Libertarianism Declared Dead

[Mister Agenda]

Are you sure you're not a liberal who is bad at spelling?

LOL! To be relatively precise, I suppose I'm a progressive libertarian. There's a spectrum. Granted it's a smallish rainbow, but one person can't truly be representative of libertarianism any more than one person can represent liberalism or conservatism.

 

[drkitten]

You don't need to worry about any orphans and widows - the whole family would have been in the factory!

I stand grateful for the correction; you are of course right, and this is actually a benefit as it allows us to "reduce the surplus population."

 

[Chaos]

You don't need to worry about any orphans and widows - the whole family would have been in the factory!

See how humanitarian those heroic, saintly industrialists were? They would - if Da Eeevil Gubmint had but let them - have made the phenomenom of mourning disappear completely, by the simply yet ingenious expedient of wiping out whole families at once in their factories.

And if public opinion hadn´t been so rabidly communist and anti-industrialist, they would have eliminated hunger as well by processing the remains of the people they eliminated into Soylent Green, only they didn´t dare because they were afraid of pro-government lynch mobs.

 

[drkitten]

It will sound condescending no matter how I put it so I'll be blunt: have you ever read anything about the actual history of labour and workplace regulations during the industrial revolution?

Libertarians tend to have their own self-stoking reading lists, just as creationists have theirs.

 

[Mister Agenda]

Words have meanings, Mister Agenda. In particular, "negligence" has a specific legal meaning that involves actual harm to a participant. As I asked Saul, do you insist that we need to wait for actual harm before we hold employers accountable?

As an example -- and a not particularly unusual one, since this is something that OSHA has cited companies for -- suppose that I run a fireworks factory, and I lock the workers in so that they can't decide to slip off during the day when they're supposed to be working.

In other words, if one of the machines throws a spark and sets the whole place on fire, there are NO functioning exits and every one of my workers, without exception, will die.

Can you, as a member of the libertarian public, demand that I provide fire exits now? Or do we need to wait until people die, at which point I file for bankruptcy and leave the widows and orphans not only in mourning, but penniless?

Thank you for pointing out the nature of words. I thought my post in its entirety made my position clear, but I understand why you might be skeptical. No, we do not have to wait until someone is harmed before we hold employers accountable for conditions that are dangerous and unhealthy.

I think there are improvements that can be made in many regulations that would make them less burdonsome to employers without sacrificing employee safety. I think there are some regulations that have outlived their usefulness or were never really necessary. I think regulations should be reviewed periodically and updated or eliminated as needed. I question whether having more regulations than the human mind can encompass is more effective at ensuring worker safety than fewer, simpler regulations accompanied by safety performance standards and goals.

My only objection in principle to regulations is that they carry the force of law but are enacted by bureacrats rather than elected officials. However I recognize it would be completely impractical to bring the needed expertise on each industry's conditions without a horde of specialists. Bureacratic specialists tend to get carried away though, so oversight that keeps the needs of all parties in mind is needed to keep regulations from multiplying beyond comprehension. I'm not convinced that we currently have enough of that kind of oversight.

I think it would be a mistake to throw out the present system, but I also think constantly adding new regulations is not the only way to improve it. I would not be comfortable with trying to replace it with something else unless the alternative was thoroughly tested, found to be effective (and an improvement) and phased in gradually. I don't have any specific suggestions for replacing regulation as we know it, I'm just acknowledging that it's conceivable there may be a better way to accomplish the same goal.

 

[Mister Agenda]

I stand grateful for the correction; you are of course right, and this is actually a benefit as it allows us to "reduce the surplus population."

I suppose it's easier to smear your opponents as you like when you supply both sides of the conversation.

 

[Mister Agenda]

See how humanitarian those heroic, saintly industrialists were? They would - if Da Eeevil Gubmint had but let them - have made the phenomenom of mourning disappear completely, by the simply yet ingenious expedient of wiping out whole families at once in their factories.

