[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Oh please. Just look at the history of the USA and the robber barons, company towns and the like. 10 armed hired goons beats one armed citizen. People don’t band together and overthrow oppression until it becomes horrendous.
The point is that people should be free to protect themselves against aggression. I cannot answer the question why they choose to act or not – and certainly, neither can history.[/quote]
History certainly can and most of learn from it. You are incapable of doing so.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
How do you know yours are? History doesn’t have a single example of a society as in your model. [/quote]
So then we agree that history or the lack of it cannot prove anything.
However, the vast majority of unwritten history is a history of anarchy. Government is not a natural occurrence. People have to institute it among themselves and willingly believe it is to their benefit to agree to its monopoly on authority. Even the most basic tribal community requires it.
The key question that needs to be answered (and history cannot) is how did the majority of people come to the conclusion that an institution can have a rightful claim over their lives? This can only be achieved through aggressive means and as such can never have any legitimacy. Democracy is no more legitimate than authoritarianism because it can never be instituted voluntarily.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
How do you know yours are? History doesn’t have a single example of a society as in your model.
So then we agree that history or the lack of it cannot prove anything.
However, the vast majority of unwritten history is a history of anarchy. Government is not a natural occurrence. People have to institute it among themselves and willingly believe it is to their benefit to agree to its monopoly on authority. Even the most basic tribal community requires it.
The key question that needs to be answered (and history cannot) is how did the majority of people come to the conclusion that an institution can have a rightful claim over their lives? This can only be achieved through aggressive means and as such can never have any legitimacy. Democracy is no more legitimate than authoritarianism because it can never be instituted voluntarily.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Lifticus, Orion, how do you reconcile your positions with monopolies, dumping, economies of scale and other things that privileges the big dogs? Do you write that off as necessary evils?
Would love to hear your take on this.[/quote]
Monopolies are a-ok as long as they do not stem from government regulations. The threat that competitors could enter the market keeps the monopolist in line.
Dumping is hard. I don´t know. In theory anyone should be able to sell at any price, but then it could actually destroy the market. I have no real opinion. Dumping agricultural products that have been heavily subsidized by the taxpayer and ruining other economies is not ok though.
Economies of scale are a good thing, they mean a rise in productivity. What you see as “benefiting the big dogs”, I see as optimal production size. Nobody has the right to produce inefficiently.
The good news is, the more big companies there are the more niche markets exist for small companies and in those economies of scale are worthless and special knowledge is everything.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Are you kidding me? This was the way of the world in the “good old days”.
There is no singular “way” in which people behave. People will not tolerate aggression indefinitely when they have the means to defend themselves against it.
Why do you think government historically has had the monopoly on the ownership of arms?
Oh please. Just look at the history of the USA and the robber barons, company towns and the like. 10 armed hired goons beats one armed citizen. People don’t band together and overthrow oppression until it becomes horrendous.[/quote]
Yeah, look at them.
Compare their death toll to that of governments in the 20th century.
And yet people want governments to protect them from the robber barons.
That is sheer insanity, like hiring a known psychopath to protect you from your annoying neighbor.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
What the hell does he care? He has made his fortune.
I am dead.
He cares because he has everything to lose – including his life. People do not get rich by immoral behavior without being protected by someone else.
How long do you think people will stand by and let such things happen?
Are you kidding me? This was the way of the world in the “good old days”.[/quote]
Nonsense.
A capitalist could
a) lose his customers and thereby his wealth and
b) get sued for damages and thereby lose his wealth.
The more capital he has invested in something, i.e the bigger the company is, the less he can simply take his money and run.
There never was a day were big companies knowingly killed their customers, there were cases of criminal conduct, however if the government gets involved there will still be cases of criminal conduct, just some of them will be perfectly legal without any chance to be made whole again.
[quote]orion wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
What the hell does he care? He has made his fortune.
I am dead.
He cares because he has everything to lose – including his life. People do not get rich by immoral behavior without being protected by someone else.
How long do you think people will stand by and let such things happen?
Are you kidding me? This was the way of the world in the “good old days”.
Nonsense.
A capitalist could
a) lose his customers and thereby his wealth and
b) get sued for damages and thereby lose his wealth.
The more capital he has invested in something, i.e the bigger the company is, the less he can simply take his money and run.
There never was a day were big companies knowingly killed their customers, there were cases of criminal conduct, however if the government gets involved there will still be cases of criminal conduct, just some of them will be perfectly legal without any chance to be made whole again.
So you dont care if your food is tainted, you get your arm cut off at your job, or care that if you develop cancer - that there will be medicine to help you
absolute retards[/quote]
How long would tainted food sell? Not long as we know. Bad food slips by the fda all the time yet it is still delt with.
OSSA is a joke and everyone knows it.
The FDA keeps innovation and new drugs out of the market. Not the other way around.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
tg2hbk4488 wrote:
That makes no sense…
So you dont care if your food is tainted, you get your arm cut off at your job, or care that if you develop cancer - that there will be medicine to help you
absolute retards
They just trust business will police itself. I do not.[/quote]
no but consumers will. We didn’t alway have heavy regulation by any of these agencies. Where were the epidemics?
A) The assumption that a company would willfully poison its own customers is ridiculous, almost all so called “food-scandals” are companies calling back products that might have been tainted in order not to lose customers.
Because the FDA testing found potential problems. Why weren’t the companies testing every lot and just doing the minimum mandated by the FDA?[/quote]
most of the time they come in after the fact. taco bell found the problem.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Business do not rely on my continued support, they regularly close the doors. There are plenty of get rich quick people that will be more than happy to sell substandard products as long as they can get away with it and then move on and do it again. Modern forms of transportation have destroyed your mythical way of life.[/quote]
We have laws for this that do not included any regulatory agencies.
[quote]lixy wrote:
I’m no expert by any means, but I understand that most economists distinguish between natural and artificial monopolies. And the former doesn’t seem to be much affected by governmental intervention.
[/quote]
artificial monopolies are enabled by gov’t intervention.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Oh please. Just look at the history of the USA and the robber barons, company towns and the like. 10 armed hired goons beats one armed citizen. People don’t band together and overthrow oppression until it becomes horrendous.[/quote]
You think this will happen again? Much differnt time. Going from an agrarian to industrial society was going to be messy.
what about private buisnesses that agricultural businesses go through to get a stamp of aproval. Buyers may pay a bit more for food they are sure isn’t covered in shit and chemicals. Otherwise buyer beware.
[quote]zephead4747 wrote:
what about private buisnesses that agricultural businesses go through to get a stamp of aproval. Buyers may pay a bit more for food they are sure isn’t covered in shit and chemicals. Otherwise buyer beware.
[/quote]
A half step woudl be to make regulatory compliance optional. If you want to buy something with an FDA stamp go ahead. The costs of the FDA could be passed on to those that use it, not out of general funds.
[quote]dhickey wrote:
zephead4747 wrote:
what about private buisnesses that agricultural businesses go through to get a stamp of aproval. Buyers may pay a bit more for food they are sure isn’t covered in shit and chemicals. Otherwise buyer beware.
A half step woudl be to make regulatory compliance optional. If you want to buy something with an FDA stamp go ahead. The costs of the FDA could be passed on to those that use it, not out of general funds.