicals, lawsuits didn't solve the problems as there was no law stating how companies should warn workers, also there still was the problem of giving workers safety documents so if something happened they knew what to do (so the chemical spilled they 'd know how to clean it up safety and what to do if they got some on them).
And? National engineers are expected to do the has never been done before that is part of their job. If BP was still a nationalized oil company BP could have turned to their much larger staff of engineers. A good start for BP figuring out how to drill deeper is having the engineering might BP had when it was nationalized.
As for the goverment not being liable, if you think the goverment can't be liable for what it does what makes you think businesses can be liable? Governments have to deal with much more militant labor unions then the private sector. For example in May 1962 there was a terrible rail accident on Japan National Railways and by December 1963 the rail workers went on strike demanding for better safety. After a long hard struggle JNR was forced to adopted Automatic Train Stopper to end the strike.
business is liable, because if they screw their customers, they can leave, if Gov is providing the service, you CAN'T leave. Take social security, I'm paying into it, knowing I will not get my money, why? Because the Gov throws me in jail if I do not
If a company causes damages, you can sue them. What are you going to do if the Gov causes damages? Sue them in the Gov court system? The whole idea of having a court, is it is an objective third party. Its not objective if it is a litigant
While we're on the topic, chemicals. You don't need a law saying you have put labels
Example. I lite a stick of dynamite, put it in a box, then hand it to you. You don't need a law saying I have to put a label on the box to sue me, its called a law against murder
If I put a harmful chemical in a box, and you get hurt, its called damages. If there is no procedure for you to deal with said chemical, and it does more damage, thats a greater dollar amount you can sue me for
Will it work perfectly the first time? Maybe not. People don't have unlimited foresight. And when did the Gov put a law on it? I bet, after a few of these incidents had already occurred, they came in, after it was being taken care of, then claimed the credit
Law is formed by experience, not by an all knowing all predicting group of people who wear nice suits
Gov does not enforce regulation well, because they didn't know people were breaking them. Yeah, the only way it works is if you put a police officer on every door step
Its just a simple fact; 100,000 or so bureaucrats can't watch 330 million people all doing their own thing. And then, you have the problem of a berney madoff, where the regulators look right at what hes doing, and say "everything is fine"
Engineers are supposed to do new things. Yeah I know, I am one
But when the engineers tell you, "We can do it, but we have no idea what to expect"
You are not allowed to be angry when something unexpected happens
BP wanted to go after the easy oil, and then later, with better technology go after the hard stuff. But the Gov disagreed, it outlawed all the easy stuff, and BP had to go after the hard stuff with what it had
On the topic of weeding out the really bad stuff. Here is the beauty of the free market, if its not working, ITS YOUR FAULT
If the airlines are screwing people as bad as you say, put your money where your mouth is, start up an airline company, and show us all how its done
I know your excuse, "I don't have the money", thats fine, go to bank, and lay out your very well constructed business plan to correct what they have failed to do, if your case is good, you'll get the money
Because no bank is going to say, "No. We don't want to lend money to the airline that is going to put all the other airlines out of business and make massive returns on our money, we don't like profits"
No bank is going to say that. But, if you're talking out your ass, which you are, they might say, "Hey, you're nice and all, but you're talking out your ass"
It is not a issue of technology it is a issue of lack of talent. BP would have had an easier time doing it if it had the far more engineers at its disposal when it was a national company. Instead BP got rid of most its talent when it was privatized and we are suppose to feel sorry for them because the goverment told them to drill farther out?
We are allowed to get angry because BP cut costs by getting rid of engineers that could have prevented this problem.
And what if the entire industry is screwing their customers for example the airline industry? Where all businesses look at the rate of profit for the industry and decide it is not worth while to do a competent job as they know the competitors won't bother either and the cost of entry into the industry prevents new compeition epically with low rate of return in the industry.
As for the goverment as I said goverment worker unions tend to very militant but really if the public can't legally recall the goverment for damages then the goverment is not very democratic. In a democratic system the public could easily hold goverment responsible for damages caused by the goverment.
n the USA in 1985 as businesses refused to tell workers what chemicals they were working with so they could deny responsibility for illnesses till courts force them to hand over records. Now by law workers have the right to know all the chemicals in the workplace, safety produces regarding those chemicals and their exposure records making it far easier for workers to sue employers for injury thus why before 1985 businesses didn't do it.
You prove my point. The chemical thing was being ajudicated, after that precedent was set, if a worker was hurt, and the company didn't give them the data sheets for the chemicals, the subpoena process would go faster, and the judge would be like, "Guys, we've gone over this already, and you still did nothing? Twice as much money awarded this time, fix the problem"
Thats how it works. So again, the court case happened FIRST, the precedent set FIRST, THEN the Politicians came in to take credit
BP had, I believe it was three layers of safety, any of which would have prevented the problem, all THREE failed
And I'll tell you, most engineering, if you have three safety measures, all of which, ON THEIR OWN could prevent the problem, and you have all three, you've done your job
There was nothing they could do, something unexpected came up, a problem they didn't prepare for, and it was a mess. Its always a mess when you do something new
Let me tell you a story about an engineer that nearly killed 100 people. An engineer sat down to work one day, at an airline, and drew a line on his design. The line went from the cockpit to the back of the plane, and had a note, "Hydraulic cables from cockpit to rutter control"
Well 10 years later, a plane took off, and these hydraulic cables had been rubbing together for 10 years, and they sprung a leak
And the only reason those people didn't die that day, is because it happened 20 min into the flight, instead of 2 hours
As engineers, we come up with every possible problem, and we do everything we can to make sure nothing goes wrong. Sometimes we miss something, and when we do, people die. Engineers don't make things perfect, we do what we can
And again I'll say it, when we TELL you, that we don't know what to expect, you are not allowed to be angry when something unexpected happens
And you're not supposed to feel sorry for BP. You're supposed to understand they wanted to do it safer, but safer was outlawed, so they took more risk, and it went badly
The whole reason I brought up BP, was not to get into this whole discussion, but to bring up the REGULATORS told them to take risk, the REGULATORS told them to put peoples lives in harms way, and the REGULATORS won't be punished
If you've heard about the regulators getting punished, let me know, but you haven't
Gov being held accountable, I can't believe you think Gov is accountable
The great depression? Where the Gov told farmers they could only grow so much of crops, and anyone who grew too much food was fined
Which artificially drove up the cost of food, and was one of the reasons why my grandparents told me about their dinners, (a head of lettuce and a tomato passed around the table was all they could afford some nights). Whose paying for that again? Oh yeah, my dead grandparents
The entire airline industry is screwing their customers! REALLY!?!? Thats GREAT!!!