And if public opinion hadn´t been so rabidly communist and anti-industrialist, they would have eliminated hunger as well by processing the remains of the people they eliminated into Soylent Green, only they didn´t dare because they were afraid of pro-government lynch mobs.

OK, at this point you are abusing sarcasm.

 

[drkitten]

Thank you for pointing out the nature of words. I thought my post in its entirety made my position clear, but I understand why you might be skeptical. No, we do not have to wait until someone is harmed before we hold employers accountable for conditions that are dangerous and unhealthy.

Well, I'm glad you feel that way.

But how do you reconcile this with the more-or-less dogma of libertarianism that "laws should be limited to violation of the rights of others through force or fraud, or deliberate actions that place others involuntarily at significant risk of harm." (How about accidental actions? How about if you make your workers sign a paper and claim they did this "voluntarily"?)

That quote, by the way, is from the official party platform of the Libertarian Party (www.lp.org). Other examples include the LibertarianismFAQ which states explicitly "reject the use of force or fraud to compel others except in response to force or fraud," which would prevent anyone from compelling me to build fire escapes; "Understanding the Libertarian Philosophy", which states that "Government should not initiate force to seize the property of individuals. Government should not initiate force to compel service to the state. Government should not initiate force even when "it's for your own good." You ... don't have to sacrifice your property against your will for purposes that others decide on rather than you." (emphasis in original), which again prevents anyone from forcing me to spend money on fire escapes. The UK Libertarian Allliance similarly writes that "the state may not use its coercive apparatus for the purpose of getting some citizens to aid others, or in order to prohibit activities to people for their own good or protection."

Since you seem more than willing to throw the sacred Non-Aggression Principle under the bus, I'm wondering in what sense you can claim to be "libertarian" at all.

I think there are improvements that can be made in many regulations that would make them less burdonsome to employers without sacrificing employee safety.

Of course. But that's hardly a libertarian point of view. There are improvements that can be made in everything in the worldview of everyone with the possible exception of Dr. Pangloss.

I question whether having more regulations than the human mind can encompass is more effective at ensuring worker safety than fewer, simpler regulations accompanied by safety performance standards and goals.

The answer to that is unfortunately, "yes, it is more effective." As in, that experiment has been done and found wanting (health and safety engineering, especially after the creation of OSHA, is a major field of study). What seems to work best is to design regulations to cover as many unsafe situations as possible, and then to write policies, goals, and more recently, corporate culture, to try to capture the regulations in terms of procedures and to establish standards above the "mandatory" regulations. I've been having a lot of discussions recently with the top safety engineer at a major international food company on exactly this topic.... While it may sound sensible to have a simple regulation "don't allow carcinogens in food," this doesn't work unless you have a detailed list of what is and is not carcinogenic around. And while the simple standard "don't allow potential carcinogens into the same plant where you process food" makes sense, it doesn't allow for variations in what counts as "the same plant" (in some cases, "the same plant" might cover twenty square miles, while in another case, the plant might be sixty feet on a side).

The effect is that regulatory agencies write a detailed set of what you are and are not allowed to do, and companies are free to write policy and procedure as they see fit, based on their individual situation. When OSHA comes in to do an audit, they will therefore confirm two things -- first, that your written policy will, in fact, fulfill the requirements, and second, that your written policy is being followed. If you have a different plant setup from your competitor down the road, you will probably have a different policy, but that's fine as long as yours is safe enough.

My only objection in principle to regulations is that they carry the force of law but are enacted by bureacrats rather than elected officials.

Surely that's a good thing. The last thing I we need is the Asbestos Institute donating to the National Insulation Inspector for his re-election campaign. It's bad enough that the Asbestos Institute donates to the senator who writes the legislation telling the National Insulation Inspector what he can and cannot inspect....

However I recognize it would be completely impractical to bring the needed expertise on each industry's conditions without a horde of specialists. Bureacratic specialists tend to get carried away though, so oversight that keeps the needs of all parties in mind is needed to keep regulations from multiplying beyond comprehension.

