walton@ametek.UUCP (09/21/86)
Surprise, Keith--I'm going to rally to your defense here.
In the last few Poli-Sci's, Keith Lynch has made a point which
most others seem to have ignored or misinterpreted. He states it as,
"Why do you all think that behavior which is both illegal and socially
unacceptable today would become more prevalant in a libertarian USA in
which it would not be illegal, but still socially unacceptable?"
I believe that the 1960's student protests made a lasting change
on our society: people realized that if enough citizens simply ignored
a law, that was equivalent to having it repealed. Today's best
example, of course, is the 55 MPH speed limit. I recently drove to
San Francisco at a steady 65 MPH, which appeared to be somewhat less
than the average speed (I was passed more often than I passed others).
The Highway Patrol didn't bother you unless you were doing better than
70 because they didn't have the manpower to do otherwise. To a large
extent, our laws are codifications of shared values, and are thus
probably redundant. Keith's example of today's drug laws is a good
one. Those laws were passed in the 1920's, but drug usage only became
prevalent in the 1960's. Probably drug usage would be somewhat more
common if the laws against it were repealed, but I'm not convinced it
would be excessive. I gave up marijuana 10 years ago because I got
bored with its effects, not because I was worried about jail. Keith
is correct here--before you say "people would do thus and thus in a
libertarian society," you have to convince us that they currently
refrain from that behavior solely because of the laws against it, and
not because it is unacceptable to their fellow citizens.
An item from current news: Some consumer advocacy groups are
trying to get the FDA to require ingredients labels on wines, on the
grounds that people ought to know what's in the bottle. Several
people have been killed due to severe allergic reactions to the
sulfites used as preservatives in most wines sold today. The wineries
are fighting the proposed rule, and the FDA is currently siding with
them. Now, I think Keith would say that if people are sufficiently
worried about what's in wine bottles, a winery could clean up by
making a big deal about their wines having no preservatives and
artificial colors. None of them are, probably because they have all
independently come to the conclusion that it is cheaper to pay the
wine industry lobby to fight the proposed rule than it would be to
adequately advertise an "all-natural" wine, which would also be more
expensive to produce. Alternatively, consumers could band together
and refuse to buy wines which didn't have their ingredients listed.
This would mean no wine at all until one or more companies changed
their ways, and even then you would have no independent evidence that
the resulting ingredients list was accurate. I think it is probably
correct to argue that no one is organizing such a boycott because of a
perception that the government is already protecting them against
dangerous substances in food and drink; this perception would
disappear in a libertarian country. Comments? To what extent is a
company liable for deaths and/or injuries caused not by actual malice
or negligence, but by actions which slightly increase their profits?
-------