The Big Flaw in Libertarianism

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I can think of a couple examples of markets that are not regulated which are completely fraudulent and yet make money like gangbusters.

The first one that comes to mind is homeopathy. Homeopathic drugs are not regulated by the FDA, and they are completely fraudulent. But stupid people buy them every day. Some even give them to their children and pets in lieu of real medicine or medical attention. Some people take them to cure their cancer in lieu of getting real cancer treatment. And they die.

Homeopathy is a giant ripoff and yet it is thriving.

Then you have magnetic soles, ionic bracelets, magic crystals, astrology, palm reading, reiki, aromatherapy, hypnosis, and country music.

None are regulated by the government. Completely fraudulent, making big money.

1) its not so simple because the placebo effect is well documented

2) if people suffer the consequences of their freedom and ignorance they and their children and friends and neighbors may learn.

If government regulates everything people will have no need to learn and so get dumber and dumber and slower and slower and more and more in need of regulation. Freedom makes each individual strong and smart. This is basic evolution. Regulation has no logical end short of communism.

 

[g5000]

After the FSMA and CFMA were signed in 1999 and 2000, the financial markets were as unregulated as they were before the Great Depression. Glass-Steagall was killed.

The big broker-dealers were given waivers for what little regulations remained. The derivatives market was completely unregulated. There still is not one single regulation for credit default swaps. Not one. Nor is there one for the OTC derivatives market.

The result?

A global credit crisis. A crash. The loss of untold trillions of dollars.

It continues with the sovereign debt crisis in Europe. We haven't even seen the light at the end of the tunnel yet.

And Jamie Dimon has recently demonstrated they did not learn ONE THING from the crash.

 

[g5000]

I can think of a couple examples of markets that are not regulated which are completely fraudulent and yet make money like gangbusters.

The first one that comes to mind is homeopathy. Homeopathic drugs are not regulated by the FDA, and they are completely fraudulent. But stupid people buy them every day. Some even give them to their children and pets in lieu of real medicine or medical attention. Some people take them to cure their cancer in lieu of getting real cancer treatment. And they die.

Homeopathy is a giant ripoff and yet it is thriving.

Then you have magnetic soles, ionic bracelets, magic crystals, astrology, palm reading, reiki, aromatherapy, hypnosis, and country music.

None are regulated by the government. Completely fraudulent, making big money.

1) its not so simple because the placebo effect is well documented

2) if people suffer the consequences of their freedom and ignorance they and their children and friends and neighbors may learn.

They clearly haven't learned. Business is booming for these frauds.

Look at how the anti-vax movement is growing. Now there is a whooping cough epidemic in the Northwest.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

They clearly haven't learned. Business is booming for these frauds.

and so evolution is booming too. Do you want an entire population of complacent boobs who know the liberals have got their backs so whatever they buy is just the best car or house or medicine as liberal government decides??

IF a libturd can decide what works he can decide what works best!! Can you imagine where that would lead?

 

[dblack]

okay... I'll give it a shot...

in a truly unfettered marketplace, where competition is allowed to flourish, the market would tend to correct itself, and little if any government regulation would be needed...

problems arise when government gives special consideration to a select few large companies, via legislative action that stifles competition... which ultimately creates virtual monopolies in certain sectors of the economy... not to mention creating companies that are "too big to fail"...

if you look at the record, you would find that the companies that are most needing "regulation" are the very same companies that became artificially huge due to favorable government actions on their behalf...


regarding concerns about unsafe working conditions, toxic dumping, harmful products, etc., these would rightly be addressed by property-rights and liability laws, which do not constitute regulation, as such, but come under the judicial protections afforded us by a properly-functioning government...

Hmm. A reasoned, intelligent and civil reply. So please understand that challenging or disagreeing with a view by no means, is intended as disrepect for the person with that view.
The challenge with the concept you have been kind enough to expound on, is that it has never proven accurate in practice. I am reminded of Communism. In theory it sounds wonderful! In practice, it never turns out that way.
For example, America prior to the 20th century. Slavery. When there wasn't slavery, there was horrible discrimination. There were sweatshops where women and children work all hours for poverty wages - and even then, they were often screwed out of those wages and fired if they refused the sexual advances of managers etc... There was no defense and certainly no retribution. Did those shops just correct themselves? Nope. Nor did they suffer a loss of sales. Nothing.
The coal mining industry? Did the owners just decide to make working conditions safer? No.