But we have that in the court system (as well as in the politicians who control the regulatory agencies). We also have the fundamental recognition of the needs of all parties in the simple fact that companies write their own safety policies and put their needs into it.

 

[drkitten]

A right recognized as inalienable is one you can't sign away, by definition. Contracts for assassination would also be illegal, as would be conspiracy to murder someone. I'm throwing that in as apparently I can't assume this point is obvious. Oh, and you can't sign yourself or your family up to be enslaved either. Did I miss anything?

Just the Libertarian party platform, which contradicts you:

Criminal laws should be limited to violation of the rights of others through force or fraud, or deliberate actions that place others involuntarily at significant risk of harm. Individuals retain the right to voluntarily assume risk of harm to themselves.

They explicitly wish to allow people to sign away their right not to be murdered. While you can't contract to murder another, you can contract to have yourself injured or killed.

 

[Mister Agenda]

Look, I choose my party the same way most people do. I'm with the party that best matches my position, which, barring some purist theory, is the Libertarian Party. If I were closer to Democrat I wouldn't let the planks in the Democrat Party's platform that I disagree with stop me from voting Democrat and I would argue with someone who said I wasn't a Democrat because I didn't agree with some particular piece of their agenda. It's bad enough many of the purists in the Libertarian Party would disown me, I've got to defend my right to call myself a Libertarian from Democrats, Republicans, and Independents as well?

I vote Libertarian. I pay dues to the Libertarian Party. I attend Libertarian meetings in my region. I expose myself to withering derision on the internet by calling myself a Libertarian.

Are there things I would change about the Libertarian Platform and the party in general?
Yes. I would hope that many other people feel the same way about the party they belong to. I didn't have to pass a purity test to join the LP.

 

[Mister Agenda]

Just the Libertarian party platform, which contradicts you:

They explicitly wish to allow people to sign away their right not to be murdered. While you can't contract to murder another, you can contract to have yourself injured or killed.

Words have meanings. 'Risk of harm' is not the same as 'guarantee of harm'. Your opinions about Libertarians seem to be shaped by the assumption that the worst possible interpretation of any statement by a Libertarian is likely to be the most accurate and representative of libertarians in general. Do you apply this standard to any other groups?

 

[Mister Agenda]

Well, I'm glad you feel that way.

But how do you reconcile this with the more-or-less dogma of libertarianism that "laws should be limited to violation of the rights of others through force or fraud, or deliberate actions that place others involuntarily at significant risk of harm." (How about accidental actions? How about if you make your workers sign a paper and claim they did this "voluntarily"?)

That's an interesting set of questions. 1) We already lean heavily toward not holding a person responsible for truly accidental actions. I haven't heard of a driver being convicted of Manslaughter for killing someone when they lost control of their vehicle due to a heart attack when they didn't even know they had a heart condition. 2) Certainly we already allow hockey players and deep sea welders to sign a paper and claim they did this 'voluntarily'. I assume you are more concerned about, say, factory workers and that by 'make' you mean 'make signing a condition of employment'. Like the Army.

That quote, by the way, is from the official party platform of the Libertarian Party (www.lp.org). Other examples include the LibertarianismFAQ which states explicitly "reject the use of force or fraud to compel others except in response to force or fraud," which would prevent anyone from compelling me to build fire escapes; "Understanding the Libertarian Philosophy", which states that "Government should not initiate force to seize the property of individuals. Government should not initiate force to compel service to the state. Government should not initiate force even when "it's for your own good." You ... don't have to sacrifice your property against your will for purposes that others decide on rather than you." (emphasis in original), which again prevents anyone from forcing me to spend money on fire escapes. The UK Libertarian Allliance similarly writes that "the state may not use its coercive apparatus for the purpose of getting some citizens to aid others, or in order to prohibit activities to people for their own good or protection."

I'm sorry the rhetoric you refer to was overblown enough for you to conclude that libertarians are against requiring basic safety measures for buildings. The lack of such measures endangers others and justifies intervention.

