{"id":353949,"date":"2018-03-26T16:52:03","date_gmt":"2018-03-26T15:52:03","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/?p=353949"},"modified":"2018-07-03T00:34:06","modified_gmt":"2018-07-02T23:34:06","slug":"unsung-virtues-regulation-clear-foolishness-libertarianism","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/editorials\/unsung-virtues-regulation-clear-foolishness-libertarianism\/","title":{"rendered":"The Unsung Virtues of Regulation, The Clear Foolishness of Libertarianism"},"content":{"rendered":"

Eric Zuesse<\/span><\/p>\n

Libertarianism opposes all economic regulations. Robert A. Levy, of the libertarian Koch brothers\u2019 Cato Institute, has written that<\/span><\/a>, \u201cLibertarians are not opposed to reasonable safety regulations, sensible compromises of civil liberties to enhance national security, or even selective gun controls,\u201d but whenever a \u2018libertarian\u2019 advocates that way, and (like there) fails to define what determines those adjectives \u201creasonable\u201d and \u201csensible,\u201d and \u201cselective\u201d (on what basis<\/i>?), he or she is merely begging the issue (faking it), so as to avoid dealing with the reality of their own ridiculous philosophy. Libertarianism has accurately and commonly been described as anarchism, the repudiation of government, which is actually at the very foundation<\/i> of libertarian philosophy. The way that Grover Norquist most famously phrased it<\/span><\/a> was \u201cI don’t want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.\u201d But what \u201csize\u201d is that, and how is it to be empirically determined? And why that particular size and shape, and none other? They never say, because their philosophy is too ridiculous to address the real issues in a way that will make it attractive to intelligent people, and so it\u2019s all a game to them, a game of deceit to themselves (for whatever psychological reason) and to others (for whatever reason they want to spread their faith). Libertarianism is a repudiation of government, but it pretends not to be anarchic. Essential to libertrianism is its repudiation of regulation.<\/span><\/p>\n

Nobody credibly denies the fact that, in actual practice, libertarians are especially<\/i> fighting against regulations of corporations. However, in the case of sellers in the gun-control debates, libertarians \u2014 who tend to be very much on the pro-gun side as a reflection of their repudiation of government \u2014 fight for gun-owners\u2019<\/i> rights (the rights of the consumers, instead of the gun-makers), and against gun-sale regulations that reduce consumers\u2019 rights to purchase guns. <\/span><\/p>\n

But the vast majority of the anti-regulatory thrust of libertarianism, particularly as reflected by the mega-corporate funders of libertarianism and their most broadly influential fundees \u2014 people such as the funders Kochs, and such as the fundees Friedrich von Hayek and Milton Friedman \u2014 are for (as much as possible) unfettered corporations. Libertarians are for corporations\u2019 rights, against governments\u2019 rights, and against governments\u2019 obligations to their citizens \u2014 those citizens being the real persons, instead of fictitious collective \u201cartificial persons\u201d that are no \u201cpersons\u201d at all but instead collections of financial assets \u2014- mere property, not real \u201cowners\u201d (except in the legalistic fiction). So: libertarianism is against regulations that restrict the rights of corporations (i.e., that restrict the rights of owners, most prominent of which are corporations). As between producers (including corporations) and consumers (including everybody), libertarians are especially concerned to protect the rights of producers.<\/span><\/p>\n

However, economic regulation lowers, not just raises, prices; and it raises efficiency by introducing and enforcing standardization, so that consumers can reliably know what they\u2019ll get for what they pay \u2014 for example, \u201c500 mg\u201d of x will then far likelier be 500 mg of x. Of course, if the government is corrupt, then the regulation and its enforcement will be, too, but that\u2019s a corruption-problem, not a problem of regulations that shouldn\u2019t exist at all (according to libertarian dogma); so, keeping one’s conceptual categories clear is important, when discussing regulation (or anything else).<\/span><\/p>\n

Take, for example, drugs \u2014 all types, regardless of whether they\u2019re now legal, or, to the exact contrary, are altogether prohibited. Any drug should be taken in the dose suitable for the intended purpose \u2014 neither more nor less \u2014 but if there is no reliably enforced legal penalty<\/i> for dishonest labeling of potency, etc., then the consumer (again, regardless of whether the drug itself is legal or not<\/i>) can be victimized by a dishonest or sloppy vendor, who can be careless or else shortchange that consumer on potency or even include toxic impurities, without that seller\u2019s having any other concern than that perhaps the consumer will change vendors or perhaps die from what the vendor did and will thereby reduce the seller\u2019s customer-count by one, but cannot be subjected to legal or regulatory penalties that would be disincentives above and beyond<\/i> that of perhaps merely losing a customer.<\/span><\/p>\n

Furthermore, in all types of consumer-rights cases, not just drug-related ones, only the existence of government enables the consumer to hold accountable a manufacturer or seller of dangerous and misrepresented products, such as of tobacco products, insecticides, or food-ingredients such as hydrogenated oils, if and when those products or services turn out to be vastly more dangerous than their consumers assume (and such as their news-media have been paid by the producers of these products and services to promote or to advertise).<\/span><\/p>\n

