[QUOTE=Rather Not;37153517]I'm not sure where you got the idea that fire is a hazard that can wait for the case that John Doe (who is completely untrained to assess the threat properly) thinks that the fire is enough of a concern for his own property so as to take the time to pay some random company to come and extinguish it. Because it isn't. Fire can travel from house to house within minutes, if not seconds.
You have a group of people who know that if they make the call, they'll be charged for the fire, instead of the victim, and instead of someone else who could potentially make the call and get charged instead. Man, that's brilliant. It's like taking the bystander effect and making it extremelly worse by adding the cost of a company essentially profiteering off the lives of people in it.
EMS response[I] has[/I] to be immediate and to not charge the caller immediately, so as to combat the bystander effect, which is terrible as it is, and it has to be unified and properly co-ordinated. Several [I]competitive[/I] companies who may be called by different callers are more likely to get in one another's way. They'll be competitive. They won't exactly share dispatch centers.
That's not even the worst part.
No one has any motive to intervene on forest fires, natural preserves or generally natural disasters that are far away from people with the money to start a proper response.[/quote]
They wouldn't be charged for the call, they'd perhaps pay monthly premiums for coverage. Or a larger, single, charge for non-customers who use the service. Also perhaps banks would require fire protection as a condition for mortgaging a house to customers.
If a forest is burning and it threatens property, then there would be a demand for protection and the market will meet that demand. A forest fire with the potential to spread very far is a concern to many landowners, and perhaps several firefighting firms would get together to fight it. Again this is speculation, there's no way to predict exactly what types of services the market would provide, but it would necessarily have to provide services that meet the demand of consumers.
[quote]Yes, you did, and you are further doing so by deflecting my argument.
If someone witnesses the rape or the break-in that concerns an entirely different person, per your system, they'll lose money if they get involved. That's fucking disgusting.[/quote]
The owner of the land/street/whatever that the crime takes place on would most likely have police protection already and want to keep their streets "clean" in order to attract business owners to set up shop and bring people to the area, etc. In the unlikely case that they didn't have police protection, it's pretty inconceivable that someone will just stand there as a crime takes place. Many police companies would want to develop a good reputation and often help out for free when they can. I think it's absurd to say that a free society will suck the empathy out of every human, and that people will just stand there and not help someone in need.
[quote]Not only did you not address that, but you repeated the 'taxes are theft' slogan, while insisting about how efficient the private sector is. First off, if you don't like the taxes where you live, you can live in a country with lower taxes or go start a micronation in the middle of nowhere. Your alternative is to start peacetime profiteering. Because the people without insurance will certainly not be terrorized.
Secondly, are you joking? [I]Competitive[/I] EMSs? And you think that's efficient? Sure. If lack of co-ordination is efficient, I'm sure that they are as efficient as they can be.[/quote]
Why wouldn't they be coordinated? They'd necessarily have to be coordinated or they'd quickly fail in the market, as better firms take their place.
[quote]Other than the private sector being your personal deity and corporatocracy being your obvious utopia, where exactly did you pull that from? [/quote]
The fact that people spend money more wisely when their own well-being is on the line. When government spends, it's using other people's money. It's not coming out of politician's personal bank accounts.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_hazard[/url]
Private firms succeed for meeting the demands of the market, government spends for political reasons.. re-elections, favoritism, and demagoguery. A private firm [i]has to[/i] operate with sufficient efficiency or they will not succeed in the market. The government is free to operate however they want, whether they do it efficiently or not is almost always of little consequence, and they don't collect revenue by voluntary means (as the private sector does) but by involuntary means.
[quote]It's more akin to asking an economist who wants to completely change the economic system how he or she would address some of the most visible flaws of their idea. If you think that I'm nitpicking, you can't imagine how wrong you are.
These are just some of the most visible flaws I can think of. If I were to nitpick, I would have written a 50-page paper on how quickly society would collapse because of the holes in your idea.[/quote]
Well it's not my idea and many people have already written thousands of pages answering many of the usual criticisms, and explaining why society would on the contrary, thrive under these conditions.