That means, when you open YOUR airline, you'll do it right, and you'll get ALL the customers, and any airline that doesn't follow your supreme example, will go out of business, just to compete with YOUR airline, they will have to treat their customers better
So you not only fix the problem without crying to your mommy, but you also get filthy rich in the process. Gotta love capitalism
So? How about it? You going to put your money where your mouth is? Or are you just going to bitch, and say, "I'm not willing to put MY money on the line pursuing my crazy theory of how the world works, but, I'd really like a way to put YOUR money on the line testing my theory"
Supporters of the a total free-market seems to ignore the law of value that as productivity rises the rate of profits falls as value of commodities fall to the point on paper eventually there would be a point where profit will become impossible anywhere in the market as the productive forces are just too productive for commodities to have any meaningful exchange value.
@Psy500 Profit impossible because we are just too productive so commodities have tiny exchange values... So we are all filthy stinking rich? Wow, if we get anywhere near that, that would be awesome!
The opposite in terms of surplus value, we'd be rich in utility but we already are even the lowest paid workers earns enough wages to consume far more utility then in previous epochs yet capitalists doesn't care about that, they don't care they earn so much that can consume more utility then humanity possible they are only interested in accumulating surplus value for the sake of accumulating surplus value thus capitalists hoard their money when overproduction hits them.
It would be good if the process keep going to create a world of abundant utility, yet long before that capitalists pull back as they have a incompatible goal of accumulating surplus exchange value. Thus a world of super abundance is the scariest thing capitalist can imagine as it a world with the whole global market flooded with commodities, yet for the consumer it would be great with cheap products that is if they can still get enough income to keep consuming.
The problem is the low rate of return in the airline businesses with high capital costs required for entry. Basically the diminishing rate of profit means markets are just making service worse and makes it impossible to fix the airline industry within free-markets as now only state airlines can afford to service customers as there cost is subsidized by tax payers.
As for BP the regulators told BP to drill farther out for the same reason a factory can't build next to you just because it like that land better. The goverment did nothing wrong by telling BP it could not drill closer to the shore it was BP responsibility to properly engineer its driller operation to compensate for driller deeper. It is BP fault for downsizing the amount of engineers it had when it was subsidized by British tax payers.
But the goverment then made it perfectly clear what was expected from the employer with little room for interpretation. So there was no argument over how to communicate to workers through warning labels especially in other nations that took those regulations and beefed them up by standardizing warning symbols like the Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System in Canada so workers don't have to learn new warning symbols when going from company to company.
There's only one word to describe this lecture: Brilliant. Thank you, Dr. Brook, for defending these ideas so passionately and so eloquently.
Dagny1978 11 months ago
Great job Yaron. You eviscerated that guy.
mkloppel 1 year ago
@mkloppel
which guy?
TimeWarp66 10 months ago
look at all the Americans' that are against the values of capitalism.... the legislators of this country have no clue on the seriousness of our intentions. Good luck big brother.....
ptfountainhead 1 year ago
He is misrepresenting (and overgeneralizing) the libertarian position. For one, because there are many variations within the libertarian "movement". Libertarians do define capitalism quite clearly actually. He is right on libertarians avoiding the discussion of the moral basis of individual rights. And yes, many "austrolibertarians" actually believe in altruistic morality.
He is absolutely right on conservatives believing that capitalism is actually immoral. Kudos for that.
TheLegalImmigrant05 1 year ago
The tank example is actually very, very weak. If I collect vintage tanks and want to keep one on my property, what business it is of anybody else's?
What he fails to delineate in talking about "threats" is the concept of "clear and present" threat. A tank per se is not clear and present threat. A tank driving around and pointing its cannon at houses is much closer to being a threat.
I expected better quality arguments from Brook.
TheLegalImmigrant05 1 year ago
Yaron is wrong by saying that Mises Institute scholars do not discuss or endorse morality. Of course they do, Rothbardian rational ethics as espoused in "Ethics of Liberty" by M. Rothbard, is precisely the strongest case for absolute libertarian ethics based on property rights out there. And to be frank, only they can be considered serious libertarians who haven't sold out like Cato or other beltway establishment 'libertarians'.
Arjozof 1 year ago
Having a separate road for drunk drivers is a frakking AWESOME idea. He should seriously get a Nobel Prize just for suggesting it.
hapspir 1 year ago
That "commons" guy must have wandered in just as the Q & A started.
hapspir 1 year ago
I agree with all points on economics. Yaron is dead wrong on government. Governments require income, even if its just for one role. To take from A in order to punish B for stealing from C is a violation of A's sovereignty and liberty that is immoral and wrong. Also if punishing C from stealing from A is moral when the government does it, then how can the same action be immoral when B does it instead. Who decides, according to yaron the government.
