Libertarianism in action.

[bobalot]

In the early nineties, the The Building Act 1991 passed by the conservative National Party in New Zealand deregulated building standards with the assumption that market forces would assure building quality.

10 years on and New Zealand had the beginnings of the "leaky homes crisis". Unsurprisingly, many homes were built with improper building designs, inappropriate materials, and/or not constructed inline with proper building practices.

This has made some homes dangerous to live in as they are literally deteriorating and rotting. It is even can be unhealthy as "Rot and moisture damage can result in the growth of mould and bacteria, which poses a risk to many people, especially young children, the elderly or those prone to allergic reactions or respiratory problems such as asthma." (Source)

The cost of this fuck up? It could be up to $11.5 Billion (which is a lot for a small country like NZ). (Source)

Seriously though, I wonder how exactly was market forces supposed to ensure building standards?

[Vendetta]

Seriously though, I wonder how exactly was market forces supposed to ensure building standards?

Surely everyone who was going to buy a home is a structural engineer who could assess the property, know that it has been built correctly, and then only purchase if it is in their own self interest to do so, right?

Surely, no-one would ever rely on the fact that a potential customer in a deregulated market does not have access to certain pieces of information that would otherwise impact their purchasing decisions, right?

Surely, deregulated markets aren't a paradise for conmen and cowboys, right?

[Captain Seafort]

Surely everyone who was going to buy a home is a structural engineer who could assess the property, know that it has been built correctly, and then only purchase if it is in their own self interest to do so, right?

I suspect it would have been more along the lines of "everyone would have the sense to get a survey done before they bought the place", ignoring the likelihood that a lot of people either a) can't afford it (how expensive is a building survey in NZ by the way?) or b) are fucking stupid.

[Crossroads Inc.]

I know its not a proper tactic, but virtually any argument For Libertarians, can be argued against by noting that, indeed, most people are fucking stupid.

[Shroom Man 777]

Especially the libertarians themselves, for automatically assuming that things will be fine and peachy, as if their own "fuck other people, fuck paying for shit to take care of other people, goddamn taxes" won't end up being applied to them as well when its their shit getting ruined. The only time being a libertarian would be a sensible position is when you're the one who's in the position to fuck other people over, like when you're richer than everyone else and more powerful (and a libertopia would only make you richer and more powerful at other people's expense), which a lot of these libertarians really aren't...

[adam_grif]

Eh, market forces can only be expected to provide adequate quality control if the people being hired are signing contracts making them liable if the quality turns out to be shoddy. If all the people involved are just kind of expecting it to all work out without taking any measures to ensure that it does, then they have themselves to blame.

This doesn't disqualify libertarian ideology. If anything it's just a statement about how it isn't wise to throw people into the free-market deep-end after having lived their lives in an environment where no-brainers like building quality control were enforced by the state.

[Shroom Man 777]

Who would hold the builders liable? Who would make the contract worth anything, and parties liable for liabilities, if not the government or some other regulating party whose main concern isn't profit but for overall societal welfare instead? Even with government and with regulation, the corporations and companies already lawyer up and do all sorts of legal loopholing and unscrupulous shit to screw the little man over, to the point where suing the corporations would result in long and protracted legal battles that have no guarantee of success against the liable parties, in a process that a normal person also cannot afford (thus driving him to accept settlement fees instead).

If in our current scenario, with existing government regulations, corporations still cannot be policed and they still don't refrain themselves from screwing the common man over (be it in shit insurance, or in shit pharma, or whatever), in a libertarian libertopia it's going to be worse. Common people are going to be set on fire in the streets, by the corporations, and when they can't afford to pay the legal fees when they tried to sue the corporations and lost, they're going to end up having their organs auctioned off to pay for debt! And that's after they sell their children to pharmaceutical medical experimentation.

[Lord of the Abyss]

The only time being a libertarian would be a sensible position is when you're the one who's in the position to fuck other people over, like when you're richer than everyone else and more powerful (and a libertopia would only make you richer and more powerful at other people's expense), which a lot of these libertarians really aren't...

