Originally Posted by The Rani

How about not protecting and supporting people who are contaminating our environment and possibly making us all sick, for starters? Any libertarian will tell you that the agriculture industry buys and sells politicians at will. Why do you think that Prop 2 had to be a voter initiative? The California legislature's agriculture committee killed the bill every time it came up.



Given the fact that we're talking about a fatal respiratory illness, I think the nose analogy is quite appropriate.

I see. It's really a matter of how complicated the fist-to-nose pathway is. Simple pathway (e.g. pig shit = swine flu), sic da gov't on em. More complicated pathways (examples, too numerous), well that's none of da gov't business.

I'm cool with that. But it is kind of funny that notion didn't come up on the Libertarian discourse thread.

Originally Posted by playwrite

I see. It's really a matter of how complicated the fist-to-nose pathway is. Simple pathway (e.g. pig shit = swine flu), sic da gov't on em. More complicated pathways (examples, too numerous), well that's none of da gov't business.

I'm cool with that. But it is kind of funny that notion didn't come up on the Libertarian discourse thread.

Oh, come on, PW!! Get out of business's way and they'll do the right thing. Never fails. I thought that was obvious.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Have you never heard of agriculture subsidies?

Yep, and if you've been paying attention, you'd know that I don't think very much of them.

But there's much more to this issue than ag subsidies.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Such as ... ?

Questions of closing borders, distributing masks, making Tamiflu more readily available, closing schools, shutting down mass transportation networks, figuring out how to treat those already infected, isolating and studying the virus -- all of which would have government involved at some level.

Certainly we don't want government encouraging or supporting bad agricultural practices. At the same time, emergencies happen whether or not government had anything to do with it, and government still needs to step in during the crisis periods.

You need both prevention and cure.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Certainly regulating pig manure dumps would be offensive to a libertarian. One would think that pig manure falling under the notion of "your rights end at my nose" would be a, ahum, slippery slope for a libertarian to begin treading.

Why would that be the case? It's limits of liability as only attainable under a nonlibertarian model that protect the guilty parties from the full consequences of their actions. Otherwise the people who ran the pig factories that made people fatally sick (in fact, that made even one person fatally ill) would be answerable for manslaughter at the least. Thanks to the nonlibertarian model, on the other hand, they'll most likely get off with a 'noncompliance of regulations' fine. And passing more regulations or increasing the fine makes no qualitative difference to the basic fact that ultimately the wrongdoers are being provided an official channel to avoid full responsibility for their wrongdoing.

And the model that limits punishment for actions leading to the deaths of people by light slaps on the wrist is going to tend to make those kinds of actions more widespread.

Playwrite:

I have observed that any libertarian's commitment to libertarianism in any given area is inversely proportional to said libertarian's knowledge and understanding of that area. That should explain it.

Justin:

So what you're saying, is that libertarian principles would require harsher, more intrusive, more punitive government? I'm not sure I can see that as consistent with the principles involved, but maybe you can clarify it for us.

Rani:

While agricultural subsidies are a problem and I have no intention of defending them, there are cost benefits to factory farming that don't arise from subsidies. It's cheaper to raise meat animals in this way, despite the increased vet costs. This gives factory farms a competitive advantage, and consigns other meat producers to the "organically raised" or "humanely raised" niche markets. If we want the practice to stop, we have to outlaw it. This would have the side effect of raising the price of meat, which in my view would also be a good thing, as it would mean people would eat less meat, improving their health somewhat. (Potentially, depending on what the substitute protein was.) And of course it would lessen the risk of plagues like this one.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

So what you're saying, is that libertarian principles would require harsher, more intrusive, more punitive government? I'm not sure I can see that as consistent with the principles involved, but maybe you can clarify it for us.

I suspect/fear you're using a nonstandard variation in the meaning of the word 'government'. Best to clarify that for me before I get to agreeing or disagreeing with your paraphrase.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

I suspect/fear you're using a nonstandard variation in the meaning of the word 'government'. Best to clarify that for me before I get to agreeing or disagreeing with your paraphrase.

I was thinking of a heavily armed posse (composed only of volunteers, of course).