JordanViewer 1 year ago
@JordanViewer Good points. I expected better from Brook. But then again, since he is a minarchist (he kind of has to be), he knows he is treading dangerous waters and so avoids getting into details. If he defined taxes and gov't as fee for service, his minarchist position would begin to crumble, so he remains intentionally vague on these subjects.
TheLegalImmigrant05 1 year ago
Good answer on libs and cons.
qtronRobespierre 1 year ago
If I were wealthy enough, I would LOVE to have a tank. I would take it to the desert and . . . blow things up. Individual neighborhoods could have clauses in housing leases to prohibit the ownership of tanks, but I would live in my own place with my own firing range (or store it at a range). I would draw the line at nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. Even if only from the possibility of accidental release, they pose an imminent threat to all neighbors within 200 miles or so.
hapspir 1 year ago
Comment removed
BringIt2TheMax 1 year ago
@hapspir Of course a Randian government would not allow chemical or biological weapons to be owned by private people because of their real and immediate threat, but owning a tank would be cool... As long as the person that owns it is psychologically stable...
BringIt2TheMax 1 year ago
I enjoyed this series, thanks for posting. I liked the Q&E. It proves there is no perfect social (by social I mean a population of people) living environment, but a libertarian way does indeed seem to be close. I consider myself a conservative libertarian I don’t mind some gov to regulate certain issues in order to help maintain a standard. Maybe that’s because I haven’t been fully convinced that a purely libertarian way is the best, but do find the more I learn the more I lean towards it.
SouthernKudzu 1 year ago
@SouthernKudzu If you still think regulation of some things to maintain a standard is good, you will find lucid counter-arguments for your consideration:
1) The Assault on Integrity, an essay in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, by Ayn Rand.
2) The chapter on medical licences etc from Capitalism and Freedom, by Milton Friedman.
richardcadbury 1 year ago
@richardcadbury I'll look into those. Thanks.
SouthernKudzu 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SouthernKudzu Oh yeah and Capitalism and Freedom is available for free at scribd.com
richardcadbury 1 year ago
@SouthernKudzu
Ayn Rand nor any individuals at the Ayn Rand Institute are libertarians. On specific politicail issues they may agree, but Objectivism rejects libertarianism.
Eta49 1 year ago
@Eta49 Yes, I know Ayn Rands feelings about Libertarians. Being a cult group following Ayn Rand, I’m sure the institute has those same feelings, but in reality, Libertarianism is currently the closest political party resembling the Objectivism way. There are very few political leaders in office that call themselves Libertarians and so it probably want be in our lifetime that there are any who call themselves Objectivist. Either you find a party that best suits your beliefs or stand alone.
SouthernKudzu 1 year ago
I disagree about the tank. He's right that the weaponry on the tank are designed only to blow things up. But what if I want to blow things up that are either my property, or unowned? What if I want to take a 55-gallon drum that I own, fill it up with water, take my tank and my drum into the middle of nowhere, and blow one up with the other? Should I be prohibited from doing so, simply because Mrs. Johnson next door thinks my 120mm artillery piece is scary? I don't think so.
JETZcorp 1 year ago
the second question, very good, and yaron kinda tripped a little, but then a moment of clarity, and yaron's explanation came out beautifully
On the spot questions are great, and especially if the speaker can handle them well
bravo
LordVigeous666999 1 year ago
@LordVigeous666999
I think Yaron didn't get the point of commons for example if the state does not provide basic health services there is the problem that sick people can cause other people to get sick thus it is in the collective interest for society to provide basic health services.
Also for intellectual property there is the issue of common intellectually property (public domain) and when intellectual property is allowed to become public property so we don't have stagnation of ideas.
Psy500 1 year ago
I think Yaron understand both examples you just gave quite well
He said, unless there is an immediate threat of harm, the Gov has no role; if you have a highly contagious disease that causes your organs to turn into liquid shit, you are an immediate threat, and the Gov has a role. But thats GOV, not COMMONS
He said he believes in intellectual property. But obviously, you can't be paying the decedents of the person who invented the wheel every time you use it
LordVigeous666999 1 year ago
After the property rights expire, the ideas are put into the commons. But again, commons is different from Gov.
You don't have to pay Gov to use the wheel
You're confusing Gov and commons, on purpose I would think, so you can justify the Gov doing things it shouldn't be doing. The same way people intentionally confuse the meaning rights for the same end
LordVigeous666999 1 year ago
@LordVigeous666999
Actually disease is both, it is a commons as you can't divide it into property as disease doesn't respect even governmental jurisdictions let alone property lines. Thus in game theory it is a commons as you can't limit the benefit of controlling diseases.
Psy500 1 year ago
I'm not sure if I understand what you just said, but, I'll take a stab at it anyway
If you want to say a disease is commons, I don't understand the grammar of that statement, but, fine, disease is commons
Assuming the disease is infectious, assuming its deadly and dangerous;
disease PREVENTION, disease CONTROL, is NOT commons. It is Gov.
And its not protecting me from diseases, in general, it is protecting me FROM YOU. Spreading the disease to me, and therefore killing me
LordVigeous666999 1 year ago
You're trying to get to a place, where, if the Gov can protect me, or heal me from disease. Then why not a broken bone?
NO. I'm not letting you go there. That it is different. Unless your medical issue, creates a DIRECT threat to my life, it is not in the sphere of Gov, in a FREE SOCIETY
LordVigeous666999 1 year ago
@LordVigeous666999
The benefits of disease control is a commons as you can't control access to the benefits/costs. This is simply game theory, if there is 5 people on the entire planet and 4 people pay for disease control the 5th would get the at least partial benefits for free. This in game theory is a commons as benefits/costs can't be divided between players. For example pollution is a commons as it negative effects are shared by everyone.