Or if you assume that you are some sort of omnicompetent superman, which I've noticed is a common assumption of libertarians. THEY won't be fooled like us stupid people. THEY can detect building design flaws, medical fraud, deceptively written contracts, contaminated food, contaminated drugs, bad automobile design, etc without the need for a whole slew of government agencies to do the investigation.

[bobalot]

Eh, market forces can only be expected to provide adequate quality control if the people being hired are signing contracts making them liable if the quality turns out to be shoddy. If all the people involved are just kind of expecting it to all work out without taking any measures to ensure that it does, then they have themselves to blame.

This doesn't disqualify libertarian ideology. If anything it's just a statement about how it isn't wise to throw people into the free-market deep-end after having lived their lives in an environment where no-brainers like building quality control were enforced by the state.

Half these little construction companies won't exist any more. As I understand it, one of the bigger building companies that built these pieces of shit is being hit for 1 billion. The only problem is they have absolutely no way of paying it.

Retarded libertarians always say "well if you get a crappy product you can sue the company!", they obviously haven't thought about products that may get defective after decades or even that suing a company is very difficult for one lone customer.

Take for example a lot of the industrial estates around Sydney. Before the advent of environmental protection laws, many companies just dumped their waste on their properties. Decades later, this crap has seeped into the soil and has even started to effect surrounding areas in a few places. None of these companies exist any more. What is the libertarian solution to this?

Let me guess, they don't have one.

[Formless]

Eh, market forces can only be expected to provide adequate quality control if the people being hired are signing contracts making them liable if the quality turns out to be shoddy. If all the people involved are just kind of expecting it to all work out without taking any measures to ensure that it does, then they have themselves to blame.

Just because you have a contract, doesn't make it fair. There is always this little thing, ah what's it called, ah yes; "the fine print".

This doesn't disqualify libertarian ideology. If anything it's just a statement about how it isn't wise to throw people into the free-market deep-end after having lived their lives in an environment where no-brainers like building quality control were enforced by the state.

Do you really expect people to have to become experts at literally everything they wish to buy or negotiate? Its not just housing you know, every product or service you might wish to sell has an incentive to screw people over attached, and some kind of knowledge which can be withheld to do so. Food can be contaminated because there is no monetary incentive to keep the processing places clean, proper building materials can be substituted for absolute shlock, the electricity you buy to power your home would be a(n even worse) source of pollutants if there weren't regulations keeping it to a certain standard of "clean", the paint could be made with lead (nice way to make sure future generations are even stupider, by the way), and how can you promise the clothes you wear aren't made in an abusive sweatshop somewhere in the third world? These are all things which the consumer would need perfect information on if they wish to avoid buying such evils. Without a strong central government to enforce laws impartially, how are you going to ensure that the surveyors aren't in the pockets of the people you are contracting? And do I really have to bring up the corrosive power of advertising on the human mind? Libertarian ideology isn't practical in so many ways, we might as well discard it like the infeasible rubbish it is.

[Kuroneko]

Eh, market forces can only be expected to provide adequate quality control if the people being hired are signing contracts making them liable if the quality turns out to be shoddy.

Correct. As you say, to ensure adequate quality control, there needs to be some minimum standard of quality enforced by punitive actions against those that fall short. In other words, the free market starts providing adequate quality services when enforcement of said quality is involved.

This doesn't disqualify libertarian ideology.

Perhaps, but it does imply that libertarian ideology works only when widespread mimicking of government regulation is involved. That one can argue that it is not technically government regulation is a rather pathetic defense, not to mention inferior for reasons of practicality, given how people actually behave (as others have argued above).

[adam_grif]

Half these little construction companies won't exist any more. As I understand it, one of the bigger building companies that built these pieces of shit is being hit for 1 billion. The only problem is they have absolutely no way of paying it.

