Topic: The Doughnut Comparison (Read 914 times)

Monopoly of Security.

Look it up.

MP's acquiring houses on 'expenses' then selling the houses on to fill their personal pockets IS a scandal, defined by, they're not allowed/supposed to do it. I see it as a scandal (as do the UK papers and House of Commons, and UK Law), but ok, you do not see it as a scandal, we'll just have to disagree.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/9619022/Expenses-scandal-27-MPs-let-one-home-and-claim-for-another.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/10061813/Corrupt-No.-So-why-are-we-MPs-victims-of-such-outrageous-abuse.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/10059243/Have-MPs-learnt-a-thing-since-2009-Their-greed-suggests-not.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/10046237/Expenses-watchdog-sues-Tory-MP-over-second-home.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/ (you can find more here)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2321791/Tory-sued-expenses-watchdog-54-000-profit-taxpayer-funded-home-revealed-MPs-1m-profit-sales.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2220081/New-MPs-expenses-scandal-27-letting-London-homes-claiming-20-000-public-money-rent-elsewhere.html

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3734792/Exes-scandal-MP-David-Laws-to-be-minister-again.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/may/14/mps-expenses-westminster-parliament

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_parliamentary_expenses_scandal

etc, etc, I could keep finding the sources, but there's a silly amount .. I must say, I know you say you live in the UK .. but hmm?

Also, it was all over the news at the time ..

So, ye, about you saying ME making things up to fit my imagination? YOU proved my point about internet costs


Ok, YOU call it a 'Monopoly of Violence'. I (and others) refer to it as the 'Monopoly of Security'. For various reasons which I won't go into here, but if interested as to why its really 'security' and not 'violence' (because people seek security so they can get on with tasks, they don't seek violence so they can get on with other tasks). Hence - Monopoly of Security. Though again, if you think people seek violence so they can get on with other tasks ... I don't think I can change your mind, but hey ho, if you seek violence so you can get on with other tasks, you are free to do that (because I believe in NOT having a monopoly on choice).

http://mises.org/daily/2088

Btw .. I'm not sure how you work out what a 'decade' is .. but if you check the newspaper articles on the links I provided you can see they do not 'date back decades'. But hey, if you wish to continue stating the same facts, again, we'll just have to agree to disagree about what the definition of the word 'decades' means.

I am pretty definite now that you do not understand what 'monopoly' really means. It's DOMINANT, it does not necessarily mean the ONLY. Hence, again, BT had the monopoly.

I've been trying to be polite, but lets be honest,



BT had the monopoly on the TELEPHONE (which you needed at the time to get on the internet), when other companies had the chance to compete prices dropped drastically and quality improved (debatable, I know, for me it has), people (myself in particular) do not pay nearly £500 a month for internet these days.

I was talking about the Monopoly of Security. Though I still hold that the state has always had a 'Monopoly on Violence', it has not developed as you have grown older. What you are talking about is called - REHABILITATION - moving away from a PUNITIVE style of punishment. But these are different subjects and not relative to the Monopoly of Security.

I hope you check some of the links, and/or google some of the stuff and concepts we've discussed. I have looked into the things you talked about and all I could find was 'monopoly on violence', which appears to be basically 'monopoly on security', but less well defined (and we both found the 1995 internet charges). I could not find anything about ministers and dogs, etc.

Here's a last piece for you

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/phone-hacking/9579352/Counter-terrorism-officer-charged-with-breaching-Official-Secrets-Act.html

I'm going to leave our conversation here because it's clear to me that there is a fundamental flaw in mutual communication, in that we understand certain terms differently (and really I cba to explain each one) in that we have quite different concepts of the terms 'monopoly', 'security', 'scandal', 'decades', and possibly even the 'UK'.

My point about BT directory enquires stands.  It was cheaper and more reliable before competition was forced on it.  If you really did use a 4p per minute service without applying for discounts in 1995, then yes I grant you it could cost a lot.  But I had an office with 7 staff online for a few hundred a month. My point BT didn't have a monopoly on Internet stands - you should have shopped around.

Ministers claiming bras and cat food were breaking the rules.  Ministers claiming housing allowance by and large were not.  Neither of those is a security scandal.  You say we have differences as what constitutes a security scandal but really you are misusing the word 'security.' What you meant was an ethics scandal.  Since the practices involved date back decades, all that has changed is that we now hold elected official to a higher standard.  Isn't that a good thing?