Psy500 1 year ago
So then the Gov should pay for soap correct? Cause my using soap, creates a benefit that cannot be contained to myself
The Gov should also pay for gas, because my going to work allows the company to make money, which allows them to have the money required to hire people other than myself, its also a benefit that can't be contained to myself
In fact, we should have pure communism, using your definition, there is nothing that is not "commons"
We HAVE to have communism, its just game theory
LordVigeous666999 1 year ago
@LordVigeous666999
Government paying for soap and that inability to limit access to the benefits of using soap is two different things. A commons is a non-property meaning giving soap to the government would not make it a commons as the government can limit access to soap.
Using another example we don't have to give the government the rights to what is in public domain as they are non-property thus a commons.
Psy500 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You said, "sick people can cause other people to get sick thus it is in the collective interest for society to provide basic health services [...] benefits of disease control is a commons as you can't control access to the benefits/costs [...] 4 people pay for disease control the 5th would get the at least partial benefits for free"
LordVigeous666999 1 year ago
So the soap example qualifies as commons. My using soap provides a benefit to everyone that comes into contact with me. Everyone who does not get a disease, because I don't leave germs on door handles. Everyone who does not have to smell me, etc
You can't control the access to the benefits/costs in this example either, so I don't understand why its different. According to the logic you laid out, isn't it in the "public interest" to provide soap?
LordVigeous666999 1 year ago
@LordVigeous666999
The soap is still not a commons unless there is no restriction to access to it, even if soap was nationalized it would then be state property not a commons as the state would be the gate keeper to access to soap. It is in the public interest that soap and the process to make soap is not patentable with all advances in soap technology going strait to the public domain.
Psy500 1 year ago
Well medical care is not unlimited, so how do you say that disease prevention is commons?
LordVigeous666999 1 year ago
@LordVigeous666999
The side effects are part of the commons and of course you have public medical knowledge as part of the commons and the issue of patenting medical technology. One could make disease prevention more of a commons simply by refusing to recognize patents related to it and encouraging R&D be handled by academic institutions working in the public domain. This would mean anyone with educational background can help disease prevention research due to the free flow of information.
Psy500 1 year ago
"One could make disease prevention more of a commons"
So now we're into the business of making things more a commons, and less a commons?
Now we have a continuum in the amount of "commons"-ness do we?
....... What I'm getting out of this, is the "commons" is more or less what I've already said. Its a completely arbitrary concept, and has no real meaning. You're just throwing around the word as though it granted some leverage to your position, which it doesn't
I'm pretty close to done here
LordVigeous666999 1 year ago
@LordVigeous666999
Yes as one make make something more or less a property thus commons is not arbitrary concept as that would make property itself a arbitrary concept and have no meaning since commons is the opposite of property.
Psy500 1 year ago
so something is only a commons up until the point we define property rights then?
Example, oceans. Currently no property rights exist, so its commons. But tomorrow, if we establish law for governing the ownership of oceans it ceases to be commons then?
And if that is the case, we've already defined property rights for disease prevention, or rather, the tools used for it, thus it is not commons, so, again we reach a point where I'm not sure why you're even talking about it
LordVigeous666999 1 year ago
@LordVigeous666999
Commons is the lack of property, meaning even public property is not really a commons as it is property of government. For disease it is a commons in the sense disease doesn't respect any property boundaries be they private or public. So even if disease prevention is property the effects are not.
Psy500 1 year ago
OH. Ok. I see what you're saying now.
Well that does make perfect sense.
In related news, strippers are found at strip clubs, and 2+2=4
Why are we talking about this? All you've said is, "If no one owns it, then its not property"
Sorry for being a dick, but, you realize how much of my time you've just wasted? This was a completely meaningless exchange. I thought we were having a legitimate debate about policies. MY MISTAKE
LordVigeous666999 1 year ago
@LordVigeous666999
Because of externalities in that due to commons it is impossible for the market to properly value stuff like disease control as you have people benefiting without having to consume thus with Game Theory we can say logical thing to do is let everyone else pay for disease control while you gain the benefits without paying for them.
Psy500 1 year ago
Yeah, and my being educated and building things, benefits everyone
So when you think about it, you actually owe me money, how dare you not pay for your externalities?
And you do something valuable....too... I bet. So I owe you money too.... Do I owe you more than you owe me?
Wow, this is going to get complicated quick, when you think about it, we all owe everyone, so lets just have straight communism and be done with it, right?
Its the logical conclusion of what you've laid out
LordVigeous666999 1 year ago
Almost everything you can think of has externalities, so, we have a choice;
We can a) ignore externalities in general, not always, but in general
b) we can pick and choose some, and ignore others, so some people win, and others loose
or c) embrace communism as the only way to deal with them all
LordVigeous666999 1 year ago
And the next time you say game theory, I'm going to drive a red wood through your chest
A big one too, its going to hurt a lot. You'll be like, "oh... oh my god.... the pain"
lol. Seriously though, shut your face about game theory, just state your opinion. Saying game theory doesn't give any extra creditability
LordVigeous666999 1 year ago
@LordVigeous666999
What is the point of talking about self-interest without talking about Game Theory that theories what is in ones self-interest? You either have to debunk Game Theory of make self-interest meaningless by generalizing it without getting into the details.
Psy500 1 year ago
I have to debunk game theory?
Well I base my opinion on physics, so you have to debunk that
Citing authority, or making a vague reference to a theory is not legitimate. State YOUR opinion, put YOUR ass on the line, NOT someone elses. And certainly not a general field or theory
Put YOUR opinion out there and take responsibility for what you think. If I agree with you, I'll say, "I agree". If I disagree, I'll say that instead
Hows that sound?