Any standard that can be enforced by a government can be enforced by contract law. It's a matter of the people on the buying end coming to terms with this and demanding it be part of the initial deal. But of course, people are stupid and many people won't do this. The libertarian solution to the problem after the horse has already bolted out of the gate is to leave it to the wolves. It's harsh, but the ideology relies on prevention by vigilance rather than cure.

Retarded libertarians always say "well if you get a crappy product you can sue the company!", they obviously haven't thought about products that may get defective after decades or even that suing a company is very difficult for one lone customer.

Your son's toy breaking 4 years after you buy it because of a manufacturing flaw isn't quite on the same level as your house falling apart 4 years after you move into it. Things of this scale are always built using contracts between builder and buyer. It is indeed difficult to sue a company for a lone customer, but this is less an issue with them being eligable for problems (warranty style) and more an issue with the colossally time and money inefficient legal processes that all nations seem to have. As a note, libertarian ideals rarely or never work as advertised (if they would at all, of course, which I'm not saying they will) when supplanted into a largely non-Libertarian environment. The mix and match obviously isn't working well.

Take for example a lot of the industrial estates around Sydney. Before the advent of environmental protection laws, many companies just dumped their waste on their properties. Decades later, this crap has seeped into the soil and has even started to effect surrounding areas in a few places. None of these companies exist any more. What is the libertarian solution to this?

Let me guess, they don't have one.

Eh, I wouldn't know. If I had to hazard a guess I'd say something like "they can dump waste on their own property but not others / public property. If it's leaking into other people's shit it's their fault." But who knows?

Just because you have a contract, doesn't make it fair. There is always this little thing, ah what's it called, ah yes; "the fine print".

I fully support that sign.

Do you really expect people to have to become experts at literally everything they wish to buy or negotiate?

No mister Bond. I expect them to die.

I'm not intimately familiar with the particulars of Libertarian ideology, so I can't say what their work-around for this is. But what I will say is that I'm fairly sure you could probably whip one up. The game is maintaining all of the services, but getting them done through alternate avenues.

It should be theoretically possible to whip up a state that functions exactly like conventional moderate socialism does (i.e. most of the world) through the use of contracts and other Libertarian-friendly things. Just instead of the police charging you with "violation of Environmental Protection law", it will be "violation of contract to XYZ corporation". You might say that defeats the purpose of it completely, but my experience with Libertarians seems to be that they don't have the consequences of socialism, they hate the idea of the government pulling it all off. For some reason.

Perhaps, but it does imply that libertarian ideology works only when widespread mimicking of government regulation is involved. That one can argue that it is not technically government regulation is a rather pathetic defense, not to mention inferior for reasons of practicality, given how people actually behave (as others have argued above).

Oh, it's still government regulation, just government regulation of different things. Same thing, less direct.

[adam_grif]

My kingdom for an edit button.

"but my experience with Libertarians seems to be that they don't have the consequences of socialism, they hate the idea of the government pulling it all off. For some reason.
"

Should replace the "have" with "hate".

[Alyrium Denryle]

Any standard that can be enforced by a government can be enforced by contract law. It's a matter of the people on the buying end coming to terms with this and demanding it be part of the initial deal. But of course, people are stupid and many people won't do this. The libertarian solution to the problem after the horse has already bolted out of the gate is to leave it to the wolves. It's harsh, but the ideology relies on prevention by vigilance rather than cure.

Which requires omnicompetance on the part of the buyer and seller. Relying on a system where both individuals have an incentive to fuck eachother over and each is doing their level best to stop the other is not a stable system. See what happened with our housing market collapse and the resulting clusterfuck in the finance sector.

This part of the ideology falls apart when one individual has no reasonable alternative to the agreement or because they lack a knowledge set necessary to evaluate the terms of the agreement on equal footing. A outside independent arbitrator is necessary to enforce a set of pre-existing rules. In the case of the libertarian solution, a private contractor or arbitrator, said individual or group is invariably hired by one side or the other which gives them a financial incentive to keep customers. They therefore have an incentive to arbitrate disputes in a way favorable to the one who can consistently pay the bills.

