And that's not an Indian (or Chinese) only problem - pumping up livestock with antibiotics is common practice. I wonder when I won't go to a doctor to get antibiotics, but to the next butcher...
I rarely eat meat and stopped eating Sushi because of this. It's very hard to find out where your food comes from in restaurants.
I'd rather have some kind of regulation at that point rather than, say, media shaming - the former is more likely to result in a process that looks at evidence when deciding if enforcement is needed, versus hysteria.
I think there's a lot of cognitive dissonance in the views of many (not all) libertarians, and they don't want to acknowledge China and India are pretty much perfect cases of true or extreme versions of that system (more due to the inability to enforce regulations than lack of regulations themselves).
High standards are only really enforceable through high socialized systems, like those in the US, EU, AU, Singapore, Japan, etc. You need to have national standards to guarantee food safety, water safety (bottled water is less safe than tap water in developed nations with municipal water regulation, and cost way less or is free), minimum standards for health, doctor certifications (vs quacks selling snake oil), et cetera.
(but since I can't resist)
Of course libertarians consider self-interest in their thinking about a free society. Your key term is "get away with" and it points to the problems with regulatory agencies.
When a government body has placed its seal of approval on a product, it does two things:
a) Causes many consumers to trust the benefits / safety of the product, since the government said it's ok. (And they never lie to us, right?)
b) Gives the corporation wiggle room within the certification, potentially changing the product for the worse while maintaining its approval.
But if you take a step back, the limited-liability corporation is a fiction of the state in the first place. Hiding behind a "corporate person" could be a huge factor in bad behavior, enabled by state action. After the financial crisis in 2008, many lamented the fact that none of the bankers went to jail (although some corporations were heavily fined).
Perhaps limited liability is the problem. If members of corporations were on the hook personally for injury to consumers, they might behave better?
Sure, put the people in corporations personally liable without any government agency inspecting.
You're going to a society ten times more litigious than the US. People with no economic recourse to sue will get the short stick of things.
Your proposition is beyond ridiculous, and that's what merits attacks on the profound naivete of libertarian approaches.
I'd generalize to the "profound naivete of utopian approaches"
I think the same applies to libertarianism, it sounds good and clean but in reality human systems are like humans, messy chaotic and fickle.
I think when it comes to regulation of a company you need the carrot and the stick, the carrot is "good PR and been seen to be a good corporate citizen that treats staff well results in betters sales" and the stick is "If you break the law their will be consequences and these are the laws".
The problem with western markets (at least in my country (the UK)) is that we've moved away from the stick towards the US model of laissez-fair capitalism.
Of course people then make the argument "Well the US model can't be that broken, it's the number one economy in the world" without considering the last century historically.
The US is a massive economy but it also didn't get trashed in two world wars that nearly bankrupted it and was ideally placed to capitalize on them, it had all the advantages of the late industrial revolution/western civilization and vast amounts of resources.
It would have been hard for it's economy not to succeed.
Source?
> People with no economic recourse to sue will get the short stick of things.
How is that different than now?
> Your proposition is beyond ridiculous
Say you, without providing any proposition of your own.
Probably because some libertarians always have the generic comment of taxation is theft. When I ask them who should pay for the military I don't get a reply back.
It's funny, because they like to rag on communists who say exactly the same thing. Two sides of a utopian dream coin.
So I don't really see how your criticism against Libertarianism applies here because governments are letting it happen right now. It's only you, and what appears to be a minority of individuals, that cares about it. If it were a majority, then Democracy would be fixing it right now, right?
And, to answer your actual question: I can't answer it for every single person out there. That's how non-government solutions look like. Each individual voting, acting and caring about each specific problem in his or her own way. Libertarianism is the ultimate form of Democracy in that regard.
This is the root problem I believe. Poverty and stupidity. So in my imaginary libertarian world, people are rich and smart enough(because they learned to think and act for themselves) to avoid companies, who do practice things like that. And therefore those companies would go bankrupt.
(oh and for more direct harmful actions like pollution water/air, allmost all Libertarians would agree to direct action against)
These laws and institutions to enforce them do not exist in india, that's the problem
They do in the EU, and this doesn't happen.
Markets are economic systems that separate people into amoral atoms that have no mechanism to turn moral agreement into general behaviour. Even if I agreed something should happen, my isolation from others makes my individual actions a form of charity and an injury to myself.
If one company refrains from pollutants, it is "donating" profits to a moral cause not persuasive to other businesses. Yet if all-at-once agreed, no business is making a loss with respect to another.
I cannot really imagine what place libertarians really want to live in. They seem to think morality is an individual action radically isolable from cooperation with others. It isnt. The attempt to make it one creates markets for murder, rape, etc. as natural concequences of people's moral isolation.
Given the amount of industry resistance to any and all changes in labelling regulations I think both sides are well aware of this.
Anyway, what I see right now is, more and more food companies in germany are voluntarily adding in more and more transparency about the production chain. Because people are more conscious about it and more likely to buy things, which seems more ethical than the alternative. And if they cheat, well, there are still things like investigative journalism and whistleblowing .. so most companies would not dare, I believe.
Morality is allways individual action, as we are all individuals. Also if we individuals decide to form a group, for example for insurance and help those in need.
"If one company refrains from pollutants, it is "donating" profits to a moral cause not persuasive to other businesses"
Unless it openly adverts about this practice amd people who do care, are therefore willing to spend more money on this company.
