Oh, wait?
Topic: What do we do about government monopoly? (Read 1600 times)
OK, I guess that governments can protect us from everything and ppl do not get abused every day
Oh, wait?
Oh, wait?
I definitelly cannot…if the others can, well, that's their problem, isn't it.
I'm pretty sure 99.99% of the people out there can be somehow forced to buy certain things.Why would they want to live in your world if they cannot get some guarantee that they won't be abused for profit?
I definitelly cannot…if the others can, well, that's their problem, isn't it.
You just won't stop with your social expriments, will you. If people buy something, than it's good for them. They decide. Not you.
So people can't be forced to buy stuff they don't need?
What planet are you from?
You just won't stop with your social expriments, will you. If people buy something, than it's good for them. They decide. Not you.
stop feeding the troll
You just won't stop with your social expriments, will you. If people buy something, than it's good for them. They decide. Not you.
The bad intervening started after we made the financial markets more free and they started to take over and screw everyone in the a so there you go. 'Free' markets screw everything up for a little bit more profit and intervention is apparently nessesary.
I'm not saying we're not in trouble. I'm saying that intervention is not the real problem. The whole capitalistic free market idea becomes broken when taken too far, that is the problem. The regulations are only a symptom. A wall street puppy will sell his grandmother for a better position. I don't think his grandmother would like that so this free market idea is at odds with most peoples lifes.
Remember Enron? Thats the type of dogs that need a free market to 'operate' in.
They will sell their own countries supplies if that makes them some more money. They honestly don't give a shit.
Less intervention can only happen if corporations have a size limit and an influence limit.
Otherwise some corporations will grow big enough that their hunger for profit will undermine society.
I'm not saying we're not in trouble. I'm saying that intervention is not the real problem. The whole capitalistic free market idea becomes broken when taken too far, that is the problem. The regulations are only a symptom. A wall street puppy will sell his grandmother for a better position. I don't think his grandmother would like that so this free market idea is at odds with most peoples lifes.
Remember Enron? Thats the type of dogs that need a free market to 'operate' in.
They will sell their own countries supplies if that makes them some more money. They honestly don't give a shit.
Less intervention can only happen if corporations have a size limit and an influence limit.
Otherwise some corporations will grow big enough that their hunger for profit will undermine society.
You are just not seeing it. The market has never been *truly* free despite what governments tell you. They want to rule, nothing else, they'll tell you anything to stay at the helm. Hence all the problems.
Of course there is risk every time so sane ppl divide the risks. If you get too attached to one company, you may get burned when it falls, but that is your problem after all. Other than that, in free market, bad companies bancrupt, good ones survive, that's all. When there are all those laws ant interventions crippling market, somebody can get advantage over others which they may not be able to bridge. When somebody looses too much, government will go and save him. That's all the wrong which will result in worse and worse.
To be honest, I am tired of explaning obvious. As the situation will get worse, you may see the reality despite all the government brainwashing. You should hope you will see it sooner than the others, which will be your advantage.
LOl you're such a small thinker for someone who wants to change society.
Tell me, in what way am i a victim of my government ruling my life?
And sure, in a free market a bad companies go bankrupt. But that is the market definition of a company. The goal of a company is to make profit and so a bad company is one that does not make (enoug) profit. Simple.
The problem is that society defines what is a bad company differently.
What can be very good from a market point of view can be very bad from a non-corporate normal persons point of view.
If you define 'bad' as 'bad for society' then it turns out that there are lots of successfull bad companies.
Did Shell care that they were poisoning a population over profit? LOL you've got to be kidding.
Did Enron care that people were without electricity? Sure as hell not, they were working the market for extra profits. Did their victims (normal everyday people expecting their power) have any real choise in this? Nope, because this was done without their knowledge. Did Enron ever consider not doing it? LOL., they are in it for the profit. They will do ANYTHING they think they can get away with. They are only humans.
So why create an environment that cultivates these companies that feel absolutely no responsibility to the world? Why would i want that? In fact, why would anyone want that unless they own the company themselfs? Why would i want to give multinationals even more power to control my life than they already have? (advertisement from corporations has a much bigger influence on peoples daily behaviour than government has)
I don't know, seems i don't realy need them. So how will your free market prevent them from doing what society doesnt want?
How will free market dynamics make sure the players don't try to stab each other in the back, simultaniously.