Originally Posted by Justin '77

I suspect/fear you're using a nonstandard variation in the meaning of the word 'government'. Best to clarify that for me before I get to agreeing or disagreeing with your paraphrase.

Not at all. When a personal injury or a wrongful death is caused, under law there are two potential remedies depending on the details: civil court, or the criminal justice system. Either one of these is a government function. Assuming from the context of what you said that we're talking about civil court, the change in procedure that you're terming "libertarian" would subject pork farmers to liability for any consequences of their business practices regardless of whether those consequences were a result of genuine negligence.

Under that principle, if the farmer sells pork that someone eats who is allergic to pork, or to some element employed in raising the pork, and the person dies of this allergic reaction, the farmer is liable. This would require a harsher, more intrusive, and more heavy-handed government than we have at present.

Also, you are speaking outside the usual meaning of "limited liability," which is a corporate legal trick to protect the individual owners of a corporation from liability for the corporation's actions. It does not actually limit the liability of the corporation itself, which can if legally negligent be sued into bankruptcy. It also doesn't protect the individual owners from any criminal as opposed to civil liability. What you're talking about is extending the range of things for which a company can legally be held liable to include consequences which are not reasonably the company's fault.

Rani:

As I said, I have no intention of defending farm subsidies. However, if you think that factory farms will stop factory farming just because they lose the subsidies, you are mistaken. There are economic benefits to factory farming that don't derive from the subsidies. Also, if we ban the practices and DON'T abolish the subsidies (not that I'm suggesting this), the practices will still go. In short, they aren't a result of subsidies. They would exist under free market conditions, too.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Playwrite:

I have observed that any libertarian's commitment to libertarianism in any given area is inversely proportional to said libertarian's knowledge and understanding of that area. That should explain it.

That's what I was kinda thinkin too.

Also, I think the Libertarians are a little pissed because they haven't figured out how to easily pirate away good meat and get away with it. Give them some cool technology to do so from the comfort of their laptops, and they will return to the government-get-out-of-the-way routine soon enough.

Ya know what I thought of? Pretty soon Monsanto will own all the genetic sequences and seeds will be a vehicle of piracy. Until then... I still get some free food.

Damned unauthorized, unlicensed duplication.

Originally Posted by The Rani

The CDC is basing their decisions on how they affect the pork industry??? The frickin CDC???!!!

Has anyone been shown to have caught this from eating pork?

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

I have observed that any libertarian's commitment to libertarianism in any given area is inversely proportional to said libertarian's knowledge and understanding of that area. That should explain it.

Funny, but inaccurate. Knowledge and understanding just makes one more aware of the immense inertia of the system and so you're restrained from proposing the usual sweeping radical reforms. It's not a lack of commitment you're observing, but an increase in cynicism.

Also, so much of what makes deregulation tend to go badly is that the "good" regulations are just an ad hoc fix to much deeper structural problems. Take away these fixes and the net impact of the state increases. Sensitivity to this complexity doesn't make one a progressive, even for that particular issue set. To be a progressive, one would have to blithely ignore the deeper structural problems or falsely refer to them as market phenomena.

Originally Posted by The Rani

So unless they have recently discovered some new health benefits from eating bacon, this makes absolutely no sense.

Ah, well, there's nothing like a good pork tenderloin every now and again. Plenty of protein and all that.

Having pork producers take a financial hit from this is a "natural" (i.e. non-coercive) way to make them get their act together.

Why should all pork producers take a hit if it's only a few bad actors doing things wrong? That doesn't seem fair.

Originally Posted by The Rani

You're thinkin wrong. I've done quite a bit of research into the subject over the last year or so. You should know that too.

That's exactly what I meant. PW was yankin' your chain about displaying non-libertarian sentiments in this context. But this is medicine: your speciality, about which you probably know more than anyone else on this board.

Hence your willingness to hit the pork industry and other parts of the meat industry with non-libertarian business restrictions and regulations, such as Proposition 2. You know too much to maintain ideological purity in this context.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

Funny, but inaccurate. Knowledge and understanding just makes one more aware of the immense inertia of the system and so you're restrained from proposing the usual sweeping radical reforms. It's not a lack of commitment you're observing, but an increase in cynicism.

