Archive

Archive for November, 2010

Explaining the Libertarian: Corporate Responsibility

November 16th, 2010

This is the second installation of the Explaining the Libertarian series, view the first here

Businesses should be held accountable for the bad things they do by both consumers and government, this is the belief of the libertarian. However, the areas in which each group is responsible differs and it is all too often not clear which group is responsible for what.

It is obvious that businesses often do very little policing of themselves, especially when there is no incentive to do so. Since this is the case, it is clear that they need external pressure to ensure they have good business practices. So where does the role of the consumer, and the role of the government begin and end in this matter? Let’s begin with government.

As stated in the first article of this series, libertarians believe that the government has two functions as it relates to businesses. First, businesses should be required to give full and accurate information to consumers on the products and services they consume, and second, that businesses are held fully accountable for any negligent actions. This ensures that businesses are allowed to operate in a manner that is best suited to each individual business’s needs, provides the consumer with access to any goods they may want, complete with all of the information they need to make an informed decision, and gives businesses an incentive to do right or else face unrestricted legal action from both the government and the infringed-upon. Beyond requiring information on products and services and enforcing accountability, the rest falls on the shoulders of the consumer.

In order for a business to place their product or service for sale on the market, they would have to provide full information about what their product is intended for, and any hazards associated with using their product. When a consumer buys something from a business, they are basically entering into a contract, that being they are agreeing to buy whatever it may be in the condition that the business describes the product as. So long as you have been given the option to be informed about your purchase and use of a product, by purchasing the product, you agree to release the business that made the product from any liability associated with the use of their product, so long as the business made available full information on the intended usage and dangers of their product. Say you want to buy medicine for a headache, so you go to the store and buy a medicine that you approve of based on cost, intended use, and side-effects. If the business has made available information that states you may get rectal bleeding from taking their product, then you assume the risks of using the product since you agreed to purchase it knowing that problem could happen. Now say the business had not made that information available, both you and the government could pursue legal action against the company and receive a settlement. The fines and injury awards would be enough to ensure that most companies are thorough in their actions to inform consumers about their products.

Aside from being an informed consumer, there must also be consumer activists. These are people and groups who publicly protest and boycott businesses and products for various reasons. Say that a restaurant treats a disabled child and their family badly because of their disability. On instinct, many people would call for a government of some sort to pass laws requiring that restaurants such as this give this boy the same service as it would anyone else. Making this restaurant treat people equally in a case like this is not the role of the government, but of the consumer.

Why is this the job of the consumer? Ultimately businesses live or die because of consumer preference. In our current system, it is not always this way because of special treatment from the government. Without the special treatment, a business can only succeed by delivering a product or service in a manner that people like. When a business acts in a way such as the above mentioned scenario, it is the duty of consumers to boycott and protest that business. If an act is really egregious to someone, they should have no problem refusing to do business with a particular establishment, and to urge their friends, family, and others to do the same. Organizing people to confront and boycott businesses that do things people don’t agree with is the most effective way to get results. No business likes bad PR, and if they are hurt enough financially they will either collapse or change their ways. One last thing to add, it is better to see businesses discriminate out in the open in order to better target them, than to have that discrimination hidden away.

So what about businesses that just can’t protect the consumer, and must have the government step in? This mindset is very rampant, but does not hold water. The best example is airport security, where government has stepped in to take control. Obviously the airline industry has failed to protect its passengers, seeing as how they allowed terrorists to take over their planes and crash them, right? When you consider that prior to this, the government prevented the airline companies from allowing their employees to carry weapons on board planes, they pretty much tied their hands and helped the terrorists out with those regulations. Going back to what has already been stated, if a business is allowed to conduct its operations in a way that is best suited for their needs and is held accountable for their negligence, there will be relatively few problems. Each airline could have its own safety practices, and consumers are free to choose which airline is best for them based on how far the airline goes to protect its passengers. The airlines that do bad will fold because no one will be willing to pay them for their poor services, and any time an airline is negligent, they will have to pay for it through the nose.

One last example here are traveling carnivals. Often these rides are thrown up and taken down without any inspection. The role of government here would be to ensure that the carnival provides information to its patrons about the state of their attractions. This would involve requiring that notices be posted about whether or not an attraction has been inspected, how old it is, any past issues it may have had, and how many times it has been dis-assembled and re-assembled. Notice that this type of regulation does not restrict either the business or consumer, it only provides the grounds for a consumer to make an educated decision. As for the consumer’s role here, it is their job to make judgments about how safe a carnival is, and alert other consumers about its track record and shortcomings. It should be obvious by now that consumer activism requires some effort, but not as much as you might think. Accomplishing these tasks is as simple as requesting information from the carnival, which it would be required to disclose fully, and then bring that information to local news outlets, as well as spread this information through word of mouth. If people decide that the carnival is not doing something right, they will abstain from anything they deem unsafe due to their new-found knowledge, and the carnival will lose money and customers until it makes sufficient changes. Imagine how many people would pause and think for a moment if they were to see a sign on the ride they are about to get on that says the ride has not been inspected and may not be safe.

Some may see this as a contradiction to libertarian values, as we do not advocate the use of force against others. We are however permitted to use force in the defense of others. Observing this, this permits government to force businesses to provide full and accurate information about their products in the defense of consumers. If a business knowingly sells a service or product to a consumer that can harm them, but does not disclose this, the business is in effect depriving the consumer of their liberty.

It all comes down to holding businesses accountable and promoting consumer knowledge. Rather than restrict businesses and consumers from doing business with one another, the libertarian prefers to allow the consumer to make the decision as to whether or not a transaction should take place. Remember, knowledge is power, use it rather than force to help make the world a better place.