So for me there is no reason to give these parties an increasingly free market to play on.
I don't want to be the victim of a corporation doing 'better' for itself.
I think in fact that the market as it is today needs to be capped and/or stratified cleanly.
The bigger a market party the more societal responsibilities they will need to consider or else their operation should be limited.
More freedom when the area of effect of the company is smaller.
Society should have a debate about risk and risk should not be decided by market forces.
As an example, i could make a soda that has some cheap ingredient that will allow me to outcompete the market leader.
I also know that the chemical involved will lead to a genetic dysfunction in second and third generation children.
But who cares! I will probably be dead by then to get blamed! I can get filty rich now and enjoy succes. Hey, you liked my cheap drink? Your own damn problem.
If you would let the market decide the usefullness of this drink to society then you will be too late becasue the market will only react after a few generations. In the mean time everyone has been drinking the poison for 40 years.
So why would any sane person in society give a company the complete freedom to operate on such premise?
The bad intervening started after we made the financial markets more free and they started to take over and screw everyone in the a so there you go. 'Free' markets screw everything up for a little bit more profit and intervention is apparently nessesary.
I'm not saying we're not in trouble. I'm saying that intervention is not the real problem. The whole capitalistic free market idea becomes broken when taken too far, that is the problem. The regulations are only a symptom. A wall street puppy will sell his grandmother for a better position. I don't think his grandmother would like that so this free market idea is at odds with most peoples lifes.
Remember Enron? Thats the type of dogs that need a free market to 'operate' in.
They will sell their own countries supplies if that makes them some more money. They honestly don't give a shit.
Less intervention can only happen if corporations have a size limit and an influence limit.
Otherwise some corporations will grow big enough that their hunger for profit will undermine society.
I'm not saying we're not in trouble. I'm saying that intervention is not the real problem. The whole capitalistic free market idea becomes broken when taken too far, that is the problem. The regulations are only a symptom. A wall street puppy will sell his grandmother for a better position. I don't think his grandmother would like that so this free market idea is at odds with most peoples lifes.
Remember Enron? Thats the type of dogs that need a free market to 'operate' in.
They will sell their own countries supplies if that makes them some more money. They honestly don't give a shit.
Less intervention can only happen if corporations have a size limit and an influence limit.
Otherwise some corporations will grow big enough that their hunger for profit will undermine society.
You are just not seeing it. The market has never been *truly* free despite what governments tell you. They want to rule, nothing else, they'll tell you anything to stay at the helm. Hence all the problems.
Of course there is risk every time so sane ppl divide the risks. If you get too attached to one company, you may get burned when it falls, but that is your problem after all. Other than that, in free market, bad companies bancrupt, good ones survive, that's all. When there are all those laws ant interventions crippling market, somebody can get advantage over others which they may not be able to bridge. When somebody looses too much, government will go and save him. That's all the wrong which will result in worse and worse.
To be honest, I am tired of explaning obvious. As the situation will get worse, you may see the reality despite all the government brainwashing. You should hope you will see it sooner than the others, which will be your advantage.
What good changes in currency have you seen lately? I've seen only printing money, printing debts, taxes/confiscations.
Most of the problems were created by this intervening.
Ask people in Greece or Croatia how they escaped from the problems.
Most of the problems were created by this intervening.
Ask people in Greece or Croatia how they escaped from the problems.
The bad intervening started after we made the financial markets more free and they started to take over and screw everyone in the a so there you go. 'Free' markets screw everything up for a little bit more profit and intervention is apparently nessesary.
I'm not saying we're not in trouble. I'm saying that intervention is not the real problem. The whole capitalistic free market idea becomes broken when taken too far, that is the problem. The regulations are only a symptom. A wall street puppy will sell his grandmother for a better position. I don't think his grandmother would like that so this free market idea is at odds with most peoples lifes.
Remember Enron? Thats the type of dogs that need a free market to 'operate' in.
They will sell their own countries supplies if that makes them some more money. They honestly don't give a shit.
Less intervention can only happen if corporations have a size limit and an influence limit.
Otherwise some corporations will grow big enough that their hunger for profit will undermine society.
You know, it seems to you are either one of those social experimentators, you have messiah complex, or you are just brainwashed. Most people don't drive drunk or drugged because they are sane enough. Not because some law tells them. But because they themselfes want to get into destinatino unharmed. No law has any significant effect on that. It would be good if you reliazed that and stopped telling ppl what to do.