LordVigeous666999 1 year ago
@LordVigeous666999
Game theory is a theory that allows us to try and figure out what is the most logical action for an individual and how it relates to the big picture. In the case of disease prevention it is a collective action problem.
youtube.com/watch?v=uZ4yKr90fMw
Psy500 1 year ago
I disagree
If you fondle a door handle, then lick your fingers, it sounds like disease and sickness is mostly a personal responsibility problem
If you eat too many big macs, your heart condition sounds like your problem
If you smoke too many cigs and get cancer, thats your problem
Disease, can be considered an act of god, which is still your problem
The one and only exception, is in the case of a highly deadly, highly contagious disease, then the collective comes in, not before
LordVigeous666999 1 year ago
@LordVigeous666999
There is the cost of public education programs for example heath boards that inform people to wash their hands and health boards punishing food handlers for not following public safety laws in regard to handling food. Good health boards also lay the law on other government institutions like shutting down school cafeterias for repeated failures to follow food safety guide lines.
Psy500 1 year ago
Comment removed
Psy500 1 year ago
In the case of public schools, the Gov should be involved. But its not because its a "commons" or a true externality, it is a MAN MADE externality, so it doesn't count
cost for educating public on health matters; who gave them that job? I agree, while they are doing it, it is a cost that must be shared, but they shouldn't be doing it. EXCEPT, in the case of an extremely contagious and deadly disease. Its not the Gov job to protect me from the common cold
LordVigeous666999 1 year ago
Most food handlers won't take undue risk. They might very breaking health codes, but they aren't doing anything that would endanger lives. And if they did, they would be sued and put out of business pretty quick, therefore it is not an externality, because the cost and benefits are completely contained and priced into the market
So each example you have, is either a MAN MADE externality, or not an externality at all
Health is still, with the exemption I have laid out, a personal responsibility
LordVigeous666999 1 year ago
@LordVigeous666999
Most food poisoning is very hard to trace back to the source thus the free market can't punish business for most cases of food poisoning (since most people don't get their stomach pumped and analyzed when they get mild food poisoning to find where they got it from). See it possible for food to be good but still toxic thus consumers are just too unqualified to judge what food is safe for them to consume that should be left to governments and their technicians.
Psy500 1 year ago
@Psy500
In terms of goverments standarizing food handling proceders here too the goverment has to as markets won't since capitalists don't hold the technical understanding required to make such desisions and workers are expected to just follow orders. So you need the goverment to set the tempature window of fridges and freezers of all busniesses (which they do).
Psy500 1 year ago
For example how if you watch fast food training videos they don't follow recommendations from governmental food handling agencies. IE they only visually check meat not measure the internal temperature of the meat using a thermometer even though sometimes you can't tell by a visual check alone and the meat might still be under cooked. Thus businesses don't even follow recommendations of governments when it makes sense they needed to be forced to adopt public safety measures.
Psy500 1 year ago
Have you even worked at a fast food place? Things are very carbon copy, the meat has the same thickness, cooked for the same amount of time, they have it pretty much to a science, which is why the burger you get, is exactly the same every time
mild food poisoning? That sounds a lot like a mild having my arm ripped off. Have you ever had food poisoning before? I call bullshit. You either get food poisoning, or you didn't. I know its a gradient, but if the food is bad, YOU'LL know
LordVigeous666999 1 year ago
If you're unsure about getting food poisoning, you didn't get it. Again, I understand if you eat the food, AS its going bad, you might get something mild, and that is a cost. Just like the two cars on the highway today, going the EXACT same speed, delayed me, and cost me time
Mild costs are incurred all the time. Its kinda one of the downsides of being here. If you want to eliminate all the minor costs, and live a risk free life, you're on the wrong planet my friend
LordVigeous666999 1 year ago
Capitalists don't hold the technical expertise of the Gov? You mean like, when the Gov told BP they had to drill in deeper water, even though BP said they had never done it before, and its not as safe as closer to shore?
Or, like the SEC, telling us repeatedly that Berney Maddoff was a legitimate businessman, and it took his KIDS turning him in to catch him?
Or the Federal Reserve telling us that the housing market was stable, when investors were pulling their money out?
LordVigeous666999 1 year ago
Or maybe it was the Gov experts, that told me I couldn't pump the flood water out of my home, because "they were handling it", so my basement sat in water for nearly 5 days, which destroyed the structural integrity of my house, so it had to be torn down
And the "capitalist architect" told me, that the house is probably safe for the first couple days, and could have been saved if I had been allowed to pump it
Technical Expertise like that?
LordVigeous666999 1 year ago
You know, you're right. Why trust someone who does something for a living, a livelihood, for a purpose in life
When you can trust a faceless bureaucrat, that isn't punished when they make a mistake, are not liable to anyone, (yeah you can vote them out, sure that will make you feel better, when you lose your house, and they say, "tough luck")
LordVigeous666999 1 year ago
I have to amend something, I'm pretty pissed, and more than a little drunk, and I lied
I apologize
I didn't have to tear down my house, luckily for me, I told the Gov to shove it up their ass after 2 days. And against the their orders went into my house, and pumped the water, and I had to gut and redo the entire basement, which I pay for
The architect told me my house was fine, and said you shouldn't let it sit in water, I didn't really get a time frame
It was wrong of my to say
LordVigeous666999 1 year ago
I just don't know why you trust a bunch of lawyers that couldn't get real jobs because their incompetent
More than the people who make their living at such things
LordVigeous666999 1 year ago
BP laid off most of their engineers when they were privatized.
Also I don't trust lawyers I trust government technicians and engineers as they at least have more say then technicians and engineers in the private sector. Think back to the Nader controversy over car safety, private engineers knew Nader was somewhat right but their option was hidden from the consumer where it is much harder to hide public findings.