Since you seem more than willing to throw the sacred Non-Aggression Principle under the bus, I'm wondering in what sense you can claim to be "libertarian" at all.

In the sense that life is full of gray areas and my personal choices over where to draw the line would have to be considerably more authoritarian to disqualify me as a libertarian.

Of course. But that's hardly a libertarian point of view. There are improvements that can be made in everything in the worldview of everyone with the possible exception of Dr. Pangloss.

I think you mean it is hardly a uniquely libertarian point of view.

The answer to that is unfortunately, "yes, it is more effective." As in, that experiment has been done and found wanting (health and safety engineering, especially after the creation of OSHA, is a major field of study). What seems to work best is to design regulations to cover as many unsafe situations as possible, and then to write policies, goals, and more recently, corporate culture, to try to capture the regulations in terms of procedures and to establish standards above the "mandatory" regulations. I've been having a lot of discussions recently with the top safety engineer at a major international food company on exactly this topic.... While it may sound sensible to have a simple regulation "don't allow carcinogens in food," this doesn't work unless you have a detailed list of what is and is not carcinogenic around. And while the simple standard "don't allow potential carcinogens into the same plant where you process food" makes sense, it doesn't allow for variations in what counts as "the same plant" (in some cases, "the same plant" might cover twenty square miles, while in another case, the plant might be sixty feet on a side).

The effect is that regulatory agencies write a detailed set of what you are and are not allowed to do, and companies are free to write policy and procedure as they see fit, based on their individual situation. When OSHA comes in to do an audit, they will therefore confirm two things -- first, that your written policy will, in fact, fulfill the requirements, and second, that your written policy is being followed. If you have a different plant setup from your competitor down the road, you will probably have a different policy, but that's fine as long as yours is safe enough.

On the other hand, when I worked in a heavily regulated industry I found that having an abundance of regulations that we found ourselves unable to completely comply with, even when we paid for having state inspectors on-site to verify we were in full compliance, was considered a cost of doing business that paid for itself as the few hundred thousand dollars we paid in fines every year make it impractical for any small outfit to get into our industry. At the same time our actual results were perfect. In my experience, big business loves regulation. I suspect you and I could meet somewhere in the middle on this and be in reasonable accord. As far as I can tell we only disagree on where the right balance lies.

Surely that's a good thing. The last thing I we need is the Asbestos Institute donating to the National Insulation Inspector for his re-election campaign. It's bad enough that the Asbestos Institute donates to the senator who writes the legislation telling the National Insulation Inspector what he can and cannot inspect....

If it's a good thing perhaps it would be better to do without elected representation in legislation as well. That is, your argument applies equally as well to laws as to regulations. Are you sure you want to go there?

But we have that in the court system (as well as in the politicians who control the regulatory agencies). We also have the fundamental recognition of the needs of all parties in the simple fact that companies write their own safety policies and put their needs into it.

I acknowledge that, but nevertheless there seems to be an unmanageable proliferation of regulations, so I question whether the current system is sufficiently effective. Your second point seems rather like saying a driver's input on the speed limit is fundamentally recognized because she can control how much lower than the speed limit she goes and whether she does so by using the brake more or the gas pedal less or installing a governor that prevents her from driving faster than the limit.

BTW, I appreciate the amount of knowledge you're able to bring to bear on this topic, it is very educational. It may not seem to you like I'm learning anything, but I am.

 

[drkitten]

Words have meanings. 'Risk of harm' is not the same as 'guarantee of harm'.

And a contract where I lend you money and you promise either to repay or allow me to kill or injure you as I see fit is does not contain a "guarantee of harm," as you can fulfill your end of the contract without any injury at all.

Your opinions about Libertarians seem to be shaped by the assumption that the worst possible interpretation of any statement by a Libertarian is likely to be the most accurate and representative of libertarians in general.

Not at all. I believe that "risk of harm" is,in fact, the most accurate and representative description of how people do business with loan sharks. If there were a guarantee of harm, no one would accept their money. In fact, there's merely a risk --- in most cases, a risk that is more significant than the borrower realizes, perhaps, but still a risk.