Not true.
These laws have a pretty big and measurable effect on behaviour.
Most of the effect comes from just getting the word out.
Making a substance illegal is a strong signal that the use is at least discouraged.
Most people pick up on that but there are always individuals that are attracted to that (mostly rebellious teenagers).
You cannot legalize all drugs simply because there are too many possible effects of drugs.
There is a drug that makes you agree with any proposal someone makes (like, Hey, give me the contents of your wallet).
Would you want this stuff freely available in the supermarket so anyone can slip it into the next drink you buy?
Drugs are just biochemistry so they can influence any part of what a human is or does.
We need to decide very carefully as a society which drugs we would want to legalize and which we don't.
What good changes in currency have you seen lately? I've seen only printing money, printing debts, taxes/confiscations.
Most of the problems were created by this intervening.
Ask people in Greece or Croatia how they escaped from the problems.
Most of the problems were created by this intervening.
Ask people in Greece or Croatia how they escaped from the problems.
Babylon wasnt built over night. One stone at a time.
This.All in all, there is no reason for independent currency to not establish at some value. Todays governments are those doing all those bad changes in currencies, it has the potential to be only better without them being able to intervene.
You assume that all changes in currencies are bad.
I think you are wrong.
What we need to do is better define how and why we intevene.
But since no known system is perfect, intevention will be necessary at times.
If you exclude the ability to intervene then you also accept that when the system fails you you will have no escape from it.
To expose the lives of all people involved to a train without an emergency break reeks of borderline thrill seeking at others expense.
You want to live in a society or in a lottery?
You know, it seems to you are either one of those social experimentators, you have messiah complex, or you are just brainwashed. Most people don't drive drunk or drugged because they are sane enough. Not because some law tells them. But because they themselfes want to get into destinatino unharmed. No law has any significant effect on that. It would be good if you reliazed that and stopped telling ppl what to do.
Does self-regulation mean that first people will need to die before everyone wisens up?
And why the hell not?
You drive being on drugs and harm or kill anybody? You work for your debt (which the harmed one or his family wants) untill you pay it. Or die. Many peopel drive drunk an nothing happenes. But when does, they shoudl bare all consequences.
You waste your health being on drugs and don't have insurace which covers for that? Well that is your problem, you made yourself addict, than die if nobody is willing to help you.
Tell me, is there anything today which what really prevents people from driving on drugs, or drunk? I think not, if you do, you are so naive. And all those bans can't do anything with that.
The thing is that if you allow these things that statistically more people will do this and so overall more people will get hurt.
It is not about preventing any individual incident.
The way this works is it prevents enough people from doing it to make the streets and the roads relatively safe.
I really don't care what punnishment someone gets for running over my child. Nothing will give me my child back.
But any prohibition needs to be supported by the population otherwise it will fail completely.
And some drugs can indeed be better regulated when legalized.
I just think that legalizing everything is just as unworkable as forbidding everything.
So here again society would benefit most if there is a balance.
Let me guess: UK?
Problem being that markets react to highest price, not biggest need.
You show me a market that will willingly sell at a lower price to people who need it most instead of distributing top down in order of who pays the most.
You show me a market that will willingly sell at a lower price to people who need it most instead of distributing top down in order of who pays the most.
Why? If anybody wants to help, he can do that, wilingly. I don't like being forced to help somebody I don't even know. Also, high-price means draws competition.
People that need help are usually in a vulnerable position that can easily be abused by whoever offers help. That is why we decided as a society that we need to help people in need to stay away from a downward spiral. And that we need to support everyone from not falling into one.
If you have some problems then chances are these problems will trigger new problems etc. And this can happen outside of your own control. It can also happen to whole communities or countries.
So in general it is much better and cheaper to prevent people from sinking too low as there is a big chance of systemic failure in someones situation which drags the surroundings with it.
So if you want a stable situation where society can flourish you need to secure a certain standard of living.
I'm not saying everything should be free but you need to provide a bottom.
I also feel society needs to set a top as well.
Bureaucracies are not ment to react fast. They are ment to provide a stable bundle of services to society over a long time.
If it changed too much then people would not be able to plan long time. Who would invest in a house when you have no way of knowing what will happen around it? Every step individuals take will be a risk per se. You will have to deal with an enourmous ammount of small forces. You will have to read and understand all the rules of all these entities that you will have to deal with.