The point being, America was not the Libertarian Utopia some of your compatriots claim it was, prior to the 20th century. Well maybe it was for rich, white land owners. The closest things I've seen to Libertarian economies / governments, have been Hong Kong and The Ukraine. To some degree, India. Even Mexico might apply. Very little government interference with business. Almost no regulation or enforcement of environmental issues, wage & hour, discrimination laws, no such thing as an equivalent of OSHA and so on. Guess what happens when companies realize the government isn't going to help anyone they screw? Guess how much power the citizen has against say PEMEX in a country where the market is left to correct itself? Or what they odds that they would be stupid enough to even file a lawsuit?

All of this is irrelevant, as you're still leaning on the mis-characterization of the concept of "self regulating markets" cited in your OP. Perhaps you missed my previous comments, or bill's above (my bolding), where we attempted to correct your mistake. You're also still conflating two radically different types of "regulation".

The first type is law that protects us from being victimized by businesses (or anyone really) who would harm people in the name of commerce. No one I know of expects the market to "self-regulate" on such matters. Protecting our rights and enforcing justice is the purpose of government, not the market.

The second type of "regulation" involves our personal preferences and values that we express through our voluntary interactions with others; this is what a "self-regulating market" addresses. And this is where the heart of the debate over the role of the regulatory state resides.

In this context, it's my observation that the reason the "self-regulating market" is so dissatisfying to the regulators isn't because it fails to accurately reflect the values and priorities of consumers, but because it succeeds all too well. To wit:

I mean, I get the part about companies will lose revenues if they don't provide a good service, product etc... but seriously, does anyone think less people are shopping at Wal-Mart just because it has been shown to systematically disriminate against women on a widespread basis?
Nope.
Has Wal-Mart disappeared?
They're more profitable than ever.

The "problem" here isn't that Wal-Mart stubbornly refuses the demands of consumers. The "problem" is that, on the whole, Wal-Mart customers care more about cheap prices than they do about insisting women are paid the same as men. And, moreover, that women working for Wal-Mart care more about having a job than getting paid the same as men.

The regulators answer is to override the preferences of the customers and employees of Wal-Mart, presumably requiring them to pay everyone the same and either raise prices or lay some people off to make up the difference. I want to point out that this is the nature of pretty much all of this kind of regulation. While it purports to be dictating business practices, in point of fact it's overriding the choices of individuals.

This the prototypical pattern of the regulatory state. In the name of protecting us, it limits our freedom to decide for ourselves what kinds of goods or services we can buy, what kinds of jobs we can work, how we attend to our healthcare, etc etc... In other words, it's the state "protecting" us from our own (obviously) misguided preferences.

 

[IndependntLogic]

Cite examples of all these companies and industries that were so self-correcting prior to regulation

oh please, America had the fastest growth in human history in the 19th Century when there was precious little regulation. China grows from nothing at 10% a year long before they have had time to learn how to regulate.

Capitalism has 1.4 billion capitalist consumer regulators in China who are making folks rich at a faster rate than ever in human history.

Hmmmm. America in the 19th century. Thanks for proving the point I made with my little buddy oddball!
So if we only had slavery, child labor, people dying in coal mines and working on railroads, women unable to vote, sweatshops...
And China. Hmmm. Marvelous example. Ministry members are part or majority owners of every major company. None of those pesky environmental regulations - remember the Olympic athletes having to wear face masks in Beijing? Oh yeah, we want THAT in America. Not to mention the fact that over 200,000,000 people in China live on less than $4 a day. Wow. Really great examples of what not having regulation does for a country. Fantastic!
So. Facts. Hmmm. How will you deal with those, I wonder?

 

[IndependntLogic]

okay... I'll give it a shot...

in a truly unfettered marketplace, where competition is allowed to flourish, the market would tend to correct itself, and little if any government regulation would be needed...

problems arise when government gives special consideration to a select few large companies, via legislative action that stifles competition... which ultimately creates virtual monopolies in certain sectors of the economy... not to mention creating companies that are "too big to fail"...

if you look at the record, you would find that the companies that are most needing "regulation" are the very same companies that became artificially huge due to favorable government actions on their behalf...


regarding concerns about unsafe working conditions, toxic dumping, harmful products, etc., these would rightly be addressed by property-rights and liability laws, which do not constitute regulation, as such, but come under the judicial protections afforded us by a properly-functioning government...

Hmm. A reasoned, intelligent and civil reply. So please understand that challenging or disagreeing with a view by no means, is intended as disrepect for the person with that view.
The challenge with the concept you have been kind enough to expound on, is that it has never proven accurate in practice. I am reminded of Communism. In theory it sounds wonderful! In practice, it never turns out that way.
For example, America prior to the 20th century. Slavery. When there wasn't slavery, there was horrible discrimination. There were sweatshops where women and children work all hours for poverty wages - and even then, they were often screwed out of those wages and fired if they refused the sexual advances of managers etc... There was no defense and certainly no retribution. Did those shops just correct themselves? Nope. Nor did they suffer a loss of sales. Nothing.
The coal mining industry? Did the owners just decide to make working conditions safer? No.

