Being Poor is NOT a Crime

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

I'm completely ok with a centralized place for information gathering. IE. if a pill promised to cure you of cancer is just sucrose, a gov't group that keeps track of that is fine by me. As long as they don't tell the company what they can and cannot do (or give any opinions on the matter).

I see what your saying and I agree.

But in the case you mentioned, i'm fine with the government telling them they cannot market something that blatantly untrue.

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

I see what your saying and I agree.

But in the case you mentioned, i'm fine with the government telling them they cannot market something that blatantly untrue.

Well, my example was a bit more cut and dry that normal cases would be

[lew]

Originally Posted by Publius

What keeps the Federal regulatory agencies from being paid? Oh yea, nothing. Enough lobbying money gets anything authorized. The difference is, if an agency has a history of licensing/authorizing unsafe products they'll start to lose money because their license will become a stigma instead of an aid to businesses trying to sell their product.

[lew]

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

I see what your saying and I agree.

But in the case you mentioned, i'm fine with the government telling them they cannot market something that blatantly untrue.

But I'm against that precisely because why is it that the government knows if something is true or not?

The government through organizations like the FDA blocks medications from Canada. A free market system wouldn't do this.

[R-Type]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

redundancy. Like movie critics. Do you believe Ebert and Ropert? b/c I don't. I trust more websites like rottentomatoes that has mostly user reviews.

.. in either anarchocapitalist or communist systems, sites like these would be banned outright, either for the 'good of the people' or 'business expediency' whenever they contradict the dominant players' desires. Pick your flavor of tyranny..

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

I'm completely ok with a centralized place for information gathering. IE. if a pill promised to cure you of cancer is just sucrose, a gov't group that keeps track of that is fine by me. As long as they don't tell the company what they can and cannot do (or give any opinions on the matter).

Then all you've done is move tyrannical control of individual expression from government to large business (don't diss my faulty product publically or I'll sue you into debtor's prison). I fail to see how this is any better. Governmental agencies (who are supposed to represent the will of the people) should be allowed to express their own independent, researched opinions, even if they contradict the purveyor's. Then it is up to the consumer to decide which one is truely aligned with his best interests in a given situation. For example, if we didn't have this back-and-forth debate, we'd still be hearing tripe on how smoking is completely harmless and that coal-powered generators are the wave of the future.

Business wants your money, government wants your votes. Let the two argue it out and just wait for the best argument, for or against, to shake out. Silencing one for the benefit of the other just leads to narrowminded views which prevent progress.

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by R-Type

.. in either anarchocapitalist or communist systems, sites like these would be banned outright, either for the 'good of the people' or 'business expediency' whenever they contradict the dominant players' desires. Pick your flavor of tyranny..

Then all you've done is move tyrannical control of individual expression from government to large business (don't diss my faulty product publically or I'll sue you into debtor's prison). I fail to see how this is any better. Governmental agencies (who are supposed to represent the will of the people) should be allowed to express their own independent, researched opinions, even if they contradict the purveyor's. Then it is up to the consumer to decide which one is truely aligned with his best interests in a given situation. For example, if we didn't have this back-and-forth debate, we'd still be hearing tripe on how smoking is completely harmless and that coal-powered generators are the wave of the future.

Business wants your money, government wants your votes. Let the two argue it out and just wait for the best argument, for or against, to shake out. Silencing one for the benefit of the other just leads to narrowminded views which prevent progress.

By gov't influencing consumers on business, it is then in the businesses best interest to subdue the gov't, as we see. That creates facism. Gov't and business must remain seperate in every way possible or reasonable. Most agree that lobbying is a problem, and it IS a problem because of the extreme benefits that gov't can offer business. Both of those entities should answer to the consumer/citizen, not to each other.

[R-Type]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

By gov't influencing consumers on business, it is then in the businesses best interest to subdue the gov't, as we see. That creates facism. Gov't and business must remain seperate in every way possible or reasonable. Most agree that lobbying is a problem, and it IS a problem because of the extreme benefits that gov't can offer business. Both of those entities should answer to the consumer/citizen, not to each other.

well maybe you misunderstood me. I meant that both should be able to 'subdue' the other depending on circumstance. That circumstance would hopefully be the truth of the matter which would come out in the conflict. The more balanced conflicts where both sides have strong arguments result in very little restriction, while extreme imbalances (dumping nuclear wastes into water supplies, or excessive tax to give one example of each) are heavily restricted. Anyway, I agree with you on this, but your other post made it seem like you were for anarchocapitalism. Maybe I misunderstood?