The term is monopoly of violence not monopoly of security.  In Ireland when I was growing up there were neighbourhood "police" who kneecapped the local "criminals."  Of course, the crimes varied from selling drugs without paying protection to dating girls that the hoods fancied themselves.  Over time, we have moved to a system where the state has a monopoly of violence; people don't get kneecapped for any "crime" and in fact they usually get community service orders for real offences.  Most libertarians want to move to a system where we again have local communities administering violence themselves - in other words back to having the local Provo decide who got to keep kneecaps and who did not.  No thanks!

Clearly not what I was talking about in the OP.

You Sir win a troll badge 

Prey tell, what things did I make up? What things did I invent?


Why did you not refer to any of these points? Or were you trying to indicate that none of these issues are security related? Or are these all things I made up? That I invented all these things to justify my ideology?

I think we have a different understanding of what 'Security' means with regards to a nation.

We were talking about BT with regards to monopoly (whether its better or worse). Which is a different thing that 'Security'.


4x60 = £2.40
http://www.forevergeek.com/2007/04/what_did_online_access_cost_per_hour_in_1995/

For the $9.95 base fee, you got 5 hours of online access, after that it was $2.95 an hour.

http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/gtr576.pdf

So it was roughly £3.40 PER HOUR!

(Thanks for finding the BT link, I couldn't find a suitable one the other day)

So, yes, I accede that you were basically right in stating 4p per minute

(I misread that last night and was thinking you wrote per hour, but that is probably because I FIRST wrote)


So, yes, you were right, 4p per MINUTE, and I was right £3-5 per hour (its rather easy to rack up nearly £500 a month at that rate, do the maths). And yes, I much prefer paying £45 per month days.

Ok .. urm .. security .. tbh, if you're really interested you'll go read sites and learn what 'security of the state/nation' actually means. It's not 'security forces went and did this/that/blah blah'. We're talking about 2 different things. Security forces can be involved when discussing security of a nation, but that is not what 'monopoly of security' means or indicates, at all.

If someone can point him towards 'production of security', or a similar 'security of the state', 'how the state monopoly on security works', etc, or you can probably google it up, a fair few pdf's out there.

I'm going to blindly assume you know what the NHA is, since you brought up and keep trying the Health comparison. In how it's fighting for the NHS, that the NHS is falling apart from the inside out. And that is because of monopoly of central control (e.g. government). I am all for the NHS, but a decentralised NHS would serve the nation a hell of a lot better than a monopoly centralised government that is slowly destroying it.

Also,


You actually think houses worth hundreds of thousands are akin to dog food and bras?

Seriously? lol? You're trolling. And you tell me to get my facts right .... you sir, need to look in a mirror. I could easily belittle you back, but why bother? But if I wanted to imitate you I would state things like.

-You don't even understand what 'Monopoly of Security' means and are trying to discuss points about it.
-You don't even know whats going on in the UK or whats been going on politically (or at least you seem to not have much of a clue).
-You prove my own point about BT costs whilst trying to argue against me about BT costs (that is just *facepalm*).

I could go on, but I'll stop there

Exactly you proved my points. "Natural" = "feeling right" and it's subjective.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-476607/The-tantalising-design-flaws-bodged-bodies.html

And, you won't find the feeling of "proud" occurs naturally, it considered a sin in some cultures.

jobe7 - in the 80s the security services killed 3 IRA members in Gibralter.  It may have been justified as they were in the process of planting a bomb but it rates as a scandal as there was no warning - they were just shot.

That is a security scandal.  Ministers charging dog food and bras on expenses is nothing to be proud of.  But its not a security scandal.

http://www.btplc.com/Thegroup/BTsHistory/1984onwards/1995.htm - please stop making things up to justify your ideology.  Peak prices were 4p per minute in 1995 and that assumes it wasn't a Key Number/Friend Family.  

The overall point remains that directory enquiries went from cheap and reliable to more than double the cost and unreliable.  That's because there are some situations where market competition pushes up prices.  Health is another example.  It costs almost double in the US compared to the UK yet has less people covered and gets inferior outcomes for those that are covered.

I'm happy to debate this with you but please use facts in your argument.  Don't invent things.

