As a rule, yes, noninterference with markets by government is the small "l" libertarian philosophy. How about a situation where the government is already interfering with the market as is the case with lab-grown meat (as it does with EV's) in that it has underwritten massive subsidies to "incubate" lab-grown meat technology, production and distribution systems. The federal government has interfered with the market, creating an artificial market, R&D for a food production technology it's wise and sage, supersmert bureaucrats (same ones who declared, demanded "safe and effective biotech injections, lockdowns, mandated masks, etc) proclaims has promise and needs taxpayer funding to get off the ground because the market won't work to develop it as the same supersmert bureaucrat visionaries want for us, for our "greater good."
The market has been fundamentally altered by federal government actions. That the state of Florida's leaders have said isn't for the "greater good," in fact, is for the "greater harm." Should the state's leaders defer to the federal government's supremacy in all matters and not interfere in an already government interfered market? The market has already decided lab-grown meat isn't worth sufficient private investment to warrant the development of technology, production and distribution; it needs federal subsidy. Are state governments, leader's bound to the noninterference principals when the federal government has already substantially interfered? Are libertarian's wishing to remain consistent to oppose the state government's interference in hopes, wishes that the federal government eventually sees the error in their ways and the noninterference principal of the federal government is reigned in by libertarian non-interference supporters at the federal level cutting those massive subsidies...one day...maybe?
When does noninterference adherence out of strict philosophical beliefs become a suicide pact?
As a rule, yes, noninterference with markets by government is the small "l" libertarian philosophy. How about a situation where the government is already interfering with the market as is the case with lab-grown meat (as it does with EV's) in that it has underwritten massive subsidies to "incubate" lab-grown meat technology, production and distribution systems. The federal government has interfered with the market, creating an artificial market, R&D for a food production technology it's wise and sage, supersmert bureaucrats (same ones who declared, demanded "safe and effective biotech injections, lockdowns, mandated masks, etc) proclaims has promise and needs taxpayer funding to get off the ground because the market won't work to develop it as the same supersmert bureaucrat visionaries want for us, for our "greater good."
The market has been fundamentally altered by federal government actions. That the state of Florida's leaders have said isn't for the "greater good," in fact, is for the "greater harm." Should the state's leaders defer to the federal government's supremacy in all matters and not interfere in an already government interfered market? The market has already decided lab-grown meat isn't worth sufficient private investment to warrant the development of technology, production and distribution; it needs federal subsidy. Are state governments, leader's bound to the noninterference principals when the federal government has already substantially interfered? Are libertarian's wishing to remain consistent to oppose the state government's interference in hopes, wishes that the federal government eventually sees the error in their ways and the noninterference principal of the federal government is reigned in by libertarian non-interference supporters at the federal level cutting those massive subsidies...one day...maybe?
When does noninterference adherence out of strict philosophical beliefs become a suicide pact?