VN:F [1.9.9_1125]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.9_1125]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Stephen Articles, PL Contributors

For Understanding: Explaining the Libertarian

November 9th, 2010

It is often that I find people regularly misunderstanding where libertarian types are coming from when they make statements about their positions on limited government and the way in which government should be structured. Often there isn’t enough clarification on our “libertarian” end, which leads to confusion about why we support the positions we do. With that, I’d like to give a simple overview of how libertarians tend look at society and the government that “oversees” it.

Let me start with the biggest of the bunch, the federal government. Most people likely have a pretty clear cut view on where people such as myself stand on this monstrosity, that being it’s too big, too expensive, and too overreaching in power. The federal government should be more geared towards keeping the peace between the states, ensuring that states aren’t infringing on civil liberties, managing the military and border, and managing relations with other countries. Nothing more is really needed at this level, the rest of the issues can and should be dealt with at either the state or local levels. This helps to prevent a lot of corruption, political handouts, and general waste at the federal level, and allows people to focus much more of their energy on their local political institutions where their efforts will be the most effective. Also, the state and local governments are better equipped to serve their people than the federal government, since they are closer to the people and have a better perspective of local issues.

The state governments should be concerned with any social programs the people of a certain state may want to implement, the structuring and final authority of civil and criminal laws, the state guard, education, districting, major roads, parks, and the implementation and overseeing of regulations on businesses. Much of what the federal government currently does could be more easily and effectively handled here, not to mention that the constitution leaves many of these regulatory powers to the states anyways.

Local governments should be concerned with maintaining local roads and areas, zoning laws, ordinances, and what types of business and activities can be conducted in their areas. I’m sure there are bits and pieces I’ve missed, but the jist of it is here.

While I don’t necessarily agree with many of the things that governments do, this is the structure which best serves the people. Basically, a very light overhead at the federal level keeping the pieces together, which allows states to compete with one another in policy for their respective territories, while ensuring that people at the core local levels get a say in how their immediate surrounding area functions. This allows a lot of choice to people, in that they can live in an area that they deem best suitable for their chosen lifestyle.

Libertarians believe in the principle that government which governs least, governs best; a government that ensures that people are free to do as they wish, so long as their actions do not restrict others from doing the same.

When it comes to regulating businesses, regulations should do two things and two things only. First, businesses should be required to give full and accurate information to consumers on the products and services they consume, and second, that businesses are held fully accountable for any negligent actions. The government fouls a lot of things up and makes it very hard on small and medium businesses and keeps the big businesses on top by trying to direct traffic, rather than just ensure that those who do wrong, are held accountable for it.

Accountability is all that is needed in order to assure a natural rise of order in business dealings. We only shoot ourselves in the foot by giving preference to certain businesses through government granted power. A business succeeds because they provide a good service or product, because people want it to succeed. This isn’t how our system currently works though; it is designed to serve the biggest while keeping the competition at bay through regulation and subsidy. Businesses that perform badly and should fail are being kept afloat by government interventions, effectively rewarding bad behavior and punishing consumers.

When it comes to our personal lives, we shouldn’t be getting the government involved in what the people next door are doing, so long as their actions aren’t infringing on the rights of others to do as they wish as well. If you don’t like what someone does, take the civil route and talk to them about it, explain your reasons, and hope that what you say to them persuades them to your side. If it doesn’t work, well that’s life, and no one is ever going to completely agree with one another. It just doesn’t make sense to fine people or throw them in jail for doing things that aren’t harming other people, just because you don’t agree with them. I think we can all agree that “might makes right” is a bad thing.

Another thing I think we can all agree on is the fact that most of us work hard for our money, we earn it through hard work and dedication, and don’t like to see it taken from us. It is a given that taxes are a necessary evil, however that doesn’t mean that taxes should be rampant. It cannot be denied that taxation is simply, theft. We’d all be a lot better off if taxation was kept to the bare basics needed for a functioning government.

Government is slow and inefficient, and no one is going to agree with how their tax money is spent beyond the basics of society. The best way to ensure that the money intended to go towards helping people is to let people decide for themselves which charities their money goes towards. We are a charitable people, that cannot be denied, and we are great because we are generous. It would be ignorant to believe that without government sponsored welfare, help for the needy would dry up. Sure it wouldn’t be quite as easy as it is now to just get a check in the mail from the government, but is that really what we want our society to be? We would be much more involved with one another, a much more tight knit community, a people flush with humility, if we relied on one another directly, rather than through the indirect means of government.

I’d like to touch on one last subject here, that being foreign relations. We should be working at all times to tend our own business and establish positive ties with every country in the world. Throughout much of our existence as a country in history, we have a track record of meddling in the affairs of other countries, which has caused a lot of blow-back. We need to focus on our own affairs here at home, neutral trade with the rest of the countries in the world, and keep our military on our own soil, not just because of the massive costs and wastes of deploying our military across the world, but because our esteemed members of the military deserve to be here at home with their families, leading productive lives, and standing ready to guard us should the need ever arise. There’s too much to cover in this topic for me to put it here, and it takes a great deal of knowledge about our history to understand why we are in the position we are right now. There is one thing I can say though, if we are indeed in danger, we must focus on security here at home, and keep our noses clean abroad. This is the only sure way to assure our continued prosperity and security. The best offense is a good defense.

Live and let live, be generous and understanding, and let your actions set a shining example, rather than force your will on others. Live by the principle of non-aggression towards others. Let there be peace and liberty for all, for that is the solution to a great deal of our problems.

VN:F [1.9.9_1125]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.9_1125]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Stephen Articles, PL Contributors