[quote]There's a lot of communist literature out there, too. And communism also brings up some very interesting moral arguments. And yet communism has still plenty of problems with its system. By your logic, if I were to accept your system, I might as well start pushing for total conversion to communism.[/quote]
You could, but since communism involves the abolition of private property, in my view its DOA at the moral/ethical level. I'm also not saying you "have to" accept this system, just that if you want detailed answers to specific issues, there is plenty of speculation out there that's already been written.
[quote]Nice. You just compared paying taxes to slavery. Well, unlike you, the slaves didn't exactly have much of a chance of 'moving elsewhere'.
And who are you exactly to say that the South would have starved without an as efficient production of cotton? They could have gathered cotton by themselves. Maybe they wouldn't have as much production without slavery, but you have yet to prove that they'd starve due to a somewhat lower production of it.[/quote]
Actually yes, I think there is a case to be made that paying taxes is comparable to slavery. You [i]have to[/i] give the fruits of your labor away to someone else against your will, it isn't a choice in any real sense. If you're going to argue that tax is justified because I have the "choice" of just moving to some deserted island where I'll probably die, as opposed to living in a free society where every exchange is voluntary, then you might as well try to argue that slavery is justified because a slave could just run away or kill themselves to escape tyranny. Yeah there is technically a way out, but it isn't a good way out, nor does it justify the actions that made me want out in the first place.
The analogy was to demonstrate that just because there might be a benefit to some people for doing something immoral, that doesn't mean it's justified. Someone back then would have asked how you plan to run the economy without slave labor. I would simply say I don't care, stop the immoral part first, and then we can implement better, voluntarily solutions to these problems.
[quote]It's not a phenomenon. Society is a group of people that are related in a (in the case of the social contract, geographic) manner and the types of relationships that develop among these people.
Normative ethics is a very real thing and the social contract is the manifestation of their use in society. [/quote]
Would society exist without the individuals that it is composed of? No. Society is just a concept in our minds, it doesn't exist with any real force of its own. And again, there's no justification to be made for the majority to impose a contract on the minority against their will, and to use coercive force against them to carry out it's arbitrary terms and conditions.
[quote]No, it's quite simple. Freedom is per definition the agency over ones actions, no matter what their result is. It's called positive liberty, and it's essentially the lack of inhibition from external factors, societal (normative) ethics being one of them.
Positive liberty comes in good and bad forms, and this is one of the extreme and bad one of them.[/quote]
Then we're talking about two definitions of freedom and there's no sense in continuing down this path.
[quote]You do realize that it's an [I]intellectual construct?[/I]
It's not an EULA. You voluntarily agree with it once you choose to abide by the rules of the society you live in.[/quote]
I've heard this argument several times before, and I simply refute it as being false. No individual or number of individuals ("society") has any justification to restrict my voluntary interaction with other individuals by imposing a debt upon me for doing so. No one gave them that right, it's something that's unjustly, and forcefully imposed by the majority onto the unwilling minority.
[quote]Source? I wasn't born with neither a right, nor a price tag telling me I'm worth as a human being.
I acquired one once others respected my liberties, and made the moral choice to do the same when I accepted the liberties of others. That is, I accepted that everyone has the liberty to do whatever they want, as long as it doesn't inflict with my liberties.[/quote]
[url="http://mises.org/etexts/hoppe5.pdf"]Every individual has a natural right to self-ownership[/url]. All other rights stem from that right.
[quote]If individuals have natural rights, then so does a group of them.[/quote]
No, they do not. I simply refute that claim. If it's wrong for one individual to violate the freedom of another (for example, by enslaving them), it doesn't magically become right when two people do it, ten people, ten thousand people, or any number of people.
