Fuck its silent in here.......

[Wheezer]

If they'd a-done that for President Harding, he'd be alive yet.

While Clifford used his break time Monday to bang out a few pointed e-mails to GOP leaders asking for help in getting his poster back, King Middle School Principal Mike McCarthy started getting phone calls from rank-and-file Republicans who were upset by what they said they had seen in Clifford's classroom.... They also objected to the contents of a closed cardboard box they found near Clifford's desk. Upon opening it for a look-see, they found copies of the U.S. Constitution printed and donated to the school by (gasp) the American Civil Liberties Union.

[Dr. Nguyen Van Falk]

If they'd a-done that for President Harding, he'd be alive yet.

While Clifford used his break time Monday to bang out a few pointed e-mails to GOP leaders asking for help in getting his poster back, King Middle School Principal Mike McCarthy started getting phone calls from rank-and-file Republicans who were upset by what they said they had seen in Clifford's classroom.... They also objected to the contents of a closed cardboard box they found near Clifford's desk. Upon opening it for a look-see, they found copies of the U.S. Constitution printed and donated to the school by (gasp) the American Civil Liberties Union.

A 'small government' movement railing against tyranny while acting like brownshirts? Go figure.

[R-V]

Yes.

This exposes one of the great problems with libertarian thought. First, it assumes that people are rational in the first place. And then it assumes that people who are rational care about preserving the system as much as they care about getting theirs.

[Brownie]

Yes.

This exposes one of the great problems with libertarian thought. First, it assumes that people are rational in the first place. And then it assumes that people who are rational care about preserving the system as much as they care about getting theirs.

It's precisely the role of government in this matter that indicts Krugman as a simplistic boob.

Libertarian thought assumes that self-interest trumps all. (Interestingly, no political system eradicates self-interest; some pretend no one should care about it. Of course BP, Halliburton and Transocean should be most concerned about their interests.)

[Bort]

Yes.

This exposes one of the great problems with libertarian thought. First, it assumes that people are rational in the first place. And then it assumes that people who are rational care about preserving the system as much as they care about getting theirs.

It's precisely the role of government in this matter that indicts Krugman as a simplistic boob.

Libertarian thought assumes that self-interest trumps all. (Interestingly, no political system eradicates self-interest; some pretend no one should care about it. Of course BP, Halliburton and Transocean should be most concerned about their interests.)

TJ's actually correct here.

[Wheezer]

Yes.

This exposes one of the great problems with libertarian thought. First, it assumes that people are rational in the first place. And then it assumes that people who are rational care about preserving the system as much as they care about getting theirs.

It's precisely the role of government in this matter that indicts Krugman as a simplistic boob.

Libertarian thought assumes that self-interest trumps all. (Interestingly, no political system eradicates self-interest; some pretend no one should care about it. Of course BP, Halliburton and Transocean should be most concerned about their interests.)

TJ's actually correct here.

Define "self-interest."

[powen01]

Yes.

This exposes one of the great problems with libertarian thought. First, it assumes that people are rational in the first place. And then it assumes that people who are rational care about preserving the system as much as they care about getting theirs.

It's precisely the role of government in this matter that indicts Krugman as a simplistic boob.

Libertarian thought assumes that self-interest trumps all. (Interestingly, no political system eradicates self-interest; some pretend no one should care about it. Of course BP, Halliburton and Transocean should be most concerned about their interests.)

TJ's actually correct here.

Define "self-interest."

Self Interest: When I JO by myself.

[Wheezer]

Yes.

This exposes one of the great problems with libertarian thought. First, it assumes that people are rational in the first place. And then it assumes that people who are rational care about preserving the system as much as they care about getting theirs.

It's precisely the role of government in this matter that indicts Krugman as a simplistic boob.

Libertarian thought assumes that self-interest trumps all. (Interestingly, no political system eradicates self-interest; some pretend no one should care about it. Of course BP, Halliburton and Transocean should be most concerned about their interests.)

TJ's actually correct here.

Define "self-interest."

Self Interest: When I JO by myself.

And altruism?

[Tinker to Evers to Chance]

Yes.

This exposes one of the great problems with libertarian thought. First, it assumes that people are rational in the first place. And then it assumes that people who are rational care about preserving the system as much as they care about getting theirs.

It's precisely the role of government in this matter that indicts Krugman as a simplistic boob.

Libertarian thought assumes that self-interest trumps all. (Interestingly, no political system eradicates self-interest; some pretend no one should care about it. Of course BP, Halliburton and Transocean should be most concerned about their interests.)

TJ's actually correct here.

Define "self-interest."

