From: frazier@oahu.cs.ucla.edu (Greg Frazier)
Subject: Re: What keeps me from being Lib. (was Re: FW: news release: abolish IRS)
Organization: UCLA, Computer Science Department
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 92 19:32:47 GMT


Well, we're getting into details here, but since I think
vaccination *is* something that gov't should be intervening
in, and some libertarians are voicing disagreement (very
rationally), I'm going to adress it.

berenson@cookie.enet.dec.com (Hal Berenson) writes:

>First, how are all kids vaccinated today?  Well, the parents pay for it
>or it is payed for via government-funded clinics.  What would the libertarian
>equivalent be?  Parents pay, or voluntary (charity) funded clinics.

Non-issue.

>Second, what is the enforcement mechanism?  Well, today its the you can't
>enter kindergarten in a government school unless you can show proof of
>vaccination.  The libertarian equivalent is very similar, private schools
>would require vaccinations for entrance.  This would not be government
>mandated.  You don't need a government mandate!  Would YOU enroll your
>kids in a school that didn't have such a requirement?  From your posting,
>obviously not!  The "market" forces the solution.

If my kid is vaccinated, I don't care whether she's in a school
that requires it or not.  The problem is that, if large numbers
of people don't want to vaccinate their kids, there will be
schools that will accept non-vaccinated children.  And the presence
of large numbers of non-vaccinated citizens is a problem for
us all.  It means we have to devote more of our societies
resources towards hospitals/dr's/medicine, it means that there
is less medical attention available for people with other
problems, it means that more people are missing more days of
work and dropping total productivity, etc.

>We even have an example of a solution in today's private sector.  The
>vast majority of kennels require that you show proof of current
>vaccination before they will board your dog or cat.  This isn't just for
>legally mandated vaccinations like rabies (which are mandated because of
>the risk to human public health).  Most require proof for other serious
>canine ailements.  The best even require proof of vaccination for some
>less serious conditions such as "kennel cough", and some will do the
>vaccination for you should you show up without proof.

Not being a dog owner, I can't really comment on this, but
I don't recall our dog getting shots for anything except
rabies when I was a kid.  Your example only works if you
can say that, as a result of the above policy, <nearly>
all dogs are vaccinated against "kennel cough", etc.

>I continue to believe the libertarian position on pollution is not well
>explained.  The key problem with current environmental legislation is
>that it allows the government to set standards for various pollutants.
>If a company meets the standard, but that standard is incorrect (ie, not
>rigid enough) and you get cancer, have brain damage, have kids with birth
>defects, etc. YOU ARE SCREWED TWICE.  Once because the pollution caused
>harm to you and once because YOU CAN'T GO AFTER THE COMPANY FOR DAMAGES.

I'm no lawyer, but I'm fairly sure that is wrong.  You can still go (*)
after them - but you have to show that they were negligent in some
way.

>What the libertarian solution would be is to eliminate government
>regulation in the sense of setting and enforcing (the frequently
>arbitrary) standards.  The government's role would change to helping an
>individual who believes they are being harmed by pollution to: (1)
>Identify the source of the pollutants, (2) Gather evidence against the
>polluter, (3) Insure that court judgements against the polluter (as
>obtained via a suit by the injured party or parties) are collected on.
>Industry groups would likely set guidelines similar to the standards
>currently imposed by the EPA, but those guidelines would NOT serve as a
>defense against a damage suit.

I'm very familiar with this, and I don't see how it could
possibly work.  (a) In many situations, there is no way
to identify a single source of a pollutant to go after,
i.e., you get lung cancer and decide that there are too many
pollutants in the air - which co. are you going to sue?
(b) You (the individual) have to fund a court battle against
a major corp.  Good luck.  (c) While gov't regulations may
be arbitrary to some degree, they are best-tries at determining
what emissions are safe.  They give a co. something to shoot
for and something for health scientists to study.  Eliminate
them, and it becomes difficult to determine fault, etc.  I
mean, let's say co. X is emitting carcinogens but at a safe
level (omniscient viewpoint), but person Y gets cancer and
sues.  With no gov't guidelines, there's nothing to do but	(*)
go to court over it, with the resulting crapshoot, especially
since "experts" can be found to testify about anything.

Careful readers might think that the two lines marked '*' are
in conflict.  I do not believe that that is the case - I don't
think gov't regulations prevent suits from being brought against
co's that harmfully pollute but are w/in fed regulations, but
the <probably> do discourage such suits.  But, then, what do
I know, eh?

>>If there was a little less "purity" in libertarianism and a little
>>more interest in taking the current system and, by small modifications,
>>gradually make it more libertarian, I'd be into it.

>Libertarian candidates, Andre Marrou amongst them, usually have a set of
>very specific things they would work on that are far from the concept of
>restructuring society "in one fell swoop".  Libertarians are, for
>example, pretty much against all taxation.  But Andre doesn't propose
>eliminating all taxes, he proposes eliminating the PERSONAL Income Tax.

The Libertarian platform is currently being posted (in 10 installments)
on talk.politics.misc (I think).  I'll have more intelligent comments
after I've read it - that is, unless you all tell me that that's just
one Libertarian platform and not necessarily *THE* Libertarian
platform (or Marrou's platform).
-- 


Greg Frazier	frazier@CS.UCLA.EDU	!{ucbvax,rutgers}!ucla-cs!frazier
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:17797 alt.activism:7532 talk.bizarre:10853