If it changed too much then people would not be able to plan long time. Who would invest in a house when you have no way of knowing what will happen around it? Every step individuals take will be a risk per se. You will have to deal with an enourmous ammount of small forces. You will have to read and understand all the rules of all these entities that you will have to deal with.
That is just haunting, nothing else. Why would people make it intentionally complicated when their business which feeds them depends on ability to sell? They can just organize into groups. Not that in bureaucracy it is ANY better. When you need anything, you have to usually deal with several burreacrats who mostly deal with you as with pieve of shit they've stepped into. Not mentioning they toss you between one and other like hot potato.
It's not complicated intentionally. The complexity is just a result of the many restrictions society puts on businesses. The discussion should be about why it got complicated like that in the first place and not just naively about removing the complexity.
You will see that if we allow sales to be the the only goal that society will get undermined.
You can sell more beef if you mix it with horse meat, right? Why have rules that protect customers from fraud if society needs to sell?
Why not use the cheaper but cancerous flavour enhancer in your product? It will sell better and the people will not notice the effects for years! Screw bureaucracy, they only complicate stuff and stuff.
So there is a good reason for having all these bureaucrats running around and checking their things. Unless you have something that replaces this system with something that at least has the same benefits it will be fairly difficult to make bureaucracy go away. They are essential in a lot of things in society.
You think security firm B is better than A? Sure, untill you read the fine print and see that you have signed a 12 year contract that cannot be disbonded without you losing your head. Anyway, there is no government so noone to uphold a law. There will be nothing protecting you against security firm B making sure you fullfill your contract.
If you are so stupid to sign that contract, well, your problem. You got a choice (unlike today).
Security firm B could already be controling a vital resource.
You are having fantasies about how much choice people usually really have.
In fact, because security firm B has been so successfull in dealing out these contracts (they only hire the smartest) they now 'protect' most of your city.
They have now decided to 'protect' the water supply of the city.
Anyone who is under the protection of the minor security firm A will not get any water.
Everyone will need to sign the 12 year contract with security firm B.
Security firm A is now too small to pose a risk againt security firm B. The people working for security firm A start to disapear mysteriously.
You may think that maybe you don't need security firm B anymore. So you decide stop paying for the service and you just dig a hole and have your own water.
Of course, once security firm B finds out that you haven't been paying they will pay you a little visit.
You will explain to them that you don't need their protection and that you have your own water now.
So they say, sure kiddo, but you know what? It is a hard world out there. Are you really sure you can live without our protection?
You tell them sure, what can happen?
That night a black car stops by your house. A couple of gorillas with baseball bats get out and redecorate your appartment and your face.
Next day the security firm comes by again. They heared you had some kinds of problems and offer their services. At double the price. Because they can.
So who will protect you against a monopolist security firm?
How will you arrange that these firms act in the best interest of their clients instead of in the best interest of themselfs?
They have now decided to 'protect' the water supply of the city.
Anyone who is under the protection of the minor security firm A will not get any water.
Everyone will need to sign the 12 year contract with security firm B.
Security firm A is now too small to pose a risk againt security firm B. The people working for security firm A start to disapear mysteriously.
You may think that maybe you don't need security firm B anymore. So you decide stop paying for the service and you just dig a hole and have your own water.
Of course, once security firm B finds out that you haven't been paying they will pay you a little visit.
You will explain to them that you don't need their protection and that you have your own water now.
So they say, sure kiddo, but you know what? It is a hard world out there. Are you really sure you can live without our protection?
You tell them sure, what can happen?
That night a black car stops by your house. A couple of gorillas with baseball bats get out and redecorate your appartment and your face.
Next day the security firm comes by again. They heared you had some kinds of problems and offer their services. At double the price. Because they can.
So who will protect you against a monopolist security firm?
How will you arrange that these firms act in the best interest of their clients instead of in the best interest of themselfs?
Aren't you one of those gun-banning fools? First, if you will be armed, you won't need security to such everyday "protection“, and if they'd like to "protect" you too much without you wanting it (e. g. during night), you may be able to defend yourself (aka shoot them all). Ha?
If security firm B didn't have bigger guns than you they would never be able to establish themselfs as a security firm that protects you against other fools with bigger guns than you.