Gawd no it wasn't 3p per minute in the 90's! Maybe in 99 .. but 95-98, nah. Seriously don't know what you're talking about there, AOL was a freaking nightmare for costs and BT took their chunk.

There hasn't been a security scandal in the UK in decades?



Director of Terrorism (think it was internal terrorism), of the financial sector, caught laundering (last year). HSBC last year caught laundering and making banks specifically for the drug cartels (HSBC is hq'd in the City of London). Ministers buying houses left, right and center. As I said, there has NEVER been as many by-elections in any UK government since it formed hundreds of years ago. The lies about Afghanistan to start the wars there, the lies about the Iraqi's to start the war there.

There's other things, but these are the most blatantly obvious. Starting to make me think that you don't actually live in the UK do you..?

And ye.. maybe we're not talking about the same country ... I'm talking about the United Kingdom.

Or maybe you think none of the things I've mentioned are 'security' matters? I'm curious, what do you think they are then? What do you think 'security' actually means and is? What is your definition of security as employed by a nation/state?

Again with the dodgy facts.  The innovation in the UK phone system did come from Defence related firms.  BT never had a monopoly on Internet in the UK.  It was 3p per minute in the 90s. 

And as far as I know, there hasn't been a security scandal in the UK in decades.  The last I know of was the Gibraltar killings and that was the 80s.

Are you sure we are talking about the same country?

Tbh, I totally agree with Elwar on the state on the phones in the UK.

BT also had the monopoly on connection to the net, and DAMN was that expensive!! You telling me we were better off at £3-5 an hour? Or however much it was, I used to run up nearly £500 a month in just internet bills, now its a package of around £45.

And you say my thoughts are 'magical thinking' .. hmm, me thinks you should look in a mirror, no offense.

Simply put, the facts speak for themselves, what Elwar pointed out. And the fact of monopoly of security leads to corruption, I mean c'mon, if you're from the UK then you know of all the political scandals (monopoly of security), there has never been as many by-elections in any UK government that's existed. And over the last 5 years and the banking scandals (monopoly of money), and most banks are centralised in the City of London.

Well, I'm assuming you have a slight idea of whats been going on, otherwise you wouldn't be in this section.

That's a very American perspective.  The is a world outside your borders that had the same innovations at the same and it was nothing to do with deregulation.  Here in the UK, most of the innovation came out of the Defence sector and Vodafone is still a giant.  They used to make military comm systems...that's how the mobile industry started here.

The telephone industry was a government created monopoly for 50 years, an agreement between the US government and AT&T and the local Bell phone companies.

In 1984 they loosened things up a bit and then in the mid 90s they deregulated it.

Look at how much the phone technology changed between 1952 and 1984. Then look at the mild advances between the mid 80s and 90s, then look at the changes between the mid 90s and today.

Those who would have telephones still regulated would say that it is easier to keep all of the phone systems compatible with just one system. There were literally people warning about the need to have one phone line in your home for every phone company if the monopoly was lifted. They would warn about how many businesses rely on their telephones and if this "great experiment" were to fail that all of those businesses would be affected and the economy could potentially be devastated. And, of course, if one phone company was not around and required to offer service to the poorest people then only rich people would be able to afford phones and the poor would have their phones turned off, the phone companies would only serve the wealthy communities.

jobe7 - that's magical thinking.  Health is a natural monopoly in that everywhere that you have health systems without single payer, the consumer pays more for less service.  Go to the US and marvel at a country that pays nearly double what we pay for health and still manages to get worse outcomes.

You are factually wrong about BT directory enquiries.  Price was 21p and it was reliable - after competition was allowed, it went to over 40p and its still there.  118118 and the rest are even more expensive.  Introducing competition simply made a good service bad.

Even in this forum, you get death threats.  Do you want the nutters to be entitled to follow up and kill people.  Only the state should be allowed to use force so state monopoly on violence is essential.  From what I see, the people who object to this are people who want to personally get violent.

Market forces are good but they are not the only good thing.  Social justice is good as well for example.

So you are basically putting the idea into statists minds that they need to regulate doughnuts.

For years I have been reveling in the fact that they are unregulated, enjoying all varieties of tasty goodness. Now some pencil pushing beaurocrat is going to start regulating the size, shape, price and taste of doughnuts.

Thanks a lot.

Your 'natural' monopolies are forced monopolies.

