(POL): How do libertarians think on issues like the FDA, EPA, NIH?

[Galaxy]

While I like to think of myself as someone who falls into the libertarian-minded camp, I can never quite figure out how to argue on the EPA, FDA, CDC, OSHA, research-oriented programs (like the NIH, NASA). How do libertarians and small government-minded people argue on this?

[Danny]

They use the method of GBICTBBBHDFCC

[SackAttack]

libertarian-minded != libertarian. Someone who goes full libertarian is typically going to argue that the free market will self-regulate better than the government can - that there's no need for government agencies to regulate things like ingredient labels, clean air, clean water, all the rest of that jazz - because if a company is being truly destructive in their behaviors, the free market, through the magic of competition, will correct said company's actions because people will buy from/work for the competition instead.

There's all kinds of problems with that mindset, but that's what libertarianism will argue. Somebody who's libertarian-minded may assent that unrestrained capitalism will not have the effect "full" libertarians argue it will, and advocate instead for the least government intervention that will accomplish the aim.

A libertarian-minded individual is probably not going to accept the Civil Rights Act as a mechanism to prevent business discrimination against marginalized groups, but might (depending on the individual; this is a spectrum, not a bingo card) accept a limited role for, say, the FDA.

A "full" libertarian would likely accept neither.

[RainMaker]

When it comes to the FDA, CDC, etc, they feel they are harmful to the population and free market options work better.

[RainMaker]

This is the Libertarian Party's official stance on the FDA:

We should replace harmful government agencies like the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) with more agile, free-market alternatives. The mission of the FDA is to protect us from unsafe medicines. In fact, the FDA has driven up healthcare costs and deprived millions of Americans of much-needed treatments. For example, during a 10-year delay in approving Propanolol Propranolol (a heart medication for treating angina and hypertension), approximately 100,000 people died who could have been treated with this lifesaving drug. Bureaucratic roadblocks kill sick Americans.

[RainMaker]

They also don't like the FAA and NTSB despite their incredibly safe track record:

Government interference in transportation is characterized by monopolistic restriction, corruption and gross inefficiency. We therefore call for the dissolution of all government agencies concerned with transportation, including the Department of Transportation, the Interstate Commerce Commission, the Federal Aviation Administration, the National Transportation Safety Board, the Coast Guard, and the Federal Maritime Commission, and the transfer of their legitimate functions to competitive private firms. We demand the return of America's railroad system to private ownership. We call for the privatization of airports, air traffic control systems, public roads, and the national highway system. We condemn the re-cartelization of commercial aviation by the Federal Aviation Administration via rationing of take-off and landing rights and controlling scheduling in the name of "safety."
As interim measures, we advocate an immediate end to government regulation of private transit organizations and to governmental favors to the transportation industry. In particular, we support the immediate repeal of all laws restricting transit competition such as the granting of taxicab and bus monopolies and the prohibition of private jitney services. We urge immediate deregulation of the trucking industry.

[Danny]

I try to stay somewhat informed because it's important, but man do I dislike politics

[JonInMiddleGA]

We urge immediate deregulation of the trucking industry.

Now there's one I'm not sure the free market can adequately regulate without the force of law behind it. I mean, it seems more likely that it would end up "regulated" by lynch mobs stringing up drivers / company owners after consumers grew weary of accidents involving drivers pulled 48 hour shifts & whatnot. Granted, that's a form of non-governmental regulation but doesn't Libertarianism frown upon outright killing folks?

[SackAttack]

Now there's one I'm not sure the free market can adequately regulate without the force of law behind it. I mean, it seems more likely that it would end up "regulated" by lynch mobs stringing up drivers / company owners after consumers grew weary of accidents involving drivers pulled 48 hour shifts & whatnot. Granted, that's a form of non-governmental regulation but doesn't Libertarianism frown upon outright killing folks?

Well, see, presumably trucking companies would start regulating their own drivers in response to limit the amount of turnover as a result of lynch mobs.

Invisible hand of the market, yo.

[nol]

Most libertarians would say more research is needed on the subject: It Only Took Half The Wikipedia Article On Libertarianism To Convince Me It Was The Right Political Ideology For America (http://www.clickhole.com/blogpost/it-only-took-half-wikipedia-entry-libertarianism-c-695)

[miked]

We all know without environmental regulation, the free market would protect the safety of our water, plants, and such. Also, I really trust Pfizer to tell me in an unbiased manner whether their drug's benefits outweigh side effects, you know, the one they spent 400M developing. And let's see who is ready to fund basic science research, I know, Merck is totally willing to do it.

[panerd]

They would provide the same answers self identified Republicans or Democrats do when you actually try and box them in to their parties official platform. They don't agree with a lot of the shit the national party platform has (because they are in individual not an organization) but hold more of the Libertarian viewpoints then any other parties.

For example with myself...

Do I want to eliminate 99% of the federal agencies on August 11? Not really. Do I find the Libertarian party much better matches my viewpoints on government spending than the Democrats (who at least admit they favor taxes and spending money on programs) and the Republicans (who are in la la land on this issue)? Yes. Repeat with all sorts of issues and you have why I identify Libertarian.

I guess you can bring up the Civil Rights act and then claim to have found a huge inconsistency. I will just point out the Cindy Sheehan wing of the Democratic party who can't find fault with Obama's foreign policy as my huge inconsistency or the Republican party on any spending issue...