This is precisely the reason why many companies force employees to sign an arbitration clause in their contracts.

Eh, I wouldn't know. If I had to hazard a guess I'd say something like "they can dump waste on their own property but not others / public property. If it's leaking into other people's shit it's their fault." But who knows?

Which is another problem. Libertarianism ignores cascading effects on third parties directly, or indirectly through the massive global commons that is our environment. This is the reason why companies should never be allowed to do their own environmental impact assessments, or pay for their own. They need to be funded by neutral third parties. There have been too many documented cases where private companies have interfered with such cases. They tend to do this either by contractually mandating that they have publication control (IE. that they decided whether the research done on their dime gets published or the environmental impact statement gets sent to the government if it has unfavorable results this is what drug companies tend to do and is the reason why universities ALWAYS put a clause in any agreement that makes this impossible), or by flat our bribery of scientists or contractors (see above... same thing with arbitration applies), which is what the manufacturers of Atrazine did.

[Kuroneko]

Oh, it's still government regulation, just government regulation of different things. Same thing, less direct.

And that's the point--it's doing nothing but providing another point of failure in providing adequate quality control and an opportunity for abuse. If we're interested in a certain level of minimal quality, then your own considerations show that a completely libertarian policy can only be adequate when it happens to reproduce the effect of government regulations on that quality. In other words, you've made a dilemma between two methods, A and B, where A is only effective when it behaves like B, has a fair of chance of not doing so due to insufficient individual competence or vigilance, and is more convoluted besides. Since contractual obligations can function on top of government regulation (if they're indeed minimalist), A never outperforms B in terms of providing adequate quality control.

But of course, people are stupid and many people won't do this. The libertarian solution to the problem after the horse has already bolted out of the gate is to leave it to the wolves. It's harsh, but the ideology relies on prevention by vigilance rather than cure.

Are we presupposing a utilitarian ethic or not? Because if we're going to have some sort of supreme right of individual choice, then libertarian ideology isn't disqualified simply because it is no longer capable of being disqualified by any possible evidence.

[Guardsman Bass]

Half these little construction companies won't exist any more. As I understand it, one of the bigger building companies that built these pieces of shit is being hit for 1 billion. The only problem is they have absolutely no way of paying it.

Any standard that can be enforced by a government can be enforced by contract law. It's a matter of the people on the buying end coming to terms with this and demanding it be part of the initial deal. But of course, people are stupid and many people won't do this. The libertarian solution to the problem after the horse has already bolted out of the gate is to leave it to the wolves. It's harsh, but the ideology relies on prevention by vigilance rather than cure.

That tends to be the problem with libertarian ideals - they rely heavily on people having the right information, and if they don't and get screwed, they turn their backs on the human consequences of it.

Retarded libertarians always say "well if you get a crappy product you can sue the company!", they obviously haven't thought about products that may get defective after decades or even that suing a company is very difficult for one lone customer.

Your son's toy breaking 4 years after you buy it because of a manufacturing flaw isn't quite on the same level as your house falling apart 4 years after you move into it. Things of this scale are always built using contracts between builder and buyer. It is indeed difficult to sue a company for a lone customer, but this is less an issue with them being eligable for problems (warranty style) and more an issue with the colossally time and money inefficient legal processes that all nations seem to have. As a note, libertarian ideals rarely or never work as advertised (if they would at all, of course, which I'm not saying they will) when supplanted into a largely non-Libertarian environment. The mix and match obviously isn't working well.

Never-implemented-in-reality ideals often don't work when forced into reality and its limitations.

Take for example a lot of the industrial estates around Sydney. Before the advent of environmental protection laws, many companies just dumped their waste on their properties. Decades later, this crap has seeped into the soil and has even started to effect surrounding areas in a few places. None of these companies exist any more. What is the libertarian solution to this?