 

[drkitten]

That's an interesting set of questions. 1) We already lean heavily toward not holding a person responsible for truly accidental actions. I haven't heard of a driver being convicted of Manslaughter for killing someone when they lost control of their vehicle due to a heart attack when they didn't even know they had a heart condition.

But criminal law is not all of law, not by a long chalk.

In general, to be tried for a criminal offense, there needs to be (at least under English Common Law systems) an element of mens rea, "guilty mind." Basically, you have to have wanted to do something. But there is a long tradition under civil law of holding other people responsible for their actions, even for actions that were unintentional (which the driver who lost control might not have been convicted of manslaughter, they almost certainly would have lost a wrongful death claim -- and justifiably so). And the prevention of accidental injuries is the main reason for most safety regulations.

In Libertopia -- at least as defined by the typical Libertarian theorists -- the government can only take action in response to a deliberate use of force (that's the "non-aggression principle" at work), which specifically excludes both proactive regulation as well as most forms of civil response where mere negligence can be demonstrated.

2) Certainly we already allow hockey players and deep sea welders to sign a paper and claim they did this 'voluntarily'. I assume you are more concerned about, say, factory workers and that by 'make' you mean 'make signing a condition of employment'. Like the Army.

More accurately, I'm worried about situations where the inherent danger is not a bona fide part of doing the job. Obviously if you're going to be a smoke-jumper, then there are inherent risks in parachuting into a forest fire. But the job becomes much more dangerous than necessary if the plane from which you jump isn't flight-worthy.

"Sensible" legal systems recognize that the employer has a duty to make the job situation as safe as practical, in many cases establishing strict standards defining "practical" that can be (as you point out) quite expensive. Libertarian philosophy explicitly rejects this : "You ... don't have to sacrifice your property against your will for purposes that others decide on rather than you." That's an exact quote, and in this context should be quite revealing.

I'm sorry the rhetoric you refer to was overblown enough for you to conclude that libertarians are against requiring basic safety measures for buildings. The lack of such measures endangers others and justifies intervention.

Well, you're the first "libertarian" I've met who considers the rhetoric to be "overblown." Most of the libertarians with which I've discussed this are very insistent that the statement cited above is a fairly exact statement of their views, and that they should not as a matter of principle be required to spend their money/property in accordance with anyone else's purposes.

In the sense that life is full of gray areas and my personal choices over where to draw the line would have to be considerably more authoritarian to disqualify me as a libertarian.

Perhaps. But given that libertarianism is generally defined (by theorists) by the non-aggression principle, it seems to me that the mere fact that you accept that the government has the right to initiate force disqualifies you as a libertarian. (Actually, I'd argue that the fact that you believe that life is full of gray areas disqualifies you as a libertarian; most of the libertarian theorists point out that the fact that libertarian philosophy is absolutist and does not have any gray areas as one of its strengths.)

The analogy of a vegetarian on a strict meat-only diet comes to mind.

 

[SaulOhio]

Words have meanings. 'Risk of harm' is not the same as 'guarantee of harm'. Your opinions about Libertarians seem to be shaped by the assumption that the worst possible interpretation of any statement by a Libertarian is likely to be the most accurate and representative of libertarians in general. Do you apply this standard to any other groups?

Yes, thats typical of criticisms of free market ideas in general. Liberals, and even conservatives (You should read what, I think it was Buckley, said about Ayn Rand!) in general, interpreting them out of context of other, usually more fundamental, ideas.

For instance, when some hear the idea that Libertarians uphold property rights, they assert that Libertarians would defend the institution of slavery, because some slave owners defended their right to own slaves as their right to property. This completely evades the fact that the Libertarian case for property rests on the individual right of every person to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, which slavery violates. Arguments like this leave free market advocates bewildered, thinking "How could someone think I would believe such a thing?"