Pharmaceuticals lobby and outlaw competition, coincidentely enough, what is commonly referred to as 'natural' medicine. And then ironically they reproduce those same natural medicines in pharmaceutical form at extornionate prices for higher than what should be, profit.

If the law did NOT enforce the monopoly then medicine would be cheaper and more available for all, as per the doughnut comparison.

Justice most definitely does NOT work 'best' when the state has the monopoly on violence. That is just plain wrong. A monopoly of security is talked about in many threads on this page, and how a free competitive security would provide lower cost (aka, tax) and better quality.

I think you will find that BT's prices would be far higher if they did not have to compete which such corporations as Virgin or Sky, or anyone else. And that competitive pricing and service has indeed gained Virgin and Sky customers, where as obviously if BT held the monopoly (they still hold a majority) then Virgin and Sky never would have been able to enter the market.

And directory enquiries was terrible and extremely expensive and only went more expensive.

The doughnut proves both your points incorrect.
> Health would be improved by allowing alternatives into the market (cancer most notably).
> Security as a monopoly leads to abuse and corruption

Would you rather have your security take their wages by threatening to lock you up and/or possibly beat you? And ruin your life in the process by giving you a criminal record? - As exists in our governments monopoly of security.

Or would you rather have your security take their wages because you choose to pay them and their continued pay depends on them providing quality of service? - As would exist in a free security style environment.

You can see which one is the same as the doughnut metaphor.

Some things are a natural monopoly.  Examples:

Health works best with a single purchaser system.

Justice works best when the state has a monopoly on the right of violence.  Do you really want your hysterical neighbours with their pitchforks and torches personally administering justice against filthy paediatrician monsters like this? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/901723.stm

If you are a Brit, directory enquiries worked best as a monopoly.  When BT were forced to open to competition, the price trebled and its never gone back down.

However, doughnuts, that I grant you works best as a free market

Maybe YOU are an unnatural evolutionary anomaly.

Me, I'm normally pretty proud of myself when I see myself in a mirror

Taking off your clothes, stand in front of a mirror ,  what you see is an evolution anomaly , unnatural .

The Doughnut Comparison;
The Natural Order Of Things.

Ever thought about how the general prices of doughnuts have come down over the years? And at the same time, the quality of doughnuts have generally gone up?

This is because doughnuts exist in a free competitive market, in that the only way to ‘out do’ your competitor and sell more doughnuts is to make them cheaper and to improve upon the quality. This has slowly caused the prices to drop and, as you may attest for yourself, some very doughnuts to be available for the consumer.
This is the natural order of things, markets, consumer, buyer/seller, employee/employer, wage/profit.
We can say this is a natural order because this is what occurs when there is no ‘interference’ from another source/s, this is what occurs in a free market.

A Monopoly Is Not Natural And Must Be Enforced.
In a monopolistic market, the ‘power that be’ needs to interfere with the market to ensure that they continue to dominate and maintain the monopoly, which normally grants them exceedingly large profits, that is greater that it would be normally, under a free market. If the profit was the same as under free market, then there would be no need to put in any effort to keep the monopoly and stay as the monopoly.
If we look at any monopoly, GM foods, money, government. They must interfere with their competitions to even continue to exist. Natural (free) market will force them into non-existence (as their existence is understood today).
In the decentralized free market doughnut world, prices drop, quality improves, consumers and sellers are happy.

Natural Order Of Things.
Can be defined as: not interfering, letting things take their own course, the eventual outcome, the eventual outcome without interference.
The natural order, like grass and nature growing through concrete, will all be the underlying principle and will always come through, unless you enforce an unnatural state of affairs. Inflation could be looked at as an unnatural state of affairs. It is something that is enforced and the natural state of what money ‘should be’ is interfered with.
The natural order of things will always strive to come through, and the natural order of things can readily be applied to such things as economics, money, government. If we look at ‘government’ throughout our recorded history, we can see how the ‘enforced (monopolistic) order’ and ‘natural order’ of society have grown and evolved, in that I think it’s fair to say that we have more freedoms today that we had hundreds of years ago. Though some may argue that point.
If the natural order of things can be applied to such things, then is it the eventuality that all things will become cheaper and quality will improve, under a natural, free, society.

Just like the doughnut.

Discuss.

(Yes, I was eating a doughnut whilst this popped into my thoughts)