The point being, America was not the Libertarian Utopia some of your compatriots claim it was, prior to the 20th century. Well maybe it was for rich, white land owners. The closest things I've seen to Libertarian economies / governments, have been Hong Kong and The Ukraine. To some degree, India. Even Mexico might apply. Very little government interference with business. Almost no regulation or enforcement of environmental issues, wage & hour, discrimination laws, no such thing as an equivalent of OSHA and so on. Guess what happens when companies realize the government isn't going to help anyone they screw? Guess how much power the citizen has against say PEMEX in a country where the market is left to correct itself? Or what they odds that they would be stupid enough to even file a lawsuit?

All of this is irrelevant, as you're still leaning on the mis-characterization of the concept of "self regulating markets" cited in your OP. Perhaps you missed my previous comments, or bill's above (my bolding), where we attempted to correct your mistake. You're also still conflating two radically different types of "regulation".

The first type is law that protects us from being victimized by businesses (or anyone really) who would harm people in the name of commerce. No one I know of expects the market to "self-regulate" on such matters. Protecting our rights and enforcing justice is the purpose of government, not the market.

The second type of "regulation" involves our personal preferences and values that we express through our voluntary interactions with others; this is what a "self-regulating market" addresses. And this is where the heart of the debate over the role of the regulatory state resides.

In this context, it's my observation that the reason the "self-regulating market" is so dissatisfying to the regulators isn't because it fails to accurately reflect the values and priorities of consumers, but because it succeeds all too well. To wit:

I mean, I get the part about companies will lose revenues if they don't provide a good service, product etc... but seriously, does anyone think less people are shopping at Wal-Mart just because it has been shown to systematically disriminate against women on a widespread basis?
Nope.
Has Wal-Mart disappeared?
They're more profitable than ever.

The "problem" here isn't that Wal-Mart stubbornly refuses the demands of consumers. The "problem" is that, on the whole, Wal-Mart customers care more about cheap prices than they do about insisting women are paid the same as men. And, moreover, that women working for Wal-Mart care more about having a job than getting paid the same as men.

The regulators answer is to override the preferences of the customers and employees of Wal-Mart, presumably requiring them to pay everyone the same and either raise prices or lay some people off to make up the difference. I want to point out that this is the nature of pretty much all of this kind of regulation. While it purports to be dictating business practices, in point of fact it's overriding the choices of individuals.

This the prototypical pattern of the regulatory state. In the name of protecting us, it limits our freedom to decide for ourselves what kinds of goods or services we can buy, what kinds of jobs we can work, how we attend to our healthcare, etc etc... In other words, it's the state "protecting" us from our own (obviously) misguided preferences.

With all sincerity, if more Libertarians were like you, your movement might be taken more seriously. Unfortunately and as has been demonstrated in this very thread, the overwhelming majority are not. I mean, you've seen the post that claim things like "Well if a drug company invested millions in a product and then found out it was harmful in a way that probably wouldn't be detected, and they stood to make billions off it with low risk, they would just be nice and tell us."
Seriously, WTF?
So I get what you mean about the two types of laws in theory but again, without both federal regulation and enforcement, they usually prove useless. I've lived in two countries that have pretty close to what you describe. It doesn't work out and no one ever sues. Hell their whole family will be blacklisted from working anywhere.

As far as Wal-Mart, you're argument boils down to this: You know the women are getting treated unfairly but fug 'em. If they don't like it, they can go without jobs.
Not what I want for my country.

This is what seems to be the logic of many Libertarians when it comes to the fact that no agency has a perfect record:
It takes 10 FDA inspectors to catch 80% of bad drugs before they get to market.
It takes 20 FDA inspectors to catch 93%.
Therefore the problem of making sure drugs that can kill or permanently harm people can be solved by getting rid of all the FDA agents.
WTF? Seriously?

Look, just because we disagree, doesn't mean I don't respect your opinions and the way you present them. I do. I have friends who are voting for Romney and others for Paul. I respect their reasons for those votes.
Romney would really be a close race for me if it wasn't for his positions on Gramm-Leach-Bliley and keeping the loopholes like the Double Irish and Dutch Sandwich open.
I love Ron Paul's views on the drug war, foreign intervention etc... but am diametrically opposed to him on other issues.
It's a shame the majority of Americans simply base virtually all their views on Liberal vs. Conservative vs. Dem vs. Repub vs. Libertarian vs. Tea party vs....
YOu get people like Whackball or whoever and they simply don't know how to discuss politics or theory. They're like children squabbling over whose father could take whom.