The reason for this is that both liberals and conservatives reject ideological "system building", and have no conception of hierarchy in ideas. That may be, in turn, a consequence that ideologies in general have been discredited by the disasters of fascism and communism. This, however, is just a psychological superstition. The problem with those two ideologies is that they were based, in some ways, on a rejection of reason, despite some verniers of the appearance of scientific thinking. They were immune from self-critical examination. Also their rejection of reason as a means for people to deal with each other made them incompatible with human nature.

Being burned on the hotplate of bad ideologies, they fear any ideology at all. But there is no way for a human being to live without ideas, and lacking a systematic ideology, what they have is a mish-mash of different ideas, lumped together in an "anti-ideological" ideology. Since they are thus incapable of systematic thinking, the relationship between the right to life and the right to property goes right over their heads. In the context of the present discussion, its the relationship between the right of free association and the right to life, liberty and happiness. They can make up some situation they think creates a conflict between those rights, when the hierarchical relationship between them makes such a conflict impossible. The more fundamental idea must prevail. In fact, any implementation of the derivative idea, the right of free association, must be an application of the more fundamental one, the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If you see a conflict between them, that means you are getting something wrong.

 

[Mister Agenda]

And a contract where I lend you money and you promise either to repay or allow me to kill or injure you as I see fit is does not contain a "guarantee of harm," as you can fulfill your end of the contract without any injury at all.

Not at all. I believe that "risk of harm" is,in fact, the most accurate and representative description of how people do business with loan sharks. If there were a guarantee of harm, no one would accept their money. In fact, there's merely a risk --- in most cases, a risk that is more significant than the borrower realizes, perhaps, but still a risk.

That's what I get for trying to use your own tone against you. I just can't carry it off with the same aplomb.

OK, it sounds like you're throwing out the 'contract to go ahead and just kill me' being libertarian. Fair enough. I know I failed to articulate why a contract to allow you to commit violence against me if I fail to pay you is profoundly different from a contract to allow you to play sports or to operate on me. I'll give it another shot. A boxing contract may require me to box, but I can change my mind for a variety of reasons and the most the person who holds my contract can do is sue me and even then if I lost, the judgement would only require I make restitution. I can't be literally forced to go in the ring. On this reasoning, the loan shark's contract could actually be legal, but if I fail to pay and change my mind about having my legs broken, his legal recourse would be to take me to court, he couldn't just beat the crap out of me anyway. I'm not sure this quite goes to the heart of it, though. The shark and I have a bargain, in which he loans me money and I agree to pay him back with certain interest in a certain period of time AND if I don't he has serious bodily harm done to my person. If I don't repay the loan then legally it is up to a court to determine the consequences--resolve the legal dispute--including whether any penalties the contract may stipulate are appropriate. Also the loan shark has no grounds to believe I am sincere in my agreement to take a beating, a contract where one side has reasonable knowledge in advance that the other side has no intention of following through on their end isn't valid in the first place. I can't speak for all libertarians but I don't think most of us are for overturning the basics of contract law--rather the opposite.

 

[Darat]

Y

...snip...

You do realise that your post was nothing but an extended ad-hom that can be summed up as "If you don't agree with my conclusions it is either that you have psychological problems or are stupid"?

 

[SaulOhio]

You do realise that your post was nothing but an extended ad-hom that can be summed up as "If you don't agree with my conclusions it is either that you have psychological problems or are stupid"?

No. It was an attempt to understand and explain why almost every single argument I have seen against free market ideas is a strawman. It was an attempt to get people to actually listen to the ideas I have been trying to present, without jumping to rediculous conclusions about what those ideas mean.

The hierarchical nature of human thinking is an important tool for fully understanding abstract ideas. Before you can learn calculus, you need to learn algebra, and before algebra, you need to learn arithmetic. The same is true of political belief systems.

My explaining that the rights of property and free association are both based on the individual right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is an ad-hominem?

My explanation of the hierarchical nature of my own ideology is an ad-hominem?

If you are going to claim that my entire post was an ad-hominem, then you have to prove that those two explanations are ad-hominems. Who am I attacking in explaining those ideas?