Let me guess, they don't have one.

Eh, I wouldn't know. If I had to hazard a guess I'd say something like "they can dump waste on their own property but not others / public property. If it's leaking into other people's shit it's their fault." But who knows?

How useful - a vague non-response that doesn't address the problem or pose a solution.

On a side-note, a lot of libertarians tend to have issues with externalities. They either deny they exist, or generally argue that they're over-stated.

Do you really expect people to have to become experts at literally everything they wish to buy or negotiate?

No mister Bond. I expect them to die.

I'm not intimately familiar with the particulars of Libertarian ideology, so I can't say what their work-around for this is. But what I will say is that I'm fairly sure you could probably whip one up. The game is maintaining all of the services, but getting them done through alternate avenues.

Even if those other venues are much less efficient and beneficial, and force people to spend time they could otherwise spend doing stuff they have a comparative advantage in in learning to cover every possible bad possibility?

It should be theoretically possible to whip up a state that functions exactly like conventional moderate socialism does (i.e. most of the world) through the use of contracts and other Libertarian-friendly things. Just instead of the police charging you with "violation of Environmental Protection law", it will be "violation of contract to XYZ corporation". You might say that defeats the purpose of it completely, but my experience with Libertarians seems to be that they don't have the consequences of socialism, they hate the idea of the government pulling it all off. For some reason.

Libertarians tend to have a wildly optimistic view of the effectiveness and fairness of markets and people in general, combined with a deeply pessimistic view of the capabilities of government and those who make it up.

[Formless]

It should be theoretically possible to whip up a state that functions exactly like conventional moderate socialism does (i.e. most of the world) through the use of contracts and other Libertarian-friendly things. Just instead of the police charging you with "violation of Environmental Protection law", it will be "violation of contract to XYZ corporation".

Until you realize that the contracts are written by lawyers specifically to weasel out of any and all responsibility. They already do that as much as they can; but when the only contract is the law itself, you can't pull that kind of crap because the government can always close the loophole and tell you to go jump in a lake if you don't like it.

Furthermore, when the contracts are being written between corporations and ordinary people, there is the problem I already mentioned: people not reading the contract, or not reading it thoroughly enough, and corporations actively taking advantage of this fact. Even the way they write the damn things is confusing. Have you ever tried reading legalese? Just try the readme or licensing files that come with most software. I swear, I can barely get past the first paragraphs of most of them, they're so loaded with jargon and overly specific terms. I don't even want to think about what it would look like if they started making them obfuscating on purpose.

But my experience with Libertarians seems to be that they don't have the consequences of socialism, they hate the idea of the government pulling it all off. For some reason.

I think it was Mike who once argued that what many Libertarians basically want, and what would happen in practice under almost all libertarian schemes regardless of if the libertarians espousing it want it or not, is that they would effectively be trading in one form of government, the by the people for the people and representing the people's interests form of democratic social contract governance, for another, the corporations, whose explicit goal is to make money off the people by any means necessary. You're arguments regarding contracts only reinforces that notion.

As for the reason they don't want government to do it? I would bet its a combination of paranoid fear that the government is going to become Big Brother, jealousy of the power the government, greed (lets face it, libertarianism is popular among the already comfortably wealthy and folks who wish they were among the wealthy), and simple delusion. But of course, it does depend on the libertarian which one of those is the major factor.

[adam_grif]

This is getting a bit too lengthy to reply to you all individually, so instead I'll just say this:

The evidence provided by the original post does nothing to invalidate libertarian ideals. There are many valid criticisms of libertarian ideals that have been brought up in this thread, and I'm not disputing them, but "market forces didn't result in a beneficial outcome in this particular instance in New Zealand" is not one of them. The title of the thread, "libertarianism in action" isn't really even accurate. It's "somewhat-free market in a largely socialist state in action". I suppose it should be noted that not all Libertarianism is even right wing. There are a number of "left wing libertarians", who try to get the best of both worlds (personal freedom but socialist economic restrictions).