Of course you are free to get your bigger gun too, but we call that an arms race. Doesn't end well.
Quote
Second, are you sure they are willing to take it into bloodshet? Nobody reasonable wants bloodshet! Citizens with even small security company on their side may be as big force as firm B, and using force in such situation will result into bloodshet. Nobody wants bloodshet. Also there is no reason for big firm C not to come, ppl not support firm A, or firm A not getting firm C to help.
Of course, they will try to prevent violence as much as possible. But they know that people want to prevent violence even more. So they can show off a little bit and then control their territory with fear. Since they have the bigger guns it will be clear to everyone they canot win without victims falling. Big security firm C is called the government. We have bureaucrats that make laws that get enfoorced by the police so security firm B cannot take individual control and the people in the area do not have to fear that something like this will ever happen.
If Big security firm C was not the government but just another player there is no guarantee that firm C will be worse than firm B and that its only objective is to destroy firm B so it can use the water for itself (maybe to sell it at an even higher price).
So what will prevent security firm C from going bad?
Security firm D?
That's not a real solution, that's kicking the can.
mind you, i'm not saying that it is easy to have a good government or that ours are an exaple of good governments.
I'm saying that there is a definitive position for a top dog that acts in the interest of society as a whole. This to prevent interests of individuals (or individual players) to take control of the whole.
Quote
Anyway, whole firm B behaviour is too strange, they want their money and by doing this, it will only harm their business in long-term, so why the hell would they do that. Also, who is the owner of the watter supply that he alows this?
Strange but human. These kinds of 'wars' for control happen all the time when allowed. It is human nature.Long term plan: monopolize/control some resource (could be locally), extort the people (could me small ammounts so they do't run away instantly) , use profit to expand and monopolize/control more resources.
So unless you have a way to actually prevent such dynamics your society is doomed from the start.
The market allows this as a viable strategy. You don't have to be good, you only have to be better than the competition. So it works equally well to subdue competition as to make a superior product at lower price.
Let me ask this again, how does the market deal with monopolies?
Quote
Last but not least. Tell me, is that today any better? Gotcha. Today water belongs to one company, they can say they want any price for it because you will pay it. Nothing stops them from doing it, do you even realize that?
Funny, because in my country we have a law that forbids the company to sell it at too high a price. I have the right to get cheap clean water. Just like gas and electricity. Quote
It's even worse if it belongs to the town or even central government. Because they can imprison you for not paying, for holding weapons, for anything. It is no better in socialistic burreaucracy!![/b] Government can do and does many such things. Most likely it is much worse than it could be in free society. There is at least a chance people themselfes will do it better. Government does almost nothing good.
Like taxes. It is robbery if you ask me, and if you refuse to pay, they will sent you to prison. That's *just*great. Man come on, see through it, all you say is just government propaganda to wash your brain so you won't accept anything else than them.
I live in a country with pretty high taxes.Like taxes. It is robbery if you ask me, and if you refuse to pay, they will sent you to prison. That's *just*great. Man come on, see through it, all you say is just government propaganda to wash your brain so you won't accept anything else than them.
But it is also one of the cleanest countries and our roads are not broken. We have plenty of food and no shortages.
We have an incredibly high medical standard and most people area healthy and capable of working.
Everyone that can knows how to read and write in multiple languages and we have social security for when society fails to provide a suitable place for you. You can get subsidized in many ways when you want to undertake something in society.
And we don't have guns. But we don't need them because the burglars don't have them.
I'm not afraid of people with guns because they pose no real threat here. People have it so good here that crime rates are pretty low, never mind violent crimes, never mind crimes with guns involved.
And all this because i pay taxes and bureaucrats make laws and rules.
I'm not complaining, to be honest.
What freedoms do i not have that weigh up against all that i do have in this situation?
Minimalistic government seems to be most agreeable option. Dealing only with nationwide threats (army), foreign politics, maybe some more, being heavily controlled by public. EVERYTHING else private.
If we didn't have government, we'd have to invent it. Human nature precludes anything else.
So, we'll just have to work around its problems and/or change it.
So, we'll just have to work around its problems and/or change it.
Babylon wasnt built over night. One stone at a time.
This.All in all, there is no reason for independent currency to not establish at some value. Todays governments are those doing all those bad changes in currencies, it has the potential to be only better without them being able to intervene.