What's the difference?

Also, so much of what makes deregulation tend to go badly is that the "good" regulations are just an ad hoc fix to much deeper structural problems.

Well, yeah -- deep structural problems such as the capitalist system, or civilization itself. It's quite true that if we returned to a forager-hunter economy and precivilized lifestyle, none of these problems would manifest at all.

But having left the Garden, we are committed to an artificial existence that includes farming, cities, technology, social classes -- and government. There is no way, as long as we're stuck with civilized life, to have an economy that runs itself.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Eh, we've already had this discussion before. Most of the libertarians who took part in it agreed that Prop 2 is entirely consistent with libertarianism, either because "rights" are extended to animals or because it's enacting legislation to oppose government suppression of liberty.

As the late Isaac Asimov put it via his character Salvor Hardin, "Never let your sense of morals keep you from doing what is right."

I wasn't insulting you; on the contrary, I think a commitment to any sort of ideology that doesn't let you employ common sense and reason is crazy and you're to be commended for not going there. Who cares whether a label can be applied or not? On this matter, I agree with you completely.

I also said that I wasn't going to get vaccinated, in case you missed it, and that includes if it eventually becomes mandatory.

I didn't miss it. I've very rarely gotten a flu shot myself, but I think this is one area where again you have superior knowledge. Care to share it? What's wrong with the flu vaccine? (If there was one, which of course there isn't yet.)

Originally Posted by The Rani

Not interested in getting any kind of treatment, vaccine or otherwise, that was developed as a rush job...

-IIRC, the influenza vaccine in 1976 (a rush job) turned out to be a disaster.

Originally Posted by The Rani

What physician and/or nutritionist has ever advised anyone to eat pork?

Lean cuts of pork are permitted on the South Beach Diet. Now you can nitpick whether "permission" is the same as "advice," but in any case, Dr. Agatston didn't rule it out in the diet.

What makes you think that all pork producers will take a hit?

Well, I don't know if they will or not. My point is that punishing them all as a group is not only wrong but counterproductive.

People who know where their food comes from trust their local farmers to do the right thing.

And I plan on eating meat from a local farmer this very weekend. He raises good hogs.

Kiff:

Whether eating pork is a good idea depends (as usual) on what you're comparing it with. It's better than not getting adequate protein, but it's so easy to get adequate protein that that's not a serious observation.

Compared to a proper vegetarian diet, or one with small amounts of lean meat included, a meat-based diet of any kind is not ideal. Setting aside any animal-rights considerations, purely in terms of health and the environment, Americans typically eat far more meat than is good for them, or for sustainability.

That huge demand for meat is one reason why factory farming of this sort exists at all; it's one way to produce that kind of quantity while keeping the price down. So it's contributing to the current flu, and to all other diseases that jump from domesticated animals to humans.

I would very much like to see factory farming banned -- for the above reasons, I disagree that it would be enough to stop government support of it, although I would like to see that, too -- for all of these reasons.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Lean cuts of pork are permitted on the South Beach Diet. Now you can nitpick whether "permission" is the same as "advice," but in any case, Dr. Agatston didn't rule it out in the diet.

Eh. I <heart> bacon. Anyways, wild boar makes for good stews.
There's even a dog bred for such purposes.

And I plan on eating meat from a local farmer this very weekend. He raises good hogs.

As well you should.

Antibody collection:

Flu shots every year.
Type O. Crossed reacted anti-A and anti-B antibodies from assorted natural sources.
Yellow fever/typhoid fever and the usual MMR stuff.

Btw. For "The Rani". : Lariam affects Rags just like being on weed 24/7
(I was flying before getting on the airplane...)

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

What's the difference?

The difference is that the incremental steps toward change and the deeper problems are more clear in fields that one is familiar with. Thus, you know whether an incremental policy change will exacerbate or dampen the primary problems. Since the libertarian default is to assume an incremental change will exacerbate the primary trend, there can be some apparent reversals when you get down to details.*

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Well, yeah -- deep structural problems such as the capitalist system, or civilization itself. It's quite true that if we returned to a forager-hunter economy and precivilized lifestyle, none of these problems would manifest at all.