For example, Janet Bufton, co-founder of the libertarian Institute for Liberal Studies, has written against regulations of tattooists<\/span><\/a>, because:<\/span><\/p>\n

I’m considering getting a tattoo of ama-gi, the earliest known writing of the word “freedom” and was trying to find out if the Ontario tattoo industry was regulated or not, since if it was I would go to Michigan, where the industry is unregulated. <\/i>[A friend challenged her preference to buy tattoos in a country where it\u2019s an unregulated industry and asked her, \u201cSo, on principle you want to get hepatitis?\u201d]<\/span><\/p>\n

Finally, I had an epiphany. I texted her: “It’s important to me that where I go is being safe because they think it’s important to be safe, and not because they’re doing the absolute minimum the government says they have to do.”<\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

And I think that’s at the heart of the libertarian argument against regulation.<\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

Government regulations take away our vigilance for our own well-being and the rewards that should be enjoyed by people who are willing to go the extra mile with their business through a declaration that all businesses are acceptable in their eyes. It’s a terrible injustice; in fact the epiphany probably put me one step closer to a pro-tattoo decision.<\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

Buffoon wanted \u201cto get my freedom tattoo in an unregulated tattoo parlour\u201d so as to be totally \u2018responsible\u2019 for the outcome (after all: in an anarchic world, it\u2019s every person on his own and for herself, no laws restraining his or her \u2018freedom\u2019), so that if she\u2019d become diseased from it, she would blame only herself, and not the corrupt system in which she functions and which she wants to love \u2014 craves to love the \u201cstate of nature\u201d \u2014 and not to blame it for whatever bad might come to her from its being corrupt. Only the consumer is to blame, in that system (libertarianism). (Like she said: \u201cGovernment regulations take away our vigilance for our own well-being and the rewards that should be enjoyed by people who are willing to go the extra mile.\u201d)<\/span><\/p>\n

Of course, aristocrats, who have enormous wealth, might reasonably self-identify with the supply side in all economic transactions, because they\u2019re much more on that side (the side of the producer and seller) than on the side of the consumer (the purchaser and user), and so they reasonably might fund such operations as the Cato Institute or perhaps the Institute for Liberal Studies \u2014 in order to maximize the freedom of corporations. <\/span><\/p>\n

But, for anyone else to welcome the increased danger to themselves that will result from such a corrupt system, is to self-identify with the corruption, and self-identify against anyone who would seek to change it so as to attach legal accountability to irresponsible or evil unconcern regarding suppliers\u2019 meeting the most basic and legally enforced standards of safety in the provisioning of the given product or service. <\/span><\/p>\n

Such buffoons \u2014 suckers of the corporate propaganda \u2014 are unfortunately assisting the corrupt to victimize the public. They\u2019re thus dangers not only to themselves, but also to non-buffoons, who recognize the foolishness (if not evil) of libertarianism. They thus harm the entire body-politic, by their foolishness. To the extent that they influence government, they reduce everyone\u2019s safety.<\/span><\/p>\n

In an email-discussion with someone who expressed unwavering support of libertarianism, and consequent opposition to any requirement for people to receive vaccinations against communicable diseases, I closed (to which I received no reply):<\/span><\/p>\n

That makes clear your repudiation of regulations to protect consumers and the environment and workers and thus your view that the owners and executives of mega-corporations should not be subject to the criminal law, no matter how much they incentivize their employees to \u201ccut corners\u201d in order to add to profit-margins; and so only the public \u2014 workers and consumers (the far-less-wealthy masses of the citizenry) \u2014 should face the possibility of prison in the type of society you would prefer.<\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014<\/span><\/p>\n

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of\u00a0 They\u2019re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010<\/i><\/span><\/a>,<\/i> and of<\/span> \u00a0<\/i>CHRIST\u2019S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity<\/i><\/span><\/a><\/span>.<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Eric Zuesse Libertarianism opposes all economic regulations. Robert A. Levy, of the libertarian Koch brothers\u2019 Cato Institute, has written that, \u201cLibertarians are not opposed to reasonable safety regulations, sensible compromises of civil liberties to enhance national security, or even selective gun controls,\u201d but whenever a \u2018libertarian\u2019 advocates that way, and (like there) fails to define […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1254,"featured_media":203310,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[461,519],"tags":[30,96,3604,93,535,541,823,804,40],"class_list":{"0":"post-353949","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-editorials","8":"category-newswire","9":"tag-big-brother","10":"tag-cover-up","11":"tag-donald-trump","12":"tag-eu","13":"tag-global-news","14":"tag-media","15":"tag-police","16":"tag-politics-2","17":"tag-white-house"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/353949","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1254"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=353949"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/353949\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":367757,"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/353949\/revisions\/367757"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/203310"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=353949"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=353949"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=353949"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}