This is happening a lot right now with organic food and other things (sure, some might only do it, for themselve - better food quality, but not all and even those still feel better, as they know they also help biodiversity and a enjoyable landscape)
edit: and those laws don't exist there, because people don't care there. Laws are just another way of expressing the will of people. I just prefer laws to be the last way and not the standard.
Our emotions, ideas, etc. are not.
When a crowd at a football game emotes, they all emote together.. inevitably and causally functioning as a coherent whole. Because the individuals cannot chose their reactions, they react the same way. They adopt a purpose, agency, goals and emotional structure that is only rationally intelligble when applied to the whole group.
Morality is founded in this inevitable common reaction to circumstances which binds people together under common purpose. Isolating people destroys their ability to act acording to their moral desires... you impair yourself to be how you would wish to be.
That's to say nothing of the mere collective action problems involved in any system of "mere individuals" whose cooperation cannot be guaranteed.
NB. incidentally, (nearly?) all human success is founded in coherent group action. The individual is a stupid useless distractable ape. Only in concert with a common-purpose-with-others do we succeed.
This is, after all, what a "business" is.
Definitely not. Only if I feel part of the group, I feel and emote with the group. But if I think football(or soccer) is stupid and the crowd full of stinking alcoholics, then you won't find me cheering with the group. I experienced both. But that's also why you won't find me near a stadium.
But with society in a bigger context, it is not so easy to choose.
No you arent. You're an ape. You arent chosing anything you feel, including this rebelliousness which may have its origins in fear of unpredictable group emoting.
I have that fear too, I am equally mistrusful of groups and of authority.
But that mechanism is merely a feedback cycle into group emotional regulation. Your fear is just another tool of group cohesion.
We are fundamentally a social species it is core to the construction of our psychology. Your dissent isnt lonefulness, in which you wouldnt even be commenting here.. your impetus to involve yourself with others is your group drive. Even if, internally, this seems "rebellious" -- rebellion is a mode of group interaction.
I am just turned off by most mainstream group's, which actually look to me that the main thing that is holding them together, is either force or alcohol.
But those who do likes that, I don't mind. I am just into different groups.
What you mean by individualism is actually a form of group dynamic.
> is either force or alcohol.
In fact it is neither. It is the very same thing that provides you with impetus to comment here.
You say I am a individualistic lonewolf, because I don't like common groups that much and don't feel part of them, but rather be part of other groups to which I feel connected and therefore then also feel with that group?
How does that add up.
"> is either force or alcohol.
In fact it is neither. It is the very same thing that provides you with impetus to comment here."
And no, when I refer to a common school group for example, it is a group bound together by force - they all have to go to school and don't have much say which class etc.
And when I refer to common drunk people on mainstream festivals who are friends as long as they are drunk, then they are bound mainly by alcohol, even though it does satisfy some social needs for them.
And yes, next to intellectual curiosity, I also read and comment here because of the HN community, to which I feel connected. Did I ever said otherwise?
(oh and by the way, wolves are also very social beeings and the lone wolf hunting is a very rare thing)
History has shown that absent any regulation and enforcement, if buyers want "organic" labels on their food, sellers will put "organic" labels on food regardless of what the food contains. Antibiotics and hormones? Pesticides? Those things are organic, under some definitions of the word.
And no antibiotics (unless sickness), no pesticides, etc.. Very clear defined. Also no genetically engineered food, even though I would not mind those.
Basically everybody can make up their label, yes, but it has only meaning and value, if I trust that organization. And I do trust both the EU as well as Demeter. If there would be a new label, I would investigate if it is worth anything.
...regardless of the fact that the product in question has no wheat component to it at all.
We are all individuals, but we're also very much social animals, and morality is a social matter. You're not born into the world knowing right from wrong, you learn it from others. When individuals make moral choices, they do so in a social context.
But sure morality is in social context, but still I choose to act moraly or not. That was my point. And I can also choose a different morality from the mainstream.
The option to care for animals/nature for example is something quite new (or very old). And it changed, because people decided to care about it. And there are still many who have the old codex, that we as man can do whatever we want to lower lifeforms. (to which some include humans of different color/class/gender)
A lot of nice things are theoretically possible when everyone behaves. Too bad the real world doesn't work that way.
Does anyone have an answer to this question?
> libertarian answer
Property rights in the land, air, and water.
Libertarian approach would be simply adopt to the new situation, as I realistically see many people just don't care or believe.
So I would (and do) still try to act as ethical as possible and go all for green technologies, but I doubt it can be forced up on people and do much good in the end, if people are not convinced of it.
Forcing developing nations to adopt the policies of the wealthy creates an understandable tension and incentive for cheating the regs.
Libertarianism is simply a political framework which we can use to see and interpret the world. It can be combined with other frameworks to help us reach even deeper levels of understand (or perhaps not).
The right-libertarian could argue that the best solution is a competitive marketplace that will fuel hyper-economic growth, and accelerate the rate at which we develop technologies that allow us to ween off of fossil fuels.
A left-libertarian, maybe someone with a strong civil libertarian persuasion, could argue that the non-aggression principle is being violated by the emissions of greenhouse gasses. They would then establish an "emissions rights" framework, and perhaps a marketplace to address the issue.
Or ween of dependence on climate. All these green arguments start from a false premise that human interference is the only threat to the stability of our ecosystem, ignoring extinction events and natural catastrophes that we know can be as impactful as global warming (and more). Instead of being conservative and hoping for the best if we stop burning stuff we should be discussing how to deal with a more volatile climate in general.