But I'd really rather it just be left at that, I'm not interested in getting into a political debate here, especially one where I'm defending a position that is not my own.

[Formless]

I think you misunderstand the point of the thread. Its not here to disprove libertarianism completely on its own, merely to present a piece of evidence that the "magic free market forces always work in the consumer's favor in the absence of government regulation" aspects of libertarianism are wrong.

But since you were playing devils advocate in the first place, I'll take that as the concession it was meant to be.

[adam_grif]

I think you misunderstand the point of the thread. Its not here to disprove libertarianism completely on its own, merely to present a piece of evidence that the "magic free market forces always work in the consumer's favor in the absence of government regulation" aspects of libertarianism are wrong.

But since you were playing devils advocate in the first place, I'll take that as the concession it was meant to be.

Although I don't doubt that the internet has produced people stupid enough to believe that, I don't think I've met any. Maybe I just don't participate in these discussions enough :/

I was playing Penn's Advocate here mainly because I don't really agree with the "socialism or barbarism" ideal that I've seen here in my lurking. Public schools and nationalized defense is about as left as I go, so I'm probably just biased in that regard.

[Formless]

Although I don't doubt that the internet has produced people stupid enough to believe that, I don't think I've met any. Maybe I just don't participate in these discussions enough :/

Oh, you have no idea. Just read the Volunteryist thread in the Colosseum. You'll either laugh or cry at the stupid.

I don't think its so much socialism vs barbarism here as it is a recognition that society can't function without some socialist policies, and that we tend to forget how many of the systems in place that are vital to society are socialist. Utilities like running water and electricity, for example, or the postal system, or for those who don't live in the U.S. like myself, socialized medicine. There is a balance between the amount of power you give to the government and the individual freedoms you allow to the people that is healthy for society: that's what we would like to find.

[bobalot]

Take for example a lot of the industrial estates around Sydney. Before the advent of environmental protection laws, many companies just dumped their waste on their properties. Decades later, this crap has seeped into the soil and has even started to effect surrounding areas in a few places. None of these companies exist any more. What is the libertarian solution to this?

Let me guess, they don't have one.

Eh, I wouldn't know. If I had to hazard a guess I'd say something like "they can dump waste on their own property but not others / public property. If it's leaking into other people's shit it's their fault." But who knows?

Hey asshole, you didn't bother provide an answer to the problem presented. In fact, you simply reiterated the type of thinking that led to the problem presented.

The title of the thread, "libertarianism in action" isn't really even accurate. It's "somewhat-free market in a largely socialist state in action". I suppose it should be noted that not all Libertarianism is even right wing.

How the fuck is New Zealand largely socialistic? By what standard? Please enlighten us.

[adam_grif]

Hey asshole, you didn't bother provide an answer to the problem presented. In fact, you simply reiterated the type of thinking that led to the problem presented.

I wasn't aware my status had been elevated to champion of libertarianism? I'm trying to tell you what they might say in response to some of the things, but I don't know what they'd say to some of the things.

How the fuck is New Zealand largely socialistic? By what standard? Please enlighten us.

As socialist as the rest of the west except for America (which is almost there, but not quite)? Public schools, public health-care, public roads? Please understand I'm not throwing around socialism as an insult here. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think you can call it a "free market" just because you removed some of the regulations. I've got no clue how things run in New Zea land, but nothing in the OP gives the indication that suddenly the market turned into a totally unrestrained Rand paradise. Vague utterances of "deregulation" is all I've got to work with here.

I'm not going to study up on New Zealand market legislation just so I can tell you that your post isn't a comprehensive rebuttal of an entire ideology.

[Surlethe]

No fucking dogpiling. If you already see one or two responses to the same point, it's better to hold your tongue.

[Akhlut]

Woops, didn't read all the way through the thread before replying and missed Surlethe's post about dogpiling.

My bad. Mod delete this, please?