 

[Mister Agenda]

But criminal law is not all of law, not by a long chalk.

In general, to be tried for a criminal offense, there needs to be (at least under English Common Law systems) an element of mens rea, "guilty mind." Basically, you have to have wanted to do something. But there is a long tradition under civil law of holding other people responsible for their actions, even for actions that were unintentional (which the driver who lost control might not have been convicted of manslaughter, they almost certainly would have lost a wrongful death claim -- and justifiably so). And the prevention of accidental injuries is the main reason for most safety regulations.

In Libertopia -- at least as defined by the typical Libertarian theorists -- the government can only take action in response to a deliberate use of force (that's the "non-aggression principle" at work), which specifically excludes both proactive regulation as well as most forms of civil response where mere negligence can be demonstrated.

Out intertwining posts are getting lengthier, so I'll try to be brief. Accidents fall on a continuum. Some are more foreseeable than others and thus more likely to be attributable to neglect when they occur. This is why I agree safety regulations are necessary. Some typical Libertarian theorists believe the purpose of government is to protect our rights, which include the right to life.

More accurately, I'm worried about situations where the inherent danger is not a bona fide part of doing the job. Obviously if you're going to be a smoke-jumper, then there are inherent risks in parachuting into a forest fire. But the job becomes much more dangerous than necessary if the plane from which you jump isn't flight-worthy.

"Sensible" legal systems recognize that the employer has a duty to make the job situation as safe as practical, in many cases establishing strict standards defining "practical" that can be (as you point out) quite expensive. Libertarian philosophy explicitly rejects this : "You ... don't have to sacrifice your property against your will for purposes that others decide on rather than you." That's an exact quote, and in this context should be quite revealing.

Good point, see previous response. 'Libertarian theorists' make lots of statements, some of them mutually contradictory. The above, I believe, is explicitly referring to eminent domain, not safety regulations. Most libertarians object to eminent domain seizures to serve private interests (ie, give the land to someone who will pay more taxes), there is rather less objection to eminent domain in case of public works like having a highway go through, although it is still substantial.

Well, you're the first "libertarian" I've met who considers the rhetoric to be "overblown." Most of the libertarians with which I've discussed this are very insistent that the statement cited above is a fairly exact statement of their views, and that they should not as a matter of principle be required to spend their money/property in accordance with anyone else's purposes.

My impression is that you meet most of your libertarians on the internet. Like any other group the moderates outnumber the extremists in the real world, while the reverse tends to be true on the internet, though perhaps by a narrower margin in our case.

Perhaps. But given that libertarianism is generally defined (by theorists) by the non-aggression principle, it seems to me that the mere fact that you accept that the government has the right to initiate force disqualifies you as a libertarian. (Actually, I'd argue that the fact that you believe that life is full of gray areas disqualifies you as a libertarian; most of the libertarian theorists point out that the fact that libertarian philosophy is absolutist and does not have any gray areas as one of its strengths.)

The analogy of a vegetarian on a strict meat-only diet comes to mind.

LOL! Perhaps more like a non-meat-eaters club where the vegans insist they are the only true non-meat-eaters. You're an omnivore used to arguing with the vegans, and I'm disconcerting because, while I'm not a meat-eater, I think it is reasonable to consume eggs and dairy products and don't have a strong stance against the eating of invertabrates. The club is united in the cause of not eating cows and pigs and chickens, but we don't all come from the same place. I'm concerned about the unnecessary killing and eating of vertebrates, but reason the capacity to suffer decreases 'the further down the food chain' you go. The vegans have additional reasoning that rules out some of the things I'm willing to eat. OK, I'm running the analogy into the ground, but the point is, as much as the vegans might like to have it otherwise, it's a non-meat-eaters club, not a vegan club, and there is room for some honest disagreement about what constitutes 'meat'.

 

[Darat]

No. It was an attempt to understand and explain why almost every single argument I have seen against free market ideas is a strawman.

...snip...

Well it failed.