Psy500 1 year ago
@LordVigeous666999
You know nothing of food poisoning. Most cases are mild with mild symptom that starting hours later this is because human bodies can deal with mild cases of food poisoning it is just not good for us. With mild cases you won't know if it was food poisoning or something else.
Psy500 1 year ago
Comment removed
Psy500 1 year ago
Health boards still recommend measuring meat temperatures as grills can fail to maintain set heat and human error is more likely without the step of checking the temperature.
If capitalists knew what they were doing few would rarely be in breach of safety regulations as they would mostly be doing what is outlined in regulations anyway yet that is not case. IE before governments worker safety regulations businesses did not always warn workers of what chemicals they were working with.
Psy500 1 year ago
Food poisoning. Did I ever say there is not mild food poisoning? No
I said people have minor costs incurred on them all the time. Most of us live with it. Its called life
If you want to eliminate all minor costs, and live a risk free life, you're on the wrong planet
And by the by. We have food regulations RIGHT NOW. So, where are these mild cases you speak of? Cause either a) they don't exist. Or b) even with the regulations they STILL HAPPEN
LordVigeous666999 1 year ago
There is a concept in the circus, when someone is walking a tight rope, the stage people may set up everything, but it is the responsibility of the walker himself, to check and tighten the final turn buckles
If YOU are working with chemicals, it is YOUR responsibility to check what they are, and to make sure you're safe. If YOU don't, it is not MY fault
I don't understand your point with BP. So, even with laying off engineers, they still told the Gov it was safer to drill by shore
LordVigeous666999 1 year ago
Doesn't that still prove my point, the people whose business was drilling oil, knew better than the Gov. The fact they laid off engineers doesn't change the fact they were right, the Gov was wrong
Nader on car safety, this still does not require Gov. I design electronics, I have to lay out every possible safety hazard I can think of, it must be documented, and in the user manual. Because Gov tells me? No. Its called due diligence
LordVigeous666999 1 year ago
If someone gets hurt, we have to prove we made a reasonable effort to inform them of the danger. We do this, because if the user manual clearly lays out the risk, in court we can point to it, and say, "we warned them"
In the case of the nader car gas tank thing, the company DIDN'T warn them! They would have and probably did get raked over the coals in court about it. The company made a mistake, an error in judgment, welcome to the world. People make mistakes
LordVigeous666999 1 year ago
Most companies don't do that, for exactly the reason I laid out
And you make this assumption that the Gov is different. Look at new orleans and katrina, the army core of engineers, the GOV ENGINEERS! Told them, the levies wouldn't hold up to a category, what? 4 hurricane? Kartina was a 5, and levies didn't hold?
So the politicians put the lives of every person in New Orleans in danger, and everyone that died, they killed. Will they be sued or going to jail anytime soon?
LordVigeous666999 1 year ago
@LordVigeous666999
And you think if a businesses was they would have done different? The problem is the goverment engineers didn't have enough power thus the solution is that the goverment workers didn't have enough say in the democratic process.
Psy500 1 year ago
As for chemicals before goverment regulations businesses did not have to have chemical safety sheets from the manufacture on hand, manufactures also did not have to put on hazard symbols. You have to remeber other workers encounter chemicals like those in shipping that just know there is stuff to be moved and the hazard symbols warm them when to take extra caution.
As for BP if they had those extra engineers would mean skill to make it safer even off shore.
Psy500 1 year ago
@LordVigeous666999
Most cases of mild cases are because most health boards put little effort into enforcing their regulations, same with worker safety since odds are a government safety inspector won't visit a workplace till after a accident there are workplaces that simply ignore safety regulations.
Psy500 1 year ago
Yet this is the point, if it was the self-interest for businesses to take safety precautions then the lack of government enforcement wouldn't be a problem as the markets would theoretically keep businesses in line but in reality they don't. Sure there are class actions but that businesses see it as a gamble were the odds are in their favor that nothing bad will happen if they rollback safety
Psy500 1 year ago
BP again. Their point was they HAVE NEVER DRILLED THAT DEEP, they didn't KNOW what to prepare for! All they knew, is they could drill closer to shore SAFELY. Thats ALL THEY KNEW
My point on Gov, is not that they are less or more smart, its that they are NOT LIABLE. For ANYTHING. Most of time, if they fuck up so bad people die, their lives continue unchanged. And worse case for them, they have to find a new job, with a pretty healthy pension, THATS IT
LordVigeous666999 1 year ago
Chemicals, if I ship an unmarked box of nitroglycerin, and some shipper drops and it kills him and 20 other people
You think without Gov regulation, I'm going to.... what? Say, "Oops! La La La" and continue with my day?
One court case. ONE court case. And the judge is going to say, "You guys were dumb as fucking rocks, 50 million to each family". And no company will ever do it again. They will put warning labels all on their own
LordVigeous666999 1 year ago
I just don't get you man.... First you say, its a commons, its a commons! We need Gov to get involved and protect us from externalities not priced into the market!
Then you say, most of the time the Gov isn't really even trying to enforce its regulations, so companies are pushing the externalites on people anyway
LordVigeous666999 1 year ago
I think you fundamentally don't get something....shit happens
These are yearly stats, for the US
3,300 people die from drowning
41,000 people die from car accidents
36,000 people die from the flu
1,809 people die from ALL the types of food related problems (this is the direct cause of food, eating big macs and dying of heart condition is NOT counted in this)
Shit happens my friend. When you come forth with a plan to stop shit from happening, I'll actually entertain what you're saying
LordVigeous666999 1 year ago
And THIS is the point. The free market place isn't there to make you completely safe in everything you do. The free market does not create perfection
What it does do, is weed out the really bad stuff, and what we're left with, is pretty good. Not perfect. But pretty good
Paradise is not for this earth. Its life, you need to grow up, and deal with it. We call it life and not paradise and utopia for a reason, we have words for paradise and utopia..... its called paradise and utopia
LordVigeous666999 1 year ago
@LordVigeous666999
As for the market place weeding out the really bad stuff when has that happened? Take airlines that all have horrible track records for customer service yet the markets don't punish them for treating customers like dirt and service only getting worse and worse. It has gotten to the point that it is very hard for nationalized airlines of other nations to offer worse service then private US airlines.
