Comment: Why do you insist on calling this "libertarian" though?

(See in situ)


tasmlab's picture

Why do you insist on calling this "libertarian" though?

HI Dwalters, thanks for your thoughtful and detailed response as well as your original article.

I guess I don't understand why you labor to call this "libertarian"? At the end of the day, it is a government regulation, enforced by their power to coerce and to to inflict violence, and is categorically non-laissez faire.

It might be a great preference, great for consumers, populist, etc. It might make the market more efficient and be dandy in helping consumers make decisions. It might be nice and well intentioned. But it is a government-based solution, and categorically/definitionally not "libertarian".

Call it "good government" or "good government regulations" or "good laws that even a libertarian might like", or "constitutional" but there isn't much utility in calling it libertarian - or as you said directly "doesn't make me less libertarian".

Why fuss? Just confess to saying it is a piece of government you prefer!

At this level, I'm just arguing against your chosen semantics and how you characterize the solution.

And this is all just on principle. Would you trust the FDA with this task? Monsanto seems to own the joint and probably would just use this type of regulation to define what GMO means in their terms and then find a way to dump on the local producers. But that is an entirely different conversation.

Currently consuming: Morehouse's "Better off free", FDR; Wii U; NEP Football