Contributors

Friday, February 01, 2013

An Example of Why The Libertarian Fantasy is Just That

The recent tragedy at the Santa Maria nightclub in Brazil serves as a stark reminder of what would actually happen if the world were run by libertarians.

There was no fire alarm, no sprinklers, no fire escape. In violation of state safety codes, fire extinguishers were not spaced every 1,500 square feet, and there was only one exit.

So, regulations were lax or nonexistent. And I'm shocked, I tell you, shocked, that the owners of KISS didn't simply just follow them of their own accord. Packing an extra thousand people in over fire code is bad but the free market will sort all of that out, right?

Brazil has a democratic republic with the states, the municipalities and the federal districts sharing a balance of power. In this case, fire and health codes fall under the authority of the state level government (state, not federal? Hmm...:)). Clearly, they failed but it's also quite apparent that there is a need to do their fucking job in the first place.

Yet this is exactly the ideal set forth by the less government crowd. Regulations suck. People don't need a government telling them what they can or can't do with their private business. They can handle it on their own. Private enterprise can police itself. If only they were left well enough alone, things would turn out...

Well, like this did...

11 comments:

Larry said...

Less regulation doesn't mean no regulation, asshole. This has been explained to you many times, starting off quite politely, but that's obviously pointless.

Got any other strawmen you'd like to set on fire? I'll piss on them, too.

Anonymous said...

This has been explained to you many times,

Shhhh, if you keep pointing out problems like that, he won't be able to hear the Voices In His Head. [/sarc]

Mark Ward said...

So, both of you will then go on record here and say that you approve of the government regulating buildings and having fire codes?

Anonymous said...

Only if you include the word "reasonable". "Reasonable" in this case is generally defined as: able to be met and paid for by most humans who build and live in houses. Here's an example of unreasonable regulations.

Anonymous said...

Well, Mark? Any agreement on reasonable?

Mark Ward said...

I left this one alone because it's just too easy. Think about it for a minute:)

Anonymous said...

I've thought about it. Neither one of us is able to read minds, and of the two of us, I'm the only one who has no problem admitting that. Since I can't read your mind, I have no idea.

So why won't you agree to reasonable?

Mark Ward said...

Well, then I guess there is such a thing as reasonable regulation when it comes to guns:)

Anonymous said...

So let's examine "reasonable regulation when it comes to guns", again (for the first time), shall we?

Given the following…

This first part of the 2nd Amendment establishes the intention to repel invasion, suppress insurrection, and locally enforce the law.
Markadelphia

and this…

10 USC § 311 - Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are—

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.


… how is the militia supposed to "repel invasion, suppress insurrection" and prevent "representatives of the people [from] betray[ing] their constituents" (Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper 28) if you have taken away the weapons they need to succeed at those purposes?

In other words, is it reasonable to ban guns which are needed for these roles?

Larry said...

NMN, because by definition, if Mark likes it and you don't, it's reasonable and you're unreasonable. Don't you know that by now?

Juris Imprudent said...

How the FUCK do you blame this on libertarians? Was there an absence of laws or regulations in Brazil? Or was this another failure of the fucking statist fantasy that any law they dream up will magically have wonderful effects?