Psy500 1 year ago
@LordVigeous666999
The goverment does enforce the regulations but it doesn't put much effort into it. Adoption to regulations mostly accrue as accidents happen and the goverment finds out they were not following regulations when it goes to court and from larger businesses that decide due to their size the odds are not in their favor to not follow regulations (somewhat).
Psy500 1 year ago
@LordVigeous666999
As for chemicals, lawsuits didn't solve the problems as there was no law stating how companies should warn workers, also there still was the problem of giving workers safety documents so if something happened they knew what to do (so the chemical spilled they 'd know how to clean it up safety and what to do if they got some on them).
Psy500 1 year ago
@LordVigeous666999
And? National engineers are expected to do the has never been done before that is part of their job. If BP was still a nationalized oil company BP could have turned to their much larger staff of engineers. A good start for BP figuring out how to drill deeper is having the engineering might BP had when it was nationalized.
Psy500 1 year ago
As for the goverment not being liable, if you think the goverment can't be liable for what it does what makes you think businesses can be liable? Governments have to deal with much more militant labor unions then the private sector. For example in May 1962 there was a terrible rail accident on Japan National Railways and by December 1963 the rail workers went on strike demanding for better safety. After a long hard struggle JNR was forced to adopted Automatic Train Stopper to end the strike.
Psy500 1 year ago
business is liable, because if they screw their customers, they can leave, if Gov is providing the service, you CAN'T leave. Take social security, I'm paying into it, knowing I will not get my money, why? Because the Gov throws me in jail if I do not
If a company causes damages, you can sue them. What are you going to do if the Gov causes damages? Sue them in the Gov court system? The whole idea of having a court, is it is an objective third party. Its not objective if it is a litigant
LordVigeous666999 1 year ago
While we're on the topic, chemicals. You don't need a law saying you have put labels
Example. I lite a stick of dynamite, put it in a box, then hand it to you. You don't need a law saying I have to put a label on the box to sue me, its called a law against murder
If I put a harmful chemical in a box, and you get hurt, its called damages. If there is no procedure for you to deal with said chemical, and it does more damage, thats a greater dollar amount you can sue me for
LordVigeous666999 1 year ago
Will it work perfectly the first time? Maybe not. People don't have unlimited foresight. And when did the Gov put a law on it? I bet, after a few of these incidents had already occurred, they came in, after it was being taken care of, then claimed the credit
Law is formed by experience, not by an all knowing all predicting group of people who wear nice suits
LordVigeous666999 1 year ago
Gov does not enforce regulation well, because they didn't know people were breaking them. Yeah, the only way it works is if you put a police officer on every door step
Its just a simple fact; 100,000 or so bureaucrats can't watch 330 million people all doing their own thing. And then, you have the problem of a berney madoff, where the regulators look right at what hes doing, and say "everything is fine"
LordVigeous666999 1 year ago
Engineers are supposed to do new things. Yeah I know, I am one
But when the engineers tell you, "We can do it, but we have no idea what to expect"
You are not allowed to be angry when something unexpected happens
BP wanted to go after the easy oil, and then later, with better technology go after the hard stuff. But the Gov disagreed, it outlawed all the easy stuff, and BP had to go after the hard stuff with what it had
LordVigeous666999 1 year ago
On the topic of weeding out the really bad stuff. Here is the beauty of the free market, if its not working, ITS YOUR FAULT
If the airlines are screwing people as bad as you say, put your money where your mouth is, start up an airline company, and show us all how its done
I know your excuse, "I don't have the money", thats fine, go to bank, and lay out your very well constructed business plan to correct what they have failed to do, if your case is good, you'll get the money
LordVigeous666999 1 year ago
Because no bank is going to say, "No. We don't want to lend money to the airline that is going to put all the other airlines out of business and make massive returns on our money, we don't like profits"
No bank is going to say that. But, if you're talking out your ass, which you are, they might say, "Hey, you're nice and all, but you're talking out your ass"
LordVigeous666999 1 year ago
It is not a issue of technology it is a issue of lack of talent. BP would have had an easier time doing it if it had the far more engineers at its disposal when it was a national company. Instead BP got rid of most its talent when it was privatized and we are suppose to feel sorry for them because the goverment told them to drill farther out?
We are allowed to get angry because BP cut costs by getting rid of engineers that could have prevented this problem.
Psy500 1 year ago
Comment removed
Psy500 1 year ago
@LordVigeous666999
And what if the entire industry is screwing their customers for example the airline industry? Where all businesses look at the rate of profit for the industry and decide it is not worth while to do a competent job as they know the competitors won't bother either and the cost of entry into the industry prevents new compeition epically with low rate of return in the industry.
Psy500 1 year ago
As for the goverment as I said goverment worker unions tend to very militant but really if the public can't legally recall the goverment for damages then the goverment is not very democratic. In a democratic system the public could easily hold goverment responsible for damages caused by the goverment.
Psy500 1 year ago
n the USA in 1985 as businesses refused to tell workers what chemicals they were working with so they could deny responsibility for illnesses till courts force them to hand over records. Now by law workers have the right to know all the chemicals in the workplace, safety produces regarding those chemicals and their exposure records making it far easier for workers to sue employers for injury thus why before 1985 businesses didn't do it.