[lew]

Originally Posted by R-Type

.. in either anarchocapitalist or communist systems, sites like these would be banned outright, either for the 'good of the people' or 'business expediency' whenever they contradict the dominant players' desires. Pick your flavor of tyranny..

Then all you've done is move tyrannical control of individual expression from government to large business (don't diss my faulty product publically or I'll sue you into debtor's prison). I fail to see how this is any better. Governmental agencies (who are supposed to represent the will of the people) should be allowed to express their own independent, researched opinions, even if they contradict the purveyor's. Then it is up to the consumer to decide which one is truely aligned with his best interests in a given situation. For example, if we didn't have this back-and-forth debate, we'd still be hearing tripe on how smoking is completely harmless and that coal-powered generators are the wave of the future.

Business wants your money, government wants your votes. Let the two argue it out and just wait for the best argument, for or against, to shake out. Silencing one for the benefit of the other just leads to narrowminded views which prevent progress.

Please, please, don't tell me you just called anarcho-capitalism tyranny.

[Ardentfrost]

I'm not for anarchocapitalism, but in most cases I do think that consumers and citizens know best. At this time, I think that the government and corporations can collaborate too easily, and that is partly a result of increased regulations over the past 40-50 years.

[R-Type]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

I'm not for anarchocapitalism, but in most cases I do think that consumers and citizens know best. At this time, I think that the government and corporations can collaborate too easily, and that is partly a result of increased regulations over the past 40-50 years.

Agreed.

[lew]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

I'm not for anarchocapitalism,

This makes baby Jesus cry.

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by lew

This makes baby Jesus cry.

lol, shush you. Ideals arne't often realistic

[R-Type]

Originally Posted by lew

Please, please, don't tell me you just called anarcho-capitalism tyranny.

Well it is the final endgame of it.. In the beginning, you're right, there'd be a lot of cutthroat competition, but that would quickly congeal into a tight oligarchy of corporations that basically own society. It would be little different than soviet branded communism as most of the wealth (99.99..%) would be in the hands of the powerful few and there wouldn't be a damned thing anyone could do about it (legally). Those with the power, make the law, and that's that. The political philosophy of any so-called representational government under such a system just becomes boilerplate organizational structure and little else because it holds so little power.

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by R-Type

Well it is the final endgame of it.. In the beginning, you're right, there'd be a lot of cutthroat competition, but that would quickly congeal into a tight oligarchy of corporations that basically own society. It would be little different than soviet branded communism as most of the wealth (99.99..%) would be in the hands of the powerful few and there wouldn't be a damned thing anyone could do about it (legally). Those with the power, make the law, and that's that. The political philosophy of any so-called representational government under such a system just becomes boilerplate organizational structure and little else because it holds so little power.

Although I think you're being unrealistic in your assessment, I do find certain aspects of anarchocapitalism too idealistic such as applying "free market" to the justic system and national defense. However, the parts about unadultered free trade globally and non-militaristic involvement in the affairs of other nations, I'm all for. The only thing that can create an oligarchy or monarchy is the government itself. Without that interference (and, as previously mentioned, collaboration between corporations and the government), competition wouldn't allow such things to happen. It's impossible.

[lew]

Originally Posted by R-Type

Well it is the final endgame of it.. In the beginning, you're right, there'd be a lot of cutthroat competition, but that would quickly congeal into a tight oligarchy of corporations that basically own society. It would be little different than soviet branded communism as most of the wealth (99.99..%) would be in the hands of the powerful few and there wouldn't be a damned thing anyone could do about it (legally). Those with the power, make the law, and that's that. The political philosophy of any so-called representational government under such a system just becomes boilerplate organizational structure and little else because it holds so little power.

Wrong, for several reasons. One being that corporations can't exist without a state.