This rather confirms my snark about progressives. You accept the particular form industrialization took as a given and make little effort to separate out the good parts from the bad.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

But having left the Garden, we are committed to an artificial existence that includes farming, cities, technology, social classes -- and government. There is no way, as long as we're stuck with civilized life, to have an economy that runs itself.

The necessity of rules does not necessarily mean that the particular rules we did get are inherently optimal or inevitable. That requires additional argument.


* I would argue that all ideologies are defined by their default manner of approaching rule-making. This point would require its own thread, though.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

The difference is that the incremental steps toward change and the deeper problems are more clear in fields that one is familiar with. Thus, you know whether an incremental policy change will exacerbate or dampen the primary problems. Since the libertarian default is to assume an incremental change will exacerbate the primary trend, there can be some apparent reversals when you get down to details.*

A more involved way of saying what I said: commitment to libertarian ideals is inversely proportional to the libertarian's knowledge about the area in question.

Look, there's really no dispute between liberals and libertarians as to ends, only as to means. The ends of libertarianism ARE liberal ends; they are the ends that DEFINE liberalism, in fact. But the contention of modern liberals is that libertarian MEANS -- which are the same as the means of liberals from an earlier era -- no longer work to serve liberal ends. Restraining the government is the right idea when the government is the main threat to liberty, and when society is sufficiently simple that it doesn't need complex government. But we are no longer in that situation. Safeguards have been placed on the state to prevent tyranny, and, by and large, they work well. The main threat to liberty is today private agencies such as corporations, and the real question in regard to government is not how big and powerful it is but who's interests it serves. The fact that the government often serves the interests of the powerful and not of freedom is obvious, but the solution to that is not to hamstring government so that it can't serve anyone -- that would leave the powerful only slightly inconvenienced and everyone else with no recourse at all, since the state is the only agency that has the potential to prevent the abuses of the rich.

Or, to put it another way: we have already applied the rule of law to the state. We need to do the same thing with private interests. And that means the law must remain strong.

Or, to make it even simpler: the problem with libertarianism is not that it's not a noble goal, but that its chosen means don't work. And the more you know about a particular area of life, the more obvious that becomes.

This rather confirms my snark about progressives. You accept the particular form industrialization took as a given and make little effort to separate out the good parts from the bad.

Incorrect. But regardless of what form industrialization takes, it is incompatible with the small government that worked for an agrarian, pre-industrial civilization, just as that civilization required some government and could not abide the anarchy that characterized prehistory.

The necessity of rules does not necessarily mean that the particular rules we did get are inherently optimal or inevitable. That requires additional argument.

Agreed. But the argument of anarchists is precisely against the necessity of rules, and that of libertarians is against the necessity of so many of them. Neither argues merely for different ones; that is in fact the province of progressives.

I would argue that all ideologies are defined by their default manner of approaching rule-making. This point would require its own thread, though.

By all means, feel free to create one.

..........and yet again, another thread falls victim to the one track minds stuck on the libertarian jag.

What a shame.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Kiff:

Whether eating pork is a good idea depends (as usual) on what you're comparing it with. It's better than not getting adequate protein, but it's so easy to get adequate protein that that's not a serious observation.

Compared to a proper vegetarian diet, or one with small amounts of lean meat included, a meat-based diet of any kind is not ideal. Setting aside any animal-rights considerations, purely in terms of health and the environment, Americans typically eat far more meat than is good for them, or for sustainability.

That huge demand for meat is one reason why factory farming of this sort exists at all; it's one way to produce that kind of quantity while keeping the price down. So it's contributing to the current flu, and to all other diseases that jump from domesticated animals to humans.

I would very much like to see factory farming banned -- for the above reasons, I disagree that it would be enough to stop government support of it, although I would like to see that, too -- for all of these reasons.

I don't really have any problem with what you're saying. I certainly wasn't advocating heavy meat-eating. I enjoy a variety of foods, and I'm certainly willing to pay more for my meat (and eat less of it) if I can still get good quality and have less of a negative impact on the environment.

In fact, since I've been studying South Beach (incidentally, my family and I have lost a collective 45 pounds since we started in mid-March), I've started buying meats and vegetables of higher quality.