Psy500 1 year ago
You prove my point. The chemical thing was being ajudicated, after that precedent was set, if a worker was hurt, and the company didn't give them the data sheets for the chemicals, the subpoena process would go faster, and the judge would be like, "Guys, we've gone over this already, and you still did nothing? Twice as much money awarded this time, fix the problem"
Thats how it works. So again, the court case happened FIRST, the precedent set FIRST, THEN the Politicians came in to take credit
LordVigeous666999 1 year ago
BP had, I believe it was three layers of safety, any of which would have prevented the problem, all THREE failed
And I'll tell you, most engineering, if you have three safety measures, all of which, ON THEIR OWN could prevent the problem, and you have all three, you've done your job
There was nothing they could do, something unexpected came up, a problem they didn't prepare for, and it was a mess. Its always a mess when you do something new
LordVigeous666999 1 year ago
Let me tell you a story about an engineer that nearly killed 100 people. An engineer sat down to work one day, at an airline, and drew a line on his design. The line went from the cockpit to the back of the plane, and had a note, "Hydraulic cables from cockpit to rutter control"
Well 10 years later, a plane took off, and these hydraulic cables had been rubbing together for 10 years, and they sprung a leak
LordVigeous666999 1 year ago
And the only reason those people didn't die that day, is because it happened 20 min into the flight, instead of 2 hours
As engineers, we come up with every possible problem, and we do everything we can to make sure nothing goes wrong. Sometimes we miss something, and when we do, people die. Engineers don't make things perfect, we do what we can
And again I'll say it, when we TELL you, that we don't know what to expect, you are not allowed to be angry when something unexpected happens
LordVigeous666999 1 year ago
And you're not supposed to feel sorry for BP. You're supposed to understand they wanted to do it safer, but safer was outlawed, so they took more risk, and it went badly
The whole reason I brought up BP, was not to get into this whole discussion, but to bring up the REGULATORS told them to take risk, the REGULATORS told them to put peoples lives in harms way, and the REGULATORS won't be punished
If you've heard about the regulators getting punished, let me know, but you haven't
LordVigeous666999 1 year ago
Gov being held accountable, I can't believe you think Gov is accountable
The great depression? Where the Gov told farmers they could only grow so much of crops, and anyone who grew too much food was fined
Which artificially drove up the cost of food, and was one of the reasons why my grandparents told me about their dinners, (a head of lettuce and a tomato passed around the table was all they could afford some nights). Whose paying for that again? Oh yeah, my dead grandparents
LordVigeous666999 1 year ago
The entire airline industry is screwing their customers! REALLY!?!? Thats GREAT!!!
That means, when you open YOUR airline, you'll do it right, and you'll get ALL the customers, and any airline that doesn't follow your supreme example, will go out of business, just to compete with YOUR airline, they will have to treat their customers better
So you not only fix the problem without crying to your mommy, but you also get filthy rich in the process. Gotta love capitalism
LordVigeous666999 1 year ago
Unless your wrong, then you go broke of course
So? How about it? You going to put your money where your mouth is? Or are you just going to bitch, and say, "I'm not willing to put MY money on the line pursuing my crazy theory of how the world works, but, I'd really like a way to put YOUR money on the line testing my theory"
LordVigeous666999 1 year ago
Supporters of the a total free-market seems to ignore the law of value that as productivity rises the rate of profits falls as value of commodities fall to the point on paper eventually there would be a point where profit will become impossible anywhere in the market as the productive forces are just too productive for commodities to have any meaningful exchange value.
Psy500 1 year ago
@Psy500 Profit impossible because we are just too productive so commodities have tiny exchange values... So we are all filthy stinking rich? Wow, if we get anywhere near that, that would be awesome!
tothemax01 1 year ago
@tothemax01
The opposite in terms of surplus value, we'd be rich in utility but we already are even the lowest paid workers earns enough wages to consume far more utility then in previous epochs yet capitalists doesn't care about that, they don't care they earn so much that can consume more utility then humanity possible they are only interested in accumulating surplus value for the sake of accumulating surplus value thus capitalists hoard their money when overproduction hits them.
Psy500 1 year ago
@Psy500 So is this good or bad?
tothemax01 1 year ago
@tothemax01
It would be good if the process keep going to create a world of abundant utility, yet long before that capitalists pull back as they have a incompatible goal of accumulating surplus exchange value. Thus a world of super abundance is the scariest thing capitalist can imagine as it a world with the whole global market flooded with commodities, yet for the consumer it would be great with cheap products that is if they can still get enough income to keep consuming.
Psy500 1 year ago
The problem is the low rate of return in the airline businesses with high capital costs required for entry. Basically the diminishing rate of profit means markets are just making service worse and makes it impossible to fix the airline industry within free-markets as now only state airlines can afford to service customers as there cost is subsidized by tax payers.
Psy500 1 year ago
@LordVigeous666999
As for BP the regulators told BP to drill farther out for the same reason a factory can't build next to you just because it like that land better. The goverment did nothing wrong by telling BP it could not drill closer to the shore it was BP responsibility to properly engineer its driller operation to compensate for driller deeper. It is BP fault for downsizing the amount of engineers it had when it was subsidized by British tax payers.
Psy500 1 year ago
@LordVigeous666999
But the goverment then made it perfectly clear what was expected from the employer with little room for interpretation. So there was no argument over how to communicate to workers through warning labels especially in other nations that took those regulations and beefed them up by standardizing warning symbols like the Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System in Canada so workers don't have to learn new warning symbols when going from company to company.
Psy500 1 year ago
Its too hard to do this in comments
I have sent a PM instead
LordVigeous666999 1 year ago