[quote][I][citation needed][/I][/quote]
[quote]The most recent Employment Situation Report, which is better known as the Unemployment Report, was reported to be 8.3% for July of 2012. This number represents what is known as the U-3 total unemployed, as a percent of the civilian labor force (official unemployment rate). The Labor Department reports six different measurements of unemployment. The other one often cited is U-6 total unemployed, plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force. [b]The U-6 underemployment and unemployment figure for July was 15%.[/b][/quote]
[url]http://seekingalpha.com/article/784761-what-is-the-real-unemployment-rate[/url]
[quote]You are just shouting out buzz words right now, aren't you? The bad government is trying to regulate the poor rich folk. I mean, the rick poor folk. I mean-- ah, fuck it.
The one example that you actually used makes no sense. You are talking about people who are already customers of insurance companies, whilst trying to prove that they'd love to lower prices for the unemployed but can't.[/quote]
It makes perfect sense. They can't offer affordable packages because regulations have brought the costs up too high. There is nothing those companies can do about the rising costs.
[quote]Notice how some of the most tightly regulated industries are related to the health or well being of citizens. Gee, I wonder why.
You have yet to explain how regulation keeps the prices high.[/quote]
I already did. Government is forcing companies to provide products at government-enforced rates rather than rates that would be set by the market.
[quote]Look at the nutrition indusrtry. It's one of the most regulated industries, and yet look at how successful that's been. Prices have fallen, competition (big restaurant chains is a relatively modern marvel) has brought all sorts of new technological innovations to nutrition, lengthening the average lifespan of a person. The food materials that were so hard to develop some time ago have become easily accessible during the last decades, making food products easier to produce and cheaper. The nutrition industry is a good example of letting the market do its work, whilst making sure that no one gets poisoned, and everyone benefits from it.[/quote]
There's no reason to believe anyone would be poisoned without the FDA. Frankly it's ridiculous. Companies would not want to poison their customers because as soon as your company develops that sort of reputation, it's in for big financial trouble.
There has been growth in that industry due to technological improvements. It grew [b]in spite[/b] of regulations, not because of them. My argument is simply that there would be [i]even more[/i] growth without the regulations.
[quote]You have yet to explain why regulations are [I]bad.[/I]
As I said in my example, what would happen without the FDA?[/QUOTE]
My argument is that they are bad because they stifle competition and create inefficiency in the market, one example is by creating barriers to entry which keep competitors out of the market. They often act as protectors of big business more than protectors of consumers.
Without the FDA, new drugs could come onto the market at a much faster pace. People could get life saving drugs faster when they aren't being held up by bureaucrats in an extremely slow process of approval.
[QUOTE=Rents;37151716] All of these leaves poorer people at the mercy of the richest.[/QUOTE]
You forget that's exactly the point for those backing the libertarian movements.
[QUOTE=FlakAttack;37154393]Here in Canada, the telecom companies had their networks largely financed by the Canadian Government and they were pretty much given carte blanche at that point.
This has evolved into a network of tv, internet, and phone (cellular and otherwise) that is among the most expensive of all developed countries, while continuing to offer very poor value. The lack of regulation forced out competitors and costs Canadians millions of dollars every year in high cost, low functionality service (even in the big cities).
Regulation isn't always a bad thing, especially when the government paid the bills in the first place.[/QUOTE]
Well I could tell you what would happen reading the first line of that post, the government ends up buying telecom infrastructure that nobody wants and the artificially high demand for telecom services creates an artificially high price. The government is terrible at judging what people want and how to provide it.
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;37146332]so what's wrong with it?
[editline]8th August 2012[/editline]
I mean you've already proven that you don't know one thing about it (Carl Menger is typically considered the founder, not Mises), how much more don't you know?[/QUOTE]
Lol you act like Austrian economics is credible enough that it matters who came up with it.
Unless to point out the biggest crackpot of the bunch.
[editline]9th August 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Fenderson;37156760]Well I could tell you what would happen reading the first line of that post, the government ends up buying telecom infrastructure that nobody wants and the artificially high demand for telecom services creates an artificially high price. The government is terrible at judging what people want and how to provide it.[/QUOTE]
yeah ok.
stop posting on the internet if you think nobody wants telecommunications.