[R-Type]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

Although I think you're being unrealistic in your assessment, I do find certain aspects of anarchocapitalism too idealistic such as applying "free market" to the justic system and national defense. However, the parts about unadultered free trade globally and non-militaristic involvement in the affairs of other nations, I'm all for. The only thing that can create an oligarchy or monarchy is the government itself. Without that interference (and, as previously mentioned, collaboration between corporations and the government), competition wouldn't allow such things to happen. It's impossible.

that's true.. It's an extreme example. I did that to counter the rather extreme views on socialism that are popular here. I believe in reasonable balance of power..one where individual liberty trumps business or gov't expediency in most cases. Free trade is great until all the 'free' trade is being done at the behest of one supercorporation (debeers, OPEC etc) at the expense of fair pricing and/or innovation (bye bye free market). Obviously, there are benefits to organized business as well (lower prices, better QC, and yes bigger profit margins), but too much becomes detrimental to the market.

A business might not have a governmental 'seal of approval' and requisite paperwork, but there is no reason why it would not be just as effective as an 'authorized' one. In fact, non-stated business (or pact between businesses) would be far MORE profitable because it is free from the shackles of governance. Without any government oversight at all, a wealthy business could enforce its will on the population and other businesses in a myriad of ways, including hostile takeovers/buyouts, bribery, theft, assassination, and in sci-fi channel-like cases, outright military conflict with rivals. Without any government, this would be the eventual conclusion of the 'competition' you refer to, especially at the highest levels where trillions of dollars are at stake.

If you are referring to import/export tariffs and the like, then I tend to agree. Right now we have too many officials who are trying to 'protect' american companies from the global market, and that is only going to lead to a harder downfall later. However, I also fear what globalization is going to do to our standards of living. I guess time will tell.

[R-Type]

Originally Posted by lew

Wrong, for several reasons. One being that corporations can't exist without a state.

My response to this is in the 2nd paragraph in the post above.

[hsmith]

Originally Posted by R-Type

that's true.. It's an extreme example. I did that to counter the rather extreme views on socialism that are popular here. I believe in reasonable balance of power..one where individual liberty trumps business or gov't expediency in most cases. Free trade is great until all the 'free' trade is being done at the behest of one supercorporation (debeers, OPEC etc) at the expense of fair pricing and/or innovation (bye bye free market). Obviously, there are benefits to organized business as well (lower prices, better QC, and yes bigger profit margins), but too much becomes detrimental to the market.

A business might not have a governmental 'seal of approval' and requisite paperwork, but there is no reason why it would not be just as effective as an 'authorized' one. In fact, non-stated business (or pact between businesses) would be far MORE profitable because it is free from the shackles of governance. Without any government oversight at all, a wealthy business could enforce its will on the population and other businesses in a myriad of ways, including hostile takeovers/buyouts, bribery, theft, assassination, and in sci-fi channel-like cases, outright military conflict with rivals. Without any government, this would be the eventual conclusion of the 'competition' you refer to, especially at the highest levels where trillions of dollars are at stake.

If you are referring to import/export tariffs and the like, then I tend to agree. Right now we have too many officials who are trying to 'protect' american companies from the global market, and that is only going to lead to a harder downfall later. However, I also fear what globalization is going to do to our standards of living. I guess time will tell.

i don't think you understand the free market or anarchocapitalism

[R-Type]

Originally Posted by hsmith

i don't think you understand the free market or anarchocapitalism

..and I don't think some here fully grasp the weaknesses of the system. I don't think it takes a college doctorate to see the flaws in such extreme philosophies. You're welcome to correct me, but it is obvious they don't provide everything needed for the human condition or we'd have our New World Utopia in place by now. Of course, economists and socialists would state otherwise in the same manner as religious leaders would tell me I have no place to judge flaws in their beliefs or actions. At the same time, ALL of them would think they know what's best for me...or maybe it's really all about what's best for them at everyone else's expense, and their so-called convictions are just rhetorical nonsense meant to confuse the issue.

Anyway, I did at least read what wikipedia had to say on anarchocapitalism and none of what's stated there really contradicts anything I've said. Any other suggested reading?