So what do you do about the FDA and the CDC? One approach is to scream "Get rid of the FDA and the CDC!" That what I call NL, because I don't think it attracts any support. It may even be wrong--it could be that in our modern society if you abolished the FDA and the CDC we would be worse off. The alternative I suggest is to create a COO position that has the authority, when faced with a pandemic, to kick out what I called the "peacetime bureaucrats" and instead foster a sense of urgency and rigor (do experiments, think about cost-benefit analysis, etc.) And create a CA position that can point out what the FDA and CDC are doing wrong if the COO can't see it.
Glad you came over to comment :) I very much appreciate it.
I think perhaps instead of screaming we (libertarians) should continue to do the work of demonstrating the harms those institutions cause, and continue to push for limiting their purview through legislation and legal precedent. It might well be that an FDA or CDC is necessary, although it isn't obvious to me at all that that is the case, but we shouldn't just accept that there will always be an FDA and CDC and try to work around them as though they were forces of nature.
I still do not see how the COO would be incentivized to kick out the peacetime bureaucrats if they did not want to. (Or how they would get around public employee unions that keep the president from doing that, for that matter.) Contrast the COO to the "House of Repeals" that someone proposed but shamefully I can't recall who just now... but anyway, that would add an additional group, but the benefit would at least be that their only power would be peeling off legislation. Very specific. The COO position has the authority to do things, but why would he? Will he run based on who he has fired and who he promises to fire? What governmental outcomes he intends to make happen? What investigations of efficiency he intends to make happen? That all sounds a lot like running for president...
Perhaps the biggest issue is that judging the COO would be very difficult, because you would need a baseline to judge against. In corporations you at least have year on year revenue, growth, profits, something to judge against. What does the COO get judged against?
I think there is absolutely a demand for quality control in food and medicine; and I think in a libertarian society, a few private entities, called things like the "Council on Food Accreditation" or something, to prop up and fulfill roles of the FDA - much like there exist private accreditation and audit organizations whom companies pay to give them seals of approval. They might compete, they might cost different amounts, but might establish a similar kind of order.
(Heck, I think in an anarcho-capitalist world of privately-owned streets, you'd still have zoning laws and privately-ordered rules that match what people want now - e.g. restrictions on loitering, littering, parking, and other things which people see as problems and now regulate through public ordinance.)
yes, I can see private entities doing accreditation in food and medicine. The challenge is when one is dealing with spillovers. It can take a lot of Coasian bargaining to work those out.
spectrum for communications; transportation infrastructure; water infrastructure; electricity infrastructure. what one party does affects what another party can do. private ownership does not clearly solve, unless you have a monopoly (which takes away most of the advantage of having a market)
Those are very strange examples, as every one save spectrum is one where private provision of the goods has been established as entirely possible and functional. Even with spectrum, a market in the right to use a certain band is doable, with enforcement of those traded property rights being a government responsibility. Bargaining away every externality isn't necessary; if it were, government would never be able to do it, either.
I have to say, between those examples and your grammar, I am beginning to wonder if that is actually you responding, Dr. Kling. Apologies if you are on your phone or something, but have you been hacked?
I understand the point that, if we have these institutions, they could at LEAST work better, and have someone competent at the head who thinks and not what we have, which is a sclerotic hydra that can't make decisions or track its own organization and is accountable to no one. (I'm over-simplifying and painting with a broad brush here of course, as there are many dedicated public servants and workers who do great and important work on not very much money and know their stuff very well, etc. etc.).
But I can't see how it can be a serious libertarian argument - it's basically conceding the whole point.
As an aside, all debates about "but roads! but trash! but post office!" is so misleading, as the main expenses and excesses of the current government aren't really in those areas - and, in fact, it is a frequent phenomenon that excellent, good programs lose their funding in favor of expensive boondoggles, and then are cancelled for being "ineffective". Just like with the Giuliani and crime example you gave in another post, you can improve a LOT, by streamlining regulation and trimming a lot of excess, and Not Doing Obviously Bad and Dumb Things, without having to Abolish the Government and Privatize Everything.