[editline]9th August 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Noble;37150689]Someone would pay to put the fire out. The fire is a threat to many other people and if firefighters get together and voluntarily put it out, it can help their reputation.
[/QUOTE]
If they'll do it for free, then why would I pay for their service? If they stopped doing it for free, what do you think that does for their reputation?
While we're on the topic of taxes, can someone tell me how Obama's healthcare plan makes healthcare more affordable? I'm interested in knowing since everybody I know in real life keep saying it's bad without explaining while. Mostly "They're forcing me to pay for other people while they don't pay at all." is what I get in reply. :v:
[QUOTE=LtKyle2;37157421]While we're on the topic of taxes, can someone tell me how Obama's healthcare plan makes healthcare more affordable? I'm interested in knowing since everybody I know in real life keep saying it's bad without explaining while. Mostly "They're forcing me to pay for other people while they don't pay at all." is what I get in reply. :v:[/QUOTE]
The idea is that the more people have insurance the cheaper insurance is because there are more people paying. You share the burden of health care costs. Americans don't like this idea because they're generally self centered "land of the free" and all.
[QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;37157197]Lol you act like Austrian economics is credible enough that it matters who came up with it.
Unless to point out the biggest crackpot of the bunch.[/quote]
You've already demonstrated that you don't understand a thing about Austrian economics, so what good is your criticism?
[quote]If they'll do it for free, then why would I pay for their service? If they stopped doing it for free, what do you think that does for their reputation?[/QUOTE]
It was one possible solution, given a hypothetical, rare emergency scenario. Again, it's pure speculation and there could be many other options.
[QUOTE=Noble;37157738]You've already demonstrated that you don't understand a thing about Austrian economics, so what good is your criticism?
It was one possible solution, given a hypothetical, rare emergency scenario. Again, it's pure speculation and there could be many other options.[/QUOTE]
So basically you're saying you have no argument.
[editline]10th August 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Fenderson;37156760]Well I could tell you what would happen reading the first line of that post, the government ends up buying telecom infrastructure that nobody wants and the artificially high demand for telecom services creates an artificially high price. The government is terrible at judging what people want and how to provide it.[/QUOTE]
You obviously did not read the post and do not understand what happened at all.
[QUOTE=mobrockers2;37157778]So basically you're saying you have no argument.[/QUOTE]
No, I'm laying out potential examples of what firms would do in a hypothetical free society. Again, it is analogous to asking an economist to predict, down to the last intricate detail, every aspect of economic activity that is going to happen over the next few decades. That's why I prefer to just argue from the moral perspective rather than get tied up debating hypotheticals.
[QUOTE=Noble;37157905]No, I'm laying out potential examples of what firms would do in a hypothetical free society. Again, it is analogous to asking an economist to predict, down to the last intricate detail, every aspect of economic activity that is going to happen over the next few decades. That's why I prefer to just argue from the moral perspective rather than get tied up debating hypotheticals.[/QUOTE]
[URL="http://filesmelt.com/dl/TFCgU1.png"]Ding dong.[/URL]
[QUOTE=Noble;37157905]No, I'm laying out potential examples of what firms would do in a hypothetical free society. Again, it is analogous to asking an economist to predict, down to the last intricate detail, every aspect of economic activity that is going to happen over the next few decades. That's why I prefer to just argue from the moral perspective rather than get tied up debating hypotheticals.[/QUOTE]
Yet in the real world we notice that any market getting more freedom increases prices.
[QUOTE=mobrockers2;37157971]Yet in the real world we notice that any market getting more freedom increases prices.[/QUOTE]
In short:
Absolutely no regulation = fucks shit up.
Too much regulation = [B]ALSO[/B] fucks shit up.
It's all about finding that sweet spot that's a perfect compromise between those two.
Instead of going [I]fully retarded anarchistic[/I], [B]OR[/B] [I]1984[/I].
