guspasho said:
And my questions for PLF, since he seems to be ignoring a lot of critical points.
Ad Hominem
guspasho said:
I am going to give you several sets of statements, and I am going to ask you which of each set is more aligned with the libertarian viewpoint, since that is what you are claiming to be arguing from.
Yet another masked
Ad Hominem attack.
guspasho said:
1) The preferable way for government to combat regulation that stifles trade is:
A. with more regulation that subsidizes trade
B. by removing that original regulation
First of all, just to get this out of the way, the majority of the questions here are
False Dilemmas.
That as an aside, your choices are
Straw Men.
Your choices (falsely) assume that what is being done is creating new government regulations -- none of the three you asked to respond these questions has stated that they want to do that. Secondly, your choices assume that the US government has the power to remove that regulation, despite the fact that the regulation is not a policy of the US government.
To answer B would be to concede that the US government has the right to decide Japanese regulation, which is decidedly un-libertarian to begin with, let alone the fact that it's an impossibility.
To answer A would be to concede that I am trying to advocate the creation of government regulations, which again nobody here has suggested.
In other words, this is a false dilemma where both choices are straw men that force me to back myself into a corner, since neither represents my actual stance.
guspasho said:
2) When someone hurts me the fault lies with:
A. the government for not stopping the perpetrator
B. the perpetrator who hurt me
First of all, it's not as simple as the Japanese government hurting the company. It was also the BSE-infected cow, Canada for giving it to us, and a variety of other factors. But considering the fact that this company wants to continue selling to Japan, I would say it's a pretty safe assumption that they don't view Japanese consumers as the perpetrator. Seeing as how they're looking to take the US government to court, I'd like to point out that the government may be the perpetrator.
You can try to spin this, but again it's a false dilemma.
Creekstone is not asking the government to stop the perpetrator -- it's asking for the right to carry a gun so it won't happen next time and he won't have to depend on the government. The government in turn said "No, you can't have a gun, and we're not going to protect you anyway. In fact, we're going to take the gun you already have."
Another question riddled with false assumptions.
guspasho said:
3) If the government acts to support my business rather than do nothing, that is:
A. only to be expected as such assistance is my right and is necessary to save my business
B. a distortion of the market and an unfair subsidy of my business
Fact #1: The government controls the means to test for BSE
Fact #2: The company wants to test independently for BSE
Fact #3: Neither I nor Creekstone is advocating increasing government regulation of BSE.
Fact #4: The testing facility was bought by Creekstone, is owned by Creekstone, resides on Creekstone property, and is staffed by Creekstone employees.
Fact #5: Creekstone has spent more than $500,000 to build the first mad-cow testing lab in a U.S. slaughterhouse and hired seven chemists and biologists to operate it.
Fact #6: It took the USDA 6 weeks to reply to the simple request
If I need water, and you stole my canteen, is it a subsidy, or a favour, or somehow unfair for me to ask for it back? That's what's being done here -- the government is controlling their business, holding 'em by the curlies, and you have the gall to suggest that this is a government subsidy? I'd hate to see what you think a regulation is.
guspasho said:
4) If the government does nothing when my business is struggling, that is:
A. not right because I am entitled to their help
B. only fair because to support my failing business would be a distortion of the market
The government should have almost nothing to do with business, but it DOES! Your question and implied position is entirely untenable, because without having the government do something, we cannot get a liquor license, a food license, or a trillion of the other things you need to start a business. I suppose you think that all those are subsidies as well?
guspasho said:
5) When government endorses the businesses that can afford to pay for it the government is:
A. giving the recognition those businesses deserve for being successful enough to afford the endorsement
B. giving an unfair advantage to those businesses that can afford the arbitrary endorsement over other who cannot afford to pay for it
Again, untenable.
Do you think that a health certificate is unfair government endorsement as well?
Even that is irrelevant as CREEKSTONE NEVER ASKED FOR US GOVERNMENT ENDORSEMENT! The Japanese government did.
guspasho said:
6) When government requires I pay an exorbitant fee to be allowed to enter into a foreign market, it is:
A. only a fair charge since I am not being compelled to do business in the foreign market
B. a distortion of the market by locking out competitors who cannot afford the cost the government charges
When a foreign government charges an exorbitant fee to get into their market, it's A. The US government is charging no fee to be in the Japanese market.
guspasho said:
7) When government requires I pay an exorbitant fee to be allowed to enter into a foreign market, it is:
A. an endorsement of free trade to allow me to trade in this market
B. a subsidy that artificially supports me with market access that others cannot have for arbitrary reasons
When a foreign government charges you? It's a hindrance to free market and trade, but as #6 said -- it's your choice not to pay that or enter the market.
guspasho said:
8) Business is:
A. only too happy to raise its costs because it can preserve its margins by passing the cost on to the consumer
B. threatened by higher costs because consumers will revolt against higher prices
If the customers request the price increase, then A. If the government imposes the price increase then B.
guspasho said:
9) Removing market restrictions:
A. is anti-free market
B. support free markets
B.
guspasho said:
Answer me each of those, PLF (and Steveinator, and Steve_Kow, if you would.) Which is more libertarian?
You need to stop confusing US with Japan, Creekstone with the US government, regulation with selling them a reagent, and the variety of other contextual factual errors you've made. I try to correct them, but you are being so hypocritical in ignoring facts after blasting Smeg to do the same.
