Comments on: Wherein A Libertarian Argues For Regulation Enforcement

By: Ken

Ken — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 05:58:40 +0000

I couldn’t believe that is was true when you mentioned it, but you’re right: March 18 is actually celebrated in Mexico as “Oil Expropriation” day, though it’s not an official holiday. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expropiaci%C3%B3n_Petrolerahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expropiaci%C3%B3n_Petrolera

By: Doug Murray

Doug Murray — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 13:00:20 +0000

In the first comment, jt raised the specter of monopolistic behavior if regulation (the most monopolistic behavior of all) goes away. What he goes on to describe, though, is not self regulation but industry self regulation. It's still regulation and certainly subject to the abuses he brings up.

But withouth regulators, insurers will have to be more involved out of self interest. And while the cost of doing so may be high, the cost of not doing so would be unacceptable to anyone, themselves, the airlines or the public.

The result of real deregulation is not self regulation but market regulation.

By: bryan

bryan — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 14:30:19 +0000

As a company that is a supplier and maintenance provider to airlines we are frequently audited by both the FAA and the QC departments of airlines. In general the airlines auditors are better, more thorough, and stricter, but at the same time more fair and consistent. Not being restricted to the "letter of the law" they can be flexible in areas where it makes sense and putative on issues that may not be technical failings but would cause problems. The airlines QC departments also act pretty independently and don't seem to mind calling attention to an issue even if they know it will cause delays or hassles on the operations side. As the airlines outsource more and more functions, more and more of the useful inspecting, auditing and regulating is provided by the airlines themselves. The FAA provides more of a bureaucratic hurdle, and from what I see makes decisions as seemingly arbitrary as that traffic cop.
We recently had new inspectors for our district rotate in, and now we are enduring shut down threats over procedures that were fine for the previous 4 years under our old inspectors . . . not to mention numerous airlines.

By: septagon49

septagon49 — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 01:28:48 +0000

In the private sector negligence would be considered criminal. People would be arrested, indicted, and jailed. In the public sector these short comings are almost expected. Usually the media does some story exposing the harm of government indifference. This usually leads to much hand wringing, show hearings with contrite bureaucrats, calls for more money, more regulations, and two weeks later it is forgotten. Government is an exercise in power and is not equipped to control commercial activity. While the top down approach can initially yields results, in the longer term it becomes part of the problem. It hinders innovation and creativity by restricting the possible about calcified rules. Changing the regulations becomes a herculean efforts and usually only takes place after some tragedy. If government is not going to enforce its own rules what is the point of having government?
There seems to be a misplaced faith in the government's ability to actual control the industries they say they regulate. Planes still crash, food is still poisoned, drugs still harm, doctors malpractice, building burn, cars crash, tires explode, bridges fall, etc... One cannot say that bottom up market based mechanisms would have done worse. I would say that the producers of goods and services have a greater interest in not harming their customers, and they are in a far better position to prevent such harm. Failure to correct defects usually leads to bankruptcy so responses are far more dynamic.
The information problem will always hamstring government. A small group of people on a committee trying to create regulations will be unable to collect, analyze, and cogitate enough information to be affective. The marketplace where millions act on their unique knowledge about their specific situations will always be able to process more information than any central planning board. It will always be the fatal conceit of any government with the temerity to think they can successfully control any industry, market or business.

By: Blackadder

Blackadder — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 01:20:15 +0000

Excellent point. Now apply it to immigration.

By: Jody

Jody — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 00:21:45 +0000

When I was in India, I had no problem with the Indian taxis. As a bonus, I got to negotiate prices.

By: tribal elder

tribal elder — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 23:06:55 +0000

David B. wrote-The insurance companies didn't do a great job of requiring buildings to be fire-resistant - you can read some of the history of how fire codes developed in my grandfather's book, Building Construction for the Fire Service. One of the reasons is that a given shoddy building didn't necessarily have to have insurance, and so therefore was not required to comply with any particular safety regime. This led to a lot of secondary effects where a bad building catches on fire, and it then sets other buildings on fire, and the spread takes out several blocks. Not a good situation.

Hence, fire insurance maps- the urban Sidwell maps- identified construction type, heating mode, industrial activity, so the underwriter for the insured building evaluated the offsite risks.

By: diz

diz — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 21:29:43 +0000

I don't so much have a problem with the government issuing some sort of safety seal of approval on airlines or other things.

Just so long as such government programs are funded by fees paid by those who get the seal, not the general fund.

My libertarian instinct says that such seals should be optional. That is, an airline should be able to decide whether or not it wanted to participate in (and pay for) the government safety program and get the seal. But I think the issue is probably largely moot.

By: David B

David B — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 21:00:04 +0000

The insurance companies didn't do a great job of requiring buildings to be fire-resistant - you can read some of the history of how fire codes developed in my grandfather's book, Building Construction for the Fire Service. One of the reasons is that a given shoddy building didn't necessarily have to have insurance, and so therefore was not required to comply with any particular safety regime. This led to a lot of secondary effects where a bad building catches on fire, and it then sets other buildings on fire, and the spread takes out several blocks. Not a good situation.

I've got a lot of libertarian tendancies, but when someone else's negligence can spread and affect me, I think that regulation is a reasonable solution.

By: mark

mark — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 20:57:38 +0000

" Rarely enforcing rules allows police ("

But the actual rational for a statute like jaywalking or speed limits is not to prevent this conduct, but to find an acceptable distribution of foot traffic and traffic speed. Enforcement is done to keep the planned distribution.