[QUOTE=Van-man;37157957][URL="http://filesmelt.com/dl/TFCgU1.png"]Ding dong.[/URL][/QUOTE]
I'm arguing that the private sector can provide all of those things, through voluntary and more efficient means.
[QUOTE=mobrockers2;37157971]Yet in the real world we notice that any market getting more freedom increases prices.[/QUOTE]
You've provided a single example of that happening and I gave a possible reason why that may have been the case.
On the other hand there are numerous examples of mostly deregulated industries improving technology and lowering costs over time as competition does it's work, the computer industry is a good example.
[QUOTE=Fenderson;37156760]Well I could tell you what would happen reading the first line of that post, the government ends up buying telecom infrastructure that nobody wants and the artificially high demand for telecom services creates an artificially high price. The government is terrible at judging what people want and how to provide it.[/QUOTE]
The government didn't buy it, they financed it. Bell was the largest taker and established the main lines.
US government financed the railways in the past. Same idea.
[QUOTE=Noble;37158054]I'm arguing that the private sector can provide all of those things, through voluntary and more efficient means.
You've provided a single example of that happening and I gave a possible reason why that may have been the case.
On the other hand there are numerous examples of mostly deregulated industries improving technology and lowering costs over time as competition does it's work, the computer industry is a good example.[/QUOTE]
The computer industry is not a good example at all because every form of regulation necessary already exists. Computer parts have to conform to a standard set by the government and checked by the government. I don't really see what kind of more control you see possible.
[QUOTE=Noble;37158054]I'm arguing that the private sector can provide all of those things, through voluntary and more efficient means.
You've provided a single example of that happening and I gave a possible reason why that may have been the case.
On the other hand there are numerous examples of mostly deregulated industries improving technology and lowering costs over time as competition does it's work, the computer industry is a good example.[/QUOTE]
I like how you don't listen to [B]ANY[/B] common sense or reasoning.
Makes the hope of a bright future glow brighter and bigger [IMG]http://filesmelt.com/dl/emot-love.gif[/IMG]
[QUOTE=mobrockers2;37158140]The computer industry is not a good example at all because every form of regulation necessary already exists. Computer parts have to conform to a standard set by the government and checked by the government. I don't really see what kind of more control you see possible.[/QUOTE]
RoHS comes to mind.
Also how many times haven't Intel been fined for doing borderline naughty stuff?
I've lost count already.
[QUOTE=mobrockers2;37158140]The computer industry is not a good example at all because every form of regulation necessary already exists. Computer parts have to conform to a standard set by the government and checked by the government. I don't really see what kind of more control you see possible.[/QUOTE]
I didn't say entirely deregulated. And it's not true that "every form of regulation exists". Anyone can write computer software and sell it. Imagine if government made every piece of software go through a long government approval process, and started telling the computer industry firms what they're allowed to charge for their products. It wouldn't be a very efficient industry, costs would not be coming down like they are now, and the world would be worse off as good products were never able to make it to the consumer.
[QUOTE=Van-man;37158234]I like how you don't listen to [B]ANY[/B] common sense or reasoning.
Makes the hope of a bright future glow brighter and bigger [IMG]http://filesmelt.com/dl/emot-love.gif[/IMG][/QUOTE]
I could say the same thing too, it's meaningless though. A lot of people say that to people they disagree with, everyone wants to think they're right.
[QUOTE=mobrockers2;37158140]The computer industry is not a good example at all because every form of regulation necessary already exists. Computer parts have to conform to a standard set by the government and checked by the government. I don't really see what kind of more control you see possible.[/QUOTE]
What about emission standards and fair trade regulation?
[QUOTE=Noble;37158236]I didn't say entirely deregulated. [/QUOTE]
Backpedallin'
[QUOTE=Van-man;37158267]Backpedallin'[/QUOTE]
[quote]On the other hand there are numerous examples of [b]mostly deregulated[/b] industries[/quote]
[QUOTE=Van-man;37158267]Backpedallin'[/QUOTE]
I like how that's always facepunch's response to being called out on strawman arguments
[QUOTE=yawmwen;37158261]What about emission standards and fair trade regulation?[/QUOTE]
Already exist?