 

[LibertyForAll]

I can think of a couple examples of markets that are not regulated which are completely fraudulent and yet make money like gangbusters.

The first one that comes to mind is homeopathy. Homeopathic drugs are not regulated by the FDA, and they are completely fraudulent. But stupid people buy them every day. Some even give them to their children and pets in lieu of real medicine or medical attention. Some people take them to cure their cancer in lieu of getting real cancer treatment. And they die.

Homeopathy is a giant ripoff and yet it is thriving.

Then you have magnetic soles, ionic bracelets, magic crystals, astrology, palm reading, reiki, aromatherapy, hypnosis, and country music.

None are regulated by the government. Completely fraudulent, making big money.

1) its not so simple because the placebo effect is well documented

2) if people suffer the consequences of their freedom and ignorance they and their children and friends and neighbors may learn.

They clearly haven't learned. Business is booming for these frauds.

Look at how the anti-vax movement is growing. Now there is a whooping cough epidemic in the Northwest.

So it's the role of government to protect me from myself?

 

[LibertyForAll]

If my family was about to be put on the street I would take a job making less money in order to pay the bills. I might be lower paid than everyone else but I would gladly do it just to get money coming in. I can always look for better jobs later once my family's needs are met. Isn't this logical? This is the free market as it applies to the commodity of labor. They pay me what I am willing to accept. When the government steps in and decides they aren't paying me enough and demand that they increase my pay the company is faced with two choices, either pay me more or let me go. Many times they will pick the latter choice and now I am left without a means to care for my family because of government intervention. Who are you to decide how much people should work for? Who are you to force my family onto the streets in order to enforce your idea of equality?
If conditions are so bad at walmart the employees can get jobs elsewhere, it's not like it's a niche industry with a high degree of specialization. When walmart realizes they have a high turnover and it costs them more money to train people constantly vs paying higher salaries then they will change their business model of they will fail as a business.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Hmm. A reasoned, intelligent and civil reply. So please understand that challenging or disagreeing with a view by no means, is intended as disrepect for the person with that view.
The challenge with the concept you have been kind enough to expound on, is that it has never proven accurate in practice. I am reminded of Communism. In theory it sounds wonderful! In practice, it never turns out that way.
For example, America prior to the 20th century. Slavery. When there wasn't slavery, there was horrible discrimination. There were sweatshops where women and children work all hours for poverty wages - and even then, they were often screwed out of those wages and fired if they refused the sexual advances of managers etc... There was no defense and certainly no retribution. Did those shops just correct themselves? Nope. Nor did they suffer a loss of sales. Nothing.
The coal mining industry? Did the owners just decide to make working conditions safer? No.

The point being, America was not the Libertarian Utopia some of your compatriots claim it was, prior to the 20th century. Well maybe it was for rich, white land owners. The closest things I've seen to Libertarian economies / governments, have been Hong Kong and The Ukraine. To some degree, India. Even Mexico might apply. Very little government interference with business. Almost no regulation or enforcement of environmental issues, wage & hour, discrimination laws, no such thing as an equivalent of OSHA and so on. Guess what happens when companies realize the government isn't going to help anyone they screw? Guess how much power the citizen has against say PEMEX in a country where the market is left to correct itself? Or what they odds that they would be stupid enough to even file a lawsuit?

All of this is irrelevant, as you're still leaning on the mis-characterization of the concept of "self regulating markets" cited in your OP. Perhaps you missed my previous comments, or bill's above (my bolding), where we attempted to correct your mistake. You're also still conflating two radically different types of "regulation".

The first type is law that protects us from being victimized by businesses (or anyone really) who would harm people in the name of commerce. No one I know of expects the market to "self-regulate" on such matters. Protecting our rights and enforcing justice is the purpose of government, not the market.

The second type of "regulation" involves our personal preferences and values that we express through our voluntary interactions with others; this is what a "self-regulating market" addresses. And this is where the heart of the debate over the role of the regulatory state resides.

In this context, it's my observation that the reason the "self-regulating market" is so dissatisfying to the regulators isn't because it fails to accurately reflect the values and priorities of consumers, but because it succeeds all too well. To wit:

I mean, I get the part about companies will lose revenues if they don't provide a good service, product etc... but seriously, does anyone think less people are shopping at Wal-Mart just because it has been shown to systematically disriminate against women on a widespread basis?
Nope.
Has Wal-Mart disappeared?
They're more profitable than ever.

The "problem" here isn't that Wal-Mart stubbornly refuses the demands of consumers. The "problem" is that, on the whole, Wal-Mart customers care more about cheap prices than they do about insisting women are paid the same as men. And, moreover, that women working for Wal-Mart care more about having a job than getting paid the same as men.

The regulators answer is to override the preferences of the customers and employees of Wal-Mart, presumably requiring them to pay everyone the same and either raise prices or lay some people off to make up the difference. I want to point out that this is the nature of pretty much all of this kind of regulation. While it purports to be dictating business practices, in point of fact it's overriding the choices of individuals.

This the prototypical pattern of the regulatory state. In the name of protecting us, it limits our freedom to decide for ourselves what kinds of goods or services we can buy, what kinds of jobs we can work, how we attend to our healthcare, etc etc... In other words, it's the state "protecting" us from our own (obviously) misguided preferences.

With all sincerity, if more Libertarians were like you, your movement might be taken more seriously. Unfortunately and as has been demonstrated in this very thread, the overwhelming majority are not. I mean, you've seen the post that claim things like "Well if a drug company invested millions in a product and then found out it was harmful in a way that probably wouldn't be detected, and they stood to make billions off it with low risk, they would just be nice and tell us."
Seriously, WTF?
So I get what you mean about the two types of laws in theory but again, without both federal regulation and enforcement, they usually prove useless. I've lived in two countries that have pretty close to what you describe. It doesn't work out and no one ever sues. Hell their whole family will be blacklisted from working anywhere.

As far as Wal-Mart, you're argument boils down to this: You know the women are getting treated unfairly but fug 'em. If they don't like it, they can go without jobs.
Not what I want for my country.

This is what seems to be the logic of many Libertarians when it comes to the fact that no agency has a perfect record:
It takes 10 FDA inspectors to catch 80% of bad drugs before they get to market.
It takes 20 FDA inspectors to catch 93%.
Therefore the problem of making sure drugs that can kill or permanently harm people can be solved by getting rid of all the FDA agents.
WTF? Seriously?

Look, just because we disagree, doesn't mean I don't respect your opinions and the way you present them. I do. I have friends who are voting for Romney and others for Paul. I respect their reasons for those votes.
Romney would really be a close race for me if it wasn't for his positions on Gramm-Leach-Bliley and keeping the loopholes like the Double Irish and Dutch Sandwich open.
I love Ron Paul's views on the drug war, foreign intervention etc... but am diametrically opposed to him on other issues.
It's a shame the majority of Americans simply base virtually all their views on Liberal vs. Conservative vs. Dem vs. Repub vs. Libertarian vs. Tea party vs....
YOu get people like Whackball or whoever and they simply don't know how to discuss politics or theory. They're like children squabbling over whose father could take whom.

In all sincerity, most libertarians are like him.

 

[IndependntLogic]

If my family was about to be put on the street I would take a job making less money in order to pay the bills. I might be lower paid than everyone else but I would gladly do it just to get money coming in. I can always look for better jobs later once my family's needs are met. Isn't this logical? This is the free market as it applies to the commodity of labor. They pay me what I am willing to accept. When the government steps in and decides they aren't paying me enough and demand that they increase my pay the company is faced with two choices, either pay me more or let me go. Many times they will pick the latter choice and now I am left without a means to care for my family because of government intervention. Who are you to decide how much people should work for? Who are you to force my family onto the streets in order to enforce your idea of equality?
If conditions are so bad at walmart the employees can get jobs elsewhere, it's not like it's a niche industry with a high degree of specialization. When walmart realizes they have a high turnover and it costs them more money to train people constantly vs paying higher salaries then they will change their business model of they will fail as a business.

So basically you're saying that a company that screws employees based on gender WON'T correct itself and the market WON'T correct it either but Fcuk me because I think that's unfair (which it is).
Yeah. I've lived in countries exactly like that. I'd prefer my favorite one (USA) not be one of them.

 

[The Rabbi]

I can think of a couple examples of markets that are not regulated which are completely fraudulent and yet make money like gangbusters.

The first one that comes to mind is homeopathy. Homeopathic drugs are not regulated by the FDA, and they are completely fraudulent. But stupid people buy them every day. Some even give them to their children and pets in lieu of real medicine or medical attention. Some people take them to cure their cancer in lieu of getting real cancer treatment. And they die. People are suffering and dying as a result of homeopathy, and yet it is thriving.

Homeopathy is a giant ripoff and yet is a big market.

Then you have magnetic soles, ionic bracelets, magic crystals, astrology, palm reading, reiki, aromatherapy, hypnosis, and country music.

None are regulated by the government. Completely bogus, making big money.

I'm not sure what that's supposed to prove.

 

[The Rabbi]

If my family was about to be put on the street I would take a job making less money in order to pay the bills. I might be lower paid than everyone else but I would gladly do it just to get money coming in. I can always look for better jobs later once my family's needs are met. Isn't this logical? This is the free market as it applies to the commodity of labor. They pay me what I am willing to accept. When the government steps in and decides they aren't paying me enough and demand that they increase my pay the company is faced with two choices, either pay me more or let me go. Many times they will pick the latter choice and now I am left without a means to care for my family because of government intervention. Who are you to decide how much people should work for? Who are you to force my family onto the streets in order to enforce your idea of equality?
If conditions are so bad at walmart the employees can get jobs elsewhere, it's not like it's a niche industry with a high degree of specialization. When walmart realizes they have a high turnover and it costs them more money to train people constantly vs paying higher salaries then they will change their business model of they will fail as a business.

So basically you're saying that a company that screws employees based on gender WON'T correct itself and the market WON'T correct it either but Fcuk me because I think that's unfair (which it is).
Yeah. I've lived in countries exactly like that. I'd prefer my favorite one (USA) not be one of them.

He didnt say anythign like that. There was no mention of gender at all.
Are you brain damaged?

 

[LibertyForAll]

If my family was about to be put on the street I would take a job making less money in order to pay the bills. I might be lower paid than everyone else but I would gladly do it just to get money coming in. I can always look for better jobs later once my family's needs are met. Isn't this logical? This is the free market as it applies to the commodity of labor. They pay me what I am willing to accept. When the government steps in and decides they aren't paying me enough and demand that they increase my pay the company is faced with two choices, either pay me more or let me go. Many times they will pick the latter choice and now I am left without a means to care for my family because of government intervention. Who are you to decide how much people should work for? Who are you to force my family onto the streets in order to enforce your idea of equality?
If conditions are so bad at walmart the employees can get jobs elsewhere, it's not like it's a niche industry with a high degree of specialization. When walmart realizes they have a high turnover and it costs them more money to train people constantly vs paying higher salaries then they will change their business model or they will fail as a business.

So basically you're saying that a company that screws employees based on gender WON'T correct itself and the market WON'T correct it either but Fcuk me because I think that's unfair (which it is).
Yeah. I've lived in countries exactly like that. I'd prefer my favorite one (USA) not be one of them.

Read the last sentence in my post again. The company will correct itself when the costs of the failed business model demand it or they will fail as a business. Ether way the problem is solved.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Hmm. A reasoned, intelligent and civil reply. So please understand that challenging or disagreeing with a view by no means, is intended as disrepect for the person with that view.
The challenge with the concept you have been kind enough to expound on, is that it has never proven accurate in practice. I am reminded of Communism. In theory it sounds wonderful! In practice, it never turns out that way.
For example, America prior to the 20th century. Slavery. When there wasn't slavery, there was horrible discrimination. There were sweatshops where women and children work all hours for poverty wages - and even then, they were often screwed out of those wages and fired if they refused the sexual advances of managers etc... There was no defense and certainly no retribution. Did those shops just correct themselves? Nope. Nor did they suffer a loss of sales. Nothing.
The coal mining industry? Did the owners just decide to make working conditions safer? No.

The point being, America was not the Libertarian Utopia some of your compatriots claim it was, prior to the 20th century. Well maybe it was for rich, white land owners. The closest things I've seen to Libertarian economies / governments, have been Hong Kong and The Ukraine. To some degree, India. Even Mexico might apply. Very little government interference with business. Almost no regulation or enforcement of environmental issues, wage & hour, discrimination laws, no such thing as an equivalent of OSHA and so on. Guess what happens when companies realize the government isn't going to help anyone they screw? Guess how much power the citizen has against say PEMEX in a country where the market is left to correct itself? Or what they odds that they would be stupid enough to even file a lawsuit?

All of this is irrelevant, as you're still leaning on the mis-characterization of the concept of "self regulating markets" cited in your OP. Perhaps you missed my previous comments, or bill's above (my bolding), where we attempted to correct your mistake. You're also still conflating two radically different types of "regulation".

The first type is law that protects us from being victimized by businesses (or anyone really) who would harm people in the name of commerce. No one I know of expects the market to "self-regulate" on such matters. Protecting our rights and enforcing justice is the purpose of government, not the market.

The second type of "regulation" involves our personal preferences and values that we express through our voluntary interactions with others; this is what a "self-regulating market" addresses. And this is where the heart of the debate over the role of the regulatory state resides.

In this context, it's my observation that the reason the "self-regulating market" is so dissatisfying to the regulators isn't because it fails to accurately reflect the values and priorities of consumers, but because it succeeds all too well. To wit:

I mean, I get the part about companies will lose revenues if they don't provide a good service, product etc... but seriously, does anyone think less people are shopping at Wal-Mart just because it has been shown to systematically disriminate against women on a widespread basis?
Nope.
Has Wal-Mart disappeared?
They're more profitable than ever.

The "problem" here isn't that Wal-Mart stubbornly refuses the demands of consumers. The "problem" is that, on the whole, Wal-Mart customers care more about cheap prices than they do about insisting women are paid the same as men. And, moreover, that women working for Wal-Mart care more about having a job than getting paid the same as men.

The regulators answer is to override the preferences of the customers and employees of Wal-Mart, presumably requiring them to pay everyone the same and either raise prices or lay some people off to make up the difference. I want to point out that this is the nature of pretty much all of this kind of regulation. While it purports to be dictating business practices, in point of fact it's overriding the choices of individuals.

This the prototypical pattern of the regulatory state. In the name of protecting us, it limits our freedom to decide for ourselves what kinds of goods or services we can buy, what kinds of jobs we can work, how we attend to our healthcare, etc etc... In other words, it's the state "protecting" us from our own (obviously) misguided preferences.

With all sincerity, if more Libertarians were like you, your movement might be taken more seriously. Unfortunately and as has been demonstrated in this very thread, the overwhelming majority are not. I mean, you've seen the post that claim things like "Well if a drug company invested millions in a product and then found out it was harmful in a way that probably wouldn't be detected, and they stood to make billions off it with low risk, they would just be nice and tell us."
Seriously, WTF?
So I get what you mean about the two types of laws in theory but again, without both federal regulation and enforcement, they usually prove useless. I've lived in two countries that have pretty close to what you describe. It doesn't work out and no one ever sues. Hell their whole family will be blacklisted from working anywhere.

As far as Wal-Mart, you're argument boils down to this: You know the women are getting treated unfairly but fug 'em. If they don't like it, they can go without jobs.
Not what I want for my country.

This is what seems to be the logic of many Libertarians when it comes to the fact that no agency has a perfect record:
It takes 10 FDA inspectors to catch 80% of bad drugs before they get to market.
It takes 20 FDA inspectors to catch 93%.
Therefore the problem of making sure drugs that can kill or permanently harm people can be solved by getting rid of all the FDA agents.
WTF? Seriously?

Look, just because we disagree, doesn't mean I don't respect your opinions and the way you present them. I do. I have friends who are voting for Romney and others for Paul. I respect their reasons for those votes.
Romney would really be a close race for me if it wasn't for his positions on Gramm-Leach-Bliley and keeping the loopholes like the Double Irish and Dutch Sandwich open.
I love Ron Paul's views on the drug war, foreign intervention etc... but am diametrically opposed to him on other issues.
It's a shame the majority of Americans simply base virtually all their views on Liberal vs. Conservative vs. Dem vs. Repub vs. Libertarian vs. Tea party vs....
YOu get people like Whackball or whoever and they simply don't know how to discuss politics or theory. They're like children squabbling over whose father could take whom.

Sad that IL can't help himself with the negative characterizations and childish insults. Then he blames others for a debate going south.

If a drug company invested tons of money, then flaws were later found, would you keep buying products from said company? Knowingly selling flawed products would be fatal in a free market. They'd have their pants sued off and people would just go to their competitors.

No, his point was as a consumer if you don't like their practices don't buy their stuff. If their stuff isn't bought, they'll change, whether they morally want to or not.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Anyone can list a bunch of companies.
Show how this list proves your assertion.

So all of those companies have been found guilty of the above (okay, maybe not Chrysler). Does anyone really believe that those companies would have spent the millions of dollars necessary to make their products or practices safer / fairer without government imposed consequences? The only people I know who do, are Libertarians.

So... you cannot show how these examples prove your assertion.
/thread

IL:
I didn't see a response to this.
Did you concede the point?

 

[dblack]

If my family was about to be put on the street I would take a job making less money in order to pay the bills. I might be lower paid than everyone else but I would gladly do it just to get money coming in. I can always look for better jobs later once my family's needs are met. Isn't this logical? This is the free market as it applies to the commodity of labor. They pay me what I am willing to accept. When the government steps in and decides they aren't paying me enough and demand that they increase my pay the company is faced with two choices, either pay me more or let me go. Many times they will pick the latter choice and now I am left without a means to care for my family because of government intervention. Who are you to decide how much people should work for? Who are you to force my family onto the streets in order to enforce your idea of equality?
If conditions are so bad at walmart the employees can get jobs elsewhere, it's not like it's a niche industry with a high degree of specialization. When walmart realizes they have a high turnover and it costs them more money to train people constantly vs paying higher salaries then they will change their business model of they will fail as a business.

So basically you're saying that a company that screws employees based on gender WON'T correct itself and the market WON'T correct it either but Fcuk me because I think that's unfair (which it is).
Yeah. I've lived in countries exactly like that. I'd prefer my favorite one (USA) not be one of them.

That's not what I got out of LFA's post. The point is: a self-regulating market does respond to the priorities and values of the people involved, it's just that those priorities and values aren't always what you think they should be. Further, those values aren't always the same as what people say when they think someone else is footing the bill.

 

[IndependntLogic]

If my family was about to be put on the street I would take a job making less money in order to pay the bills. I might be lower paid than everyone else but I would gladly do it just to get money coming in. I can always look for better jobs later once my family's needs are met. Isn't this logical? This is the free market as it applies to the commodity of labor. They pay me what I am willing to accept. When the government steps in and decides they aren't paying me enough and demand that they increase my pay the company is faced with two choices, either pay me more or let me go. Many times they will pick the latter choice and now I am left without a means to care for my family because of government intervention. Who are you to decide how much people should work for? Who are you to force my family onto the streets in order to enforce your idea of equality?
If conditions are so bad at walmart the employees can get jobs elsewhere, it's not like it's a niche industry with a high degree of specialization. When walmart realizes they have a high turnover and it costs them more money to train people constantly vs paying higher salaries then they will change their business model or they will fail as a business.

So basically you're saying that a company that screws employees based on gender WON'T correct itself and the market WON'T correct it either but Fcuk me because I think that's unfair (which it is).
Yeah. I've lived in countries exactly like that. I'd prefer my favorite one (USA) not be one of them.

Read the last sentence in my post again. The company will correct itself when the costs of the failed business model demand it or they will fail as a business. Ether way the problem is solved.

Um yeah. Lovely theory. Have you noticed that none of those things have happened? The company hasn't corrected itself. It won't. The economy is tough and they will just continue screwing people. Also, it also has not failed. It is as profitiable as ever. Customers aren't going away because of the way Wal-Mart treats employees. Neither is there a shortage of people desperate enough to work there.
That is not theory.
That is the difference between your theory and what happens in real life.
That is reality.
The examples of this are too numerous to ever count.
If you have ever lived in a country with little or no regulation in this regard, you will find out this is reality everywhere there is no such regulation.
Name a country with no environmental regulation or enforcement.
I'll show you a country where the envirnment is destroyed.
Name a country with no labor regulation or efnorcement.
I'll show you a country with horrible labor conditions and wages.
Reality.

 

[saveliberty]

I know someone who really likes working at Walmart. Of course, that doesn't make the news or fit some scenario, so few hear it.

 

[IndependntLogic]

If my family was about to be put on the street I would take a job making less money in order to pay the bills. I might be lower paid than everyone else but I would gladly do it just to get money coming in. I can always look for better jobs later once my family's needs are met. Isn't this logical? This is the free market as it applies to the commodity of labor. They pay me what I am willing to accept. When the government steps in and decides they aren't paying me enough and demand that they increase my pay the company is faced with two choices, either pay me more or let me go. Many times they will pick the latter choice and now I am left without a means to care for my family because of government intervention. Who are you to decide how much people should work for? Who are you to force my family onto the streets in order to enforce your idea of equality?
If conditions are so bad at walmart the employees can get jobs elsewhere, it's not like it's a niche industry with a high degree of specialization. When walmart realizes they have a high turnover and it costs them more money to train people constantly vs paying higher salaries then they will change their business model of they will fail as a business.

So basically you're saying that a company that screws employees based on gender WON'T correct itself and the market WON'T correct it either but Fcuk me because I think that's unfair (which it is).
Yeah. I've lived in countries exactly like that. I'd prefer my favorite one (USA) not be one of them.

He didnt say anythign like that. There was no mention of gender at all.
Are you brain damaged?

Dude, I know you're my little biotch and all but following me around to post about me, instead of topics is getting boring. Let go of your obssesssion! Discuss a TOPIC some time! Ignore status for you junior

So all of those companies have been found guilty of the above (okay, maybe not Chrysler). Does anyone really believe that those companies would have spent the millions of dollars necessary to make their products or practices safer / fairer without government imposed consequences? The only people I know who do, are Libertarians.

So... you cannot show how these examples prove your assertion.
/thread

IL:
I didn't see a response to this.
Did you concede the point?

I've provided dozens of examples throught the thread. If you search this thread with my name, you can find them quickly and easily.