Self Interest: When I JO by myself.

And altruism?

HJE.

[Tinker to Evers to Chance]

DPD

Wonderful: http://politicalwire.com/archives/2010/05/11/political_ad_in_alabama_mocks_evolution.html

In fairness, Alabama has also given us the greatest political ad of the cycle.

[Dr. Nguyen Van Falk]

Yes.

This exposes one of the great problems with libertarian thought. First, it assumes that people are rational in the first place. And then it assumes that people who are rational care about preserving the system as much as they care about getting theirs.

It's precisely the role of government in this matter that indicts Krugman as a simplistic boob.

Libertarian thought assumes that self-interest trumps all. (Interestingly, no political system eradicates self-interest; some pretend no one should care about it. Of course BP, Halliburton and Transocean should be most concerned about their interests.)

Yes, BP, Halliburton and Transocean should be expected to pursue their self-interests, just as anyone would.

Indeed, rational self-interest leads the oil industry to actively work to limit statutory regulation on the front end.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/05/AR2010050504837.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704423504575212031417936798.html
http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-spill/index.ssf/2010/05/kenner_hearing_coast_guard_ins.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/14/us/14agency.html
http://www.pogo.org/pogo-files/reports/natural-resources/drilling-the-taxpayer/nr-rik-20080918.html#Industry_Influence_Whos_in_Charge_Here

So far, so good from a libertarian perspective, I guess: a self-regulating market mechanism is better than the blunt instrument of centralized regulation.

But how else to ensure adequate safeguards?

When it comes to the regulation of drug safety, Friedman (in the interview Krugman quotes) suggests tort law as an alternative to the FDA.

Set aside for the moment that he's more circumspect in that same interview when it comes to the tragedy of the environmental commons (allowing that "there are cases like the power plant that emits smoke that dirties my shirt in which the company is imposing a cost on me for which I'm not being compensated" that would be a good argument for government coercion).

Let's stipulate that all of the negative externalities can be mitigated and discouraged through market forces and tort law alone: that the risk of liabilities (and, if they survive, the subsequent beating a company would take from wary investors and insurers) should be enough to incentivize due diligence.

Accountability with less government coercion through a self-regulating market. Fine.

Let's suppose, however, that the same group's rational self-interest also leads them to actively work to use the strong arm of the government to limit their own liability exposure on the back end.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-oil-spill-new-20100514,0,6291548.story

Of course, in limiting their own liability at the legislative level, they're also effectively limiting the freedom of others (in this case, say, out of work Gulf fishermen) to pursue their rational self interests in the courts.

They're, in effect, using the coercive power of the state to shift some of their risks onto others. (In fact, it seems to me that a market that efficiently prices in risk encourages the offloading of risk and the avoidance of responsibility, by whatever means necessary. That the market incentivizes increased regulation in this case.)

Not exactly a triumph of libertarianism. And, yet, it's certainly consistent with their pursuit of that great libertarian ideal: self-interest.

The big point, then, is that in practice a libertarian privileging of self-interest above all will very often lead to un-libertarlan outcomes. (See also: bank bailouts.)

"Meanwhile, in the real world"... we have irony.

Here's the thing, though... Often enough we find such un-libertarian encouragement of government regulation dressed up in libertarian-like market-friendly language. From the story above:

The American Petroleum Institute, the industry's trade group, said Thursday that raising the cap could also increase the costs of exploration and production in the Gulf of Mexico by 25%, "which would threaten our nation's energy security, reduce government revenues and cost thousands of American jobs."

More than that, "tort reform" has long been a battle cry of many (though not all) self-described "libertarians" on the American Right:

http://reason.com/archives/2002/08/01/knave-of-torts/

For them, torts are just another form of stifling "regulation." And, so, increased regulation of torts thus becomes effectively another form of "deregulation."

And that goes beyond irony into just plain daft.

[Dr. Nguyen Van Falk]

But back to the original quote...

The overall effect of these twin strategies is to erode statutory regulation on the one hand and neuter negative market effects on the other.

(Again, both pursuant to a company's rational self-interest and both incentivized by the market.)

Say a company succeeds at gutting both of the above. Seems to me that all that would be left to ensure that the now-insulated market actor doesn't "get theirs" while burning everything else to the ground (whether by malicious intent (rare) or by negligence or merely cutting corners to cut costs) is... their personal responsibility.

Or at least their "enlightened self-interest." Which is to say: recognition that preserving the system serves their own rational self-interest.

Which was kind of the point of that quote from Digby's blog post (though perhaps poorly worded and over-simplifed):

The funny thing is that the same people who believe we should rely on tort law also push "tort reform" which essentially guts it.