[QUOTE=mobrockers2;37158358]Already exist?[/QUOTE]
Hahahahaha.
Please tell that to Foxconn, it seems they must have missed the memo.
[QUOTE=Noble;37158236]I didn't say entirely deregulated. And it's not true that "every form of regulation exists". Anyone can write computer software and sell it. Imagine if government made every piece of software go through a long government approval process, and started telling the computer industry firms what they're allowed to charge for their products. It wouldn't be a very efficient industry, costs would not be coming down like they are now, and the world would be worse off as good products were never able to make it to the consumer.
I could say the same thing too, it's meaningless though. A lot of people say that to people they disagree with, everyone wants to think they're right.[/QUOTE]
What is the interest to the general public if software was regulated in such a way? None, thus the government doesn't meddle that much. What is the interest to the general public (and the government itself) in good healthcare? People want to be healthy, and healthy people make more money. You can do this for every other industry, if the general public and the government benefits from it, it will be regulated and funded by the government.
[editline]10th August 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=yawmwen;37158377]Hahahahaha.
Please tell that to Foxconn, it seems they must have missed the memo.[/QUOTE]
I thought foxconn was based in taiwan.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;37158377]Hahahahaha.
Please tell that to Foxconn, it seems they must have missed the memo.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=mobrockers2;37158416] thought foxconn was based in taiwan.[/QUOTE]
And Taiwan isn't exactly a pleasant place to live if you're poor.
[QUOTE=mobrockers2;37158416]What is the interest to the general public if software was regulated in such a way? None, thus the government doesn't meddle that much. What is the interest to the general public (and the government itself) in good healthcare? People want to be healthy, and healthy people make more money. You can do this for every other industry, if the general public and the government benefits from it, it will be regulated and funded by the government.[/quote]
This is swell and all, but not really true. Regulations in the USA tend to be more focused towards what will benefit corporate interests. Look at the ACA for a good example. We could have had a public option, but Obama and the Democrats scrapped that incredibly quickly because it doesn't particularly benefit business interests.
[quote]I thought foxconn was based in taiwan.[/QUOTE]
They import a massive amount of goods into the USA. The US could easily put up standards as far as work conditions and emission standards in order to import, or could create tariffs that increase the cost of Chinese manufactured goods and provide tax incentives for domestic production.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;37158496]This is swell and all, but not really true. Regulations in the USA tend to be more focused towards what will benefit corporate interests. Look at the ACA for a good example. We could have had a public option, but Obama and the Democrats scrapped that incredibly quickly because it doesn't particularly benefit business interests.
They import a massive amount of goods into the USA. The US could easily put up standards as far as work conditions and emission standards in order to import, or could create tariffs that increase the cost of Chinese manufactured goods and provide tax incentives for domestic production.[/QUOTE]
If regulations already focus more towards what will benefit corporate interest, how will fewer regulations help?
[QUOTE=mobrockers2;37158542]If regulations already focus more towards what will benefit corporate interest, how will fewer regulations help?[/QUOTE]
I would say that at least it wouldn't be absolutely intellectually insulting. At least it would be made perfectly clear that our system is broken.
Right now we have a complete sham. We are fed lies that the government is helping us when they oppress us. We are complacent when businesses are given subsidies because we are told "it benefits the consumer".
[QUOTE=Noble;37144532]Wherever there is a demand for something, the market will attempt to meet it.[/QUOTE]
like child porn!!
remember, free market always wins and we have no right to interfere with that. ron paul 2012, kids
[QUOTE=yawmwen;37158621]I would say that at least it wouldn't be absolutely intellectually insulting. At least it would be made perfectly clear that our system is broken.
Right now we have a complete sham. We are fed lies that the government is helping us when they oppress us. We are complacent when businesses are given subsidies because we are told "it benefits the consumer".[/QUOTE]
Trickle down economy, etcetera, etcetera.
Guess I should be glad for living if a well-off European country.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