So what do you do about the FDA and the CDC? One approach is to scream "Get rid of the FDA and the CDC!" That what I call NL, because I don't think it attracts any support. It may even be wrong--it could be that in our modern society if you abolished the FDA and the CDC we would be worse off. The alternative I suggest is to create a COO position that has the authority, when faced with a pandemic, to kick out what I called the "peacetime bureaucrats" and instead foster a sense of urgency and rigor (do experiments, think about cost-benefit analysis, etc.) And create a CA position that can point out what the FDA and CDC are doing wrong if the COO can't see it.
Glad you came over to comment :) I very much appreciate it.
I think perhaps instead of screaming we (libertarians) should continue to do the work of demonstrating the harms those institutions cause, and continue to push for limiting their purview through legislation and legal precedent. It might well be that an FDA or CDC is necessary, although it isn't obvious to me at all that that is the case, but we shouldn't just accept that there will always be an FDA and CDC and try to work around them as though they were forces of nature.
I still do not see how the COO would be incentivized to kick out the peacetime bureaucrats if they did not want to. (Or how they would get around public employee unions that keep the president from doing that, for that matter.) Contrast the COO to the "House of Repeals" that someone proposed but shamefully I can't recall who just now... but anyway, that would add an additional group, but the benefit would at least be that their only power would be peeling off legislation. Very specific. The COO position has the authority to do things, but why would he? Will he run based on who he has fired and who he promises to fire? What governmental outcomes he intends to make happen? What investigations of efficiency he intends to make happen? That all sounds a lot like running for president...
Perhaps the biggest issue is that judging the COO would be very difficult, because you would need a baseline to judge against. In corporations you at least have year on year revenue, growth, profits, something to judge against. What does the COO get judged against?
I think there is absolutely a demand for quality control in food and medicine; and I think in a libertarian society, a few private entities, called things like the "Council on Food Accreditation" or something, to prop up and fulfill roles of the FDA - much like there exist private accreditation and audit organizations whom companies pay to give them seals of approval. They might compete, they might cost different amounts, but might establish a similar kind of order.
(Heck, I think in an anarcho-capitalist world of privately-owned streets, you'd still have zoning laws and privately-ordered rules that match what people want now - e.g. restrictions on loitering, littering, parking, and other things which people see as problems and now regulate through public ordinance.)
yes, I can see private entities doing accreditation in food and medicine. The challenge is when one is dealing with spillovers. It can take a lot of Coasian bargaining to work those out.
Hmmm, what kind of spillovers?
spectrum for communications; transportation infrastructure; water infrastructure; electricity infrastructure. what one party does affects what another party can do. private ownership does not clearly solve, unless you have a monopoly (which takes away most of the advantage of having a market)
Those are very strange examples, as every one save spectrum is one where private provision of the goods has been established as entirely possible and functional. Even with spectrum, a market in the right to use a certain band is doable, with enforcement of those traded property rights being a government responsibility. Bargaining away every externality isn't necessary; if it were, government would never be able to do it, either.
I have to say, between those examples and your grammar, I am beginning to wonder if that is actually you responding, Dr. Kling. Apologies if you are on your phone or something, but have you been hacked?
I understand the point that, if we have these institutions, they could at LEAST work better, and have someone competent at the head who thinks and not what we have, which is a sclerotic hydra that can't make decisions or track its own organization and is accountable to no one. (I'm over-simplifying and painting with a broad brush here of course, as there are many dedicated public servants and workers who do great and important work on not very much money and know their stuff very well, etc. etc.).
But I can't see how it can be a serious libertarian argument - it's basically conceding the whole point.
As an aside, all debates about "but roads! but trash! but post office!" is so misleading, as the main expenses and excesses of the current government aren't really in those areas - and, in fact, it is a frequent phenomenon that excellent, good programs lose their funding in favor of expensive boondoggles, and then are cancelled for being "ineffective". Just like with the Giuliani and crime example you gave in another post, you can improve a LOT, by streamlining regulation and trimming a lot of excess, and Not Doing Obviously Bad and Dumb Things, without having to Abolish the Government and Privatize Everything.