This exposes one of the great problems with libertarian thought. First, it assumes that people are rational in the first place. And then it assumes that people who are rational care about preserving the system as much as they care about getting theirs.

This fundamental misunderstanding of human nature is what led Oracle Greenspan to find himself gobsmacked at the age of 80 by the Wall Street melt down. It just never occurred to him that rational people would kill the golden goose—even though they had already hoarded enough goose eggs to keep them and their heirs sitting pretty for centuries.

For all its cynicism when it comes to the power of government, American right-libertarianism is actually downright idealistic when it comes to corporate power and the working of the market.

The million dollar question for the libertarian is: How does one, in a world of competing parties with competing interests, have a functioning libertarian polity in which self-interest is not pursued to un-libertarian ends?

[R-V]

This isn't really a political topic - but did anyone else catch the 60 Minutes segment last night about the Deepwater Horizon explosion? Absolutely amazing that this guy survived. And an ANGER-inducing level of stupidity and negligence that led to the disaster.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/05/16/60minutes/main6490197.shtml

[Dr. Nguyen Van Falk]

This isn't really a political topic - but did anyone else catch the 60 Minutes segment last night about the Deepwater Horizon explosion? Absolutely amazing that this guy survived. And an ANGER-inducing level of stupidity and negligence that led to the disaster.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/05/16/60minutes/main6490197.shtml

On the rig, Mike Williams was reaching for a door to investigate the engine noise.

"These are three inch thick, steel, fire-rated doors with six stainless steel hinges supporting 'em on the frame. As I reach for the handle, I heard this awful hissing noise, this whoosh. And at the height of the hiss, a huge explosion. The explosion literally rips the door from the hinges, hits, impacts me and takes me to the other side of the shop. And I'm up against a wall, when I finally come around, with a door on top of me. And I remember thinking to myself, 'You know, this, this is it. I'm gonna die right here,'" Williams remembered.

Obviously he survived.

Does this give anyone else hope that Frank Lapidus is still alive?

[Brownie]

Let's suppose, however, that the same group's rational self-interest also leads them to actively work to use the strong arm of the government to limit their own liability exposure on the back end.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-oil-spill-new-20100514,0,6291548.story

Of course, in limiting their own liability at the legislative level, they're also effectively limiting the freedom of others (in this case, say, out of work Gulf fishermen) to pursue their rational self interests in the courts.

They're, in effect, using the coercive power of the state to shift some of their risks onto others. (In fact, it seems to me that a market that efficiently prices in risk encourages the offloading of risk and the avoidance of responsibility, by whatever means necessary. That the market incentivizes increased regulation in this case.)

Not exactly a triumph of libertarianism. And, yet, it's certainly consistent with their pursuit of that great libertarian ideal: self-interest.

But others' self-interest should pursue the great libertarian ideal of limiting the power of government to essentially pick the winners.

The big point, then, is that in practice a libertarian privileging of self-interest above all will very often lead to un-libertarlan outcomes. (See also: bank bailouts.)

"Meanwhile, in the real world"... we have irony.

Self-interest is the natural state of things. You cannot eliminate it. I will have my interests, you will have yours, whatever they are. It's not "privilege" anymore than you being hungry at lunchtime is "privilege" or you wanting to go to the Hawks game Friday is "privilege."

Self-interest above all involves everyone else pursuing their self-interests. Keeping restraints on the government is a ton more preferrable to shackling the people.

Here's the thing, though... Often enough we find such un-libertarian encouragement of government regulation dressed up in libertarian-like market-friendly language. From the story above:

The American Petroleum Institute, the industry's trade group, said Thursday that raising the cap could also increase the costs of exploration and production in the Gulf of Mexico by 25%, "which would threaten our nation's energy security, reduce government revenues and cost thousands of American jobs."

More than that, "tort reform" has long been a battle cry of many (though not all) self-described "libertarians" on the American Right:

http://reason.com/archives/2002/08/01/knave-of-torts/

For them, torts are just another form of stifling "regulation." And, so, increased regulation of torts thus becomes effectively another form of "deregulation."

There are various tort reform positions:

1. A cap on "punitive" damages, which are damages above and beyond actual damages.
2. A "losers pay" system in which legal costs are absorbed by the losing party to discourage frivolous suits.
3. A cap on the percentages a lawyer can claim in class action suits.
4. A cap on actual damages.

Some are just regulations removing the rights of others dressed up in libertarian clothing. Others are not, and are instead written to protect individuals from the nuisance suit or from having to pay an arbitrary punitive figure.

You won't kill self-interest.