undefined | Better HN

0 pointstomp9y ago0 comments

I'm very libertarian, but I view "liberty" primarily as an individual thing; I don't subscribe to the notion that corporations are people or have human rights. I think it's most certainly in the interest of us all that the governments enforce certain rules and protect us in some ways, as long as there are ways to avoid the rules.

For example, killing is forbidden, except euthanasia (in certain countries). Hedge funds can exist, but they can't do any marketing and can only have "sophisticated" investors. In Sweden, alcohol is only sold by special stores.

I'd advocate the same approach to health & food safety. Businesses can sell everything, but there should be limits on (1) marketing (can't market sugar to kids, if at all), (2) taxes (more sugar, more tax - similar to tobacco), (3) general availability (can't buy cigarettes under 18), and (4) labeling (I support labeling of GMOs and of even trace amounts of trans fat).

Edit: especially number 4 above - I see no reason that a honest business would ever see information disclosure regulation as a negative thing; in addition, availability of (trustworthy) information will only increase the economic activity and decrease economic waste (again, only applies to honest companies and products).

0 comments

twoodfin9y ago

If I were trying to run a small bakery or confectionary under all the terms (and more, presumably) of your last paragraph, I'd have a hard time believing you took my individual liberty (or that of my customers) very seriously.

tompOP9y ago

Again, something that is solvable with smart regulation. E.g. some rules apply only for businesses with more than $100k turnover, or $1M or whatever. Alternatively, your customers need to sign a statement that they will pay out of pocket for any medical costs resulting from eating your sugar (similar to "sophisticated investors" and hedge funds).

But then again, as I said above, I see business as a privilege, not a right. After all, you could also say that your individual liberty is being infringed by taxes - but you can always move to a deserted island, stop using the services provided by the governments, and pay no tax!

josinalvo9y ago

I agree with you 100%.

But that is not usually considered libertarian.

A libertarian scheme would usually be like 'certification should be a business, and foods should be certified sugar free by a specific certification company, and bear that company's sugar-free logo'.

Which I think is highly impractical

Kenji9y ago

Again, something that is solvable with smart regulation.

But then again, as I said above, I see business as a privilege, not a right.

Wow. Stop considering yourself a libertarian, seriously. This is authoritarian talk. All I see you arguing for is rules, and if somone points out their flaws, more and 'smarter' rules. This is the exact opposite of libertarianism.

1 more reply

jpindar9y ago

>a privilege, not a right

One of the most statist phrases ever.

dorfsmay9y ago

Are those views accepted by most libertarians?

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse