And how would people/business take responsibility for their actions? It is taught in business school to externalize as much as you can, they are call externalities. What if their decisions have a direct affect on me in a negative way? What should happen then? How would it be administered? And by whom? Externalities require that you are actually able to externalize all those costs. For instance, by dumping chemicals in a river instead of treating them. With gov't regulations, you can buy a congressman or twelve, and get laws passed that let you do that. Without the government to do that, you're left dealing with the people who live downstream from you. Nothing like a big damage settlement to re-internalize a cost. How are you going to capture your damages from your winning settlement? Come force my "private" bank to give it up. Maybe my private is the bank where there motto is "we don't give up your money to anyone". This is what I am talking about, your voluntary system does not work without an actual third party strong enough to enforce compliance. |
|
|
|
They do. But I also add that this did not happen is a bubble or vacuum. They took advantage of that stable environment that provided them the opportunity to profit. From that profit, the company is responsible to pay a just portion is taxes that go to maintain that environment and infrastructure.
So what's the expected response when the government start getting in the way of the functioning of the infrastructure. Just as an example - California's newest round of emissions laws have forced truckers to purchase brand new rigs that actually get about 10% less gas mileage when hauling a load. They're also paying a higher licensing fee to pay for the regulation on the new engine components which are being inspected at weigh stations. Cite your source. Well what people should be doing on any issue that they have a problem with, is come up with a better solution and lobby the hell out of it so that a dialogue and start and work on a compromise if your new solution is superior than the law you think is inferior. It's legislation, not law. Solution: let people/businesses make their own personal decisions and take responsibility for their actions whether they are "good" or "bad." And how would people/business take responsibility for their actions? It is taught in business school to externalize as much as you can, they are call externalities. What if their decisions have a direct affect on me in a negative way? What should happen then? How would it be administered? And by whom? |
|
|
|
I should stay the hell out of this thread:
Yes, you should.
I don't find it likely that many (or, for that matter, any) other agencies would side with the abusive group. If nothing else, they'd want the customers of that abusive group to come to them, and so would not act to protect the abusive group from the consequences of it's actions.
Why do you think this is unlikely? People take sides and have points of view. People do not operate is this neutral manner and only with their customers best interest. But it's not in their customer's best interest that they're doing that. They're acting in their own (and possibly their shareholder's) best interest. More customers means more money. More money is good for the company. Siding with the group of people that are abusing their customers will not get them more customers. It might (read: definitely will) even lose them some (read: most, if not all) of their customers, to groups that aren't OK with abusing their customers. In text-book this may be written. The world is not that simplistic. People and companies do many ranges of actions for many reasons that sometime fit in your mold and many times do not. I actually find more money can many times be quite bad for a company, they lose their culture, character, what they stood for in the market place. History is litter with examples. Perfect example in modern times, Google and Apple. Example from history, British East Indian Company, Llyods of London, Standard Oil, etc.. |
|
|
|
Again?
It seems there's a new version of mass shooting every year in the US. I know you want your guns and all, ok fine. But don't you think that instead of looking for terrorists outside your country, you should look for the terrorists inside your own country first?
Problem is a motivated person can commit acts of horror no matter what. You can try and take all the liberties away in the name of safety and in the end you will have neither. Also these people are not doing this to terrorize, because they always kill themselves. They are doing it because they are imbalanced in someway and are so desperate that delusion-ally they think this is the only answer. This is a symptom of a much larger problem that is coming to the surface and can no longer be ignored. We have mass disenfranchisement and people are feeling hopeless and have nothing to lose. Our current system is eating itself of the inside out. |
|
|
|
They do. But I also add that this did not happen is a bubble or vacuum. They took advantage of that stable environment that provided them the opportunity to profit. From that profit, the company is responsible to pay a just portion is taxes that go to maintain that environment and infrastructure.
So what's the expected response when the government start getting in the way of the functioning of the infrastructure. Just as an example - California's newest round of emissions laws have forced truckers to purchase brand new rigs that actually get about 10% less gas mileage when hauling a load. They're also paying a higher licensing fee to pay for the regulation on the new engine components which are being inspected at weigh stations. Cite your source. Well what people should be doing on any issue that they have a problem with, is come up with a better solution and lobby the hell out of it so that a dialogue and start and work on a compromise if your new solution is superior than the law you think is inferior. |
|
|
|
I don't find it likely that many (or, for that matter, any) other agencies would side with the abusive group. If nothing else, they'd want the customers of that abusive group to come to them, and so would not act to protect the abusive group from the consequences of it's actions.
Why do you think this is unlikely? People take sides and have points of view. People do not operate is this neutral manner and only with their customers best interest. |
|
|
|
Reserved.  |
|
|
|
Hey Dalkore, you seem to have missed this in the shuffle: With this advantage, they should contribute to the general welfare of that country.
How do you think those companies get their money? Care to answer? Not sure that you asking. I will give a shot to what I think your asking though. I assume companies sell a product or service and they receive compensation for. Exactly. And do these products or services not contribute to the general welfare of the country? They do. But I also add that this did not happen is a bubble or vacuum. They took advantage of that stable environment that provided them the opportunity to profit. From that profit, the company is responsible to pay a just portion is taxes that go to maintain that environment and infrastructure. |
|
|
|
Has anyone thought of offering an anonymous crossing network, for say USD/BTC ?
It could be done once a week, and would facilitate people trying to trade large size without
spooking the real-time exchange. Only the crossing price and size traded would be announced
leaving other participants hidden.
They are very popular in established markets, and provide significant liquidity without
boosting volatility.
I believe they call these "Dark Pools". Depending on the position I would take, it could be beneficial to me but having the exchange reflect an accurate current price may be more beneficial to everyone involved? Thoughts? |
|
|
|
Sapphire Radeon 5830 - BTC3.90 ea. How much for shipping to UK?
I am not sure, send me your address in a PM and I will get an estimate for you. |
|
|
|
Hey Dalkore, you seem to have missed this in the shuffle: With this advantage, they should contribute to the general welfare of that country.
How do you think those companies get their money? Care to answer? Not sure that you asking. I will give a shot to what I think your asking though. I assume companies sell a product or service and they receive compensation for. |
|
|
|
|
This makes me sad and upset. This is like the 4th shooting in two weeks. Why do people turn to indiscriminate violence?
|
|
|
|
Yes is does, the nation you live in matters. If you don't care about it at all then your a poor example of its citizenry. I am American and I care about the general welfare of other Americans. I also disagree with our current policies and I do what I can not to give me consent to it. But I am still American and care about its people. I also care about other nations and hope they feel the same way about their nation as well. Under those terms I hope we can continually finds ways to peacefully works together and trade.
From an economic perspective the poorest people in America are richer than the middle class/richest people in many other countries. So, if you think time/money will help educate/clothe/feed people in poorer countries, then every $1/minute you spend helping the poor in other countries will give those people a lot more value than it would if you spent the money/time on poor people in the USA. So in effect you are helping the human race more. Ahh and it reveals itself. Yes we do have more infrastructure than many poorer countries but do not forget that things are priced in a more expensive currency and cost more in most cases. Our cost of living is high and keeps getting higher. |
|
|
|
Get ready for the big surprise!
There's two applications of justice, one for the wealthy and connected aristocracy, another for the plebes.
Pity we can't afford to buy politicians... Then we could have justice, too. Too true. |
|
|
|
It always comes down to this: incentives matter.
Yes. So many people forget this. It's the most basic law of economics, but all too often, it's simply ignored. He is correct on this. We should incentivize companies to pay a fair tax and create domestic jobs for the nation they are headquartered in. They have gain a significant advantage being able to pool capital as a corporation. With this advantage, they should contribute to the general welfare of that country. If not then it is acting like a parasite. There is no free lunch. This doesn't make any sense. People are people no matter what "country" they're living in. Who cares if a company contributes to the "general welfare" of people in another country, by investing or selling products there. Your suggestion just promotes nationalism. Yes is does, the nation you live in matters. If you don't care about it at all then your a poor example of its citizenry. I am American and I care about the general welfare of other Americans. I also disagree with our current policies and I do what I can not to give me consent to it. But I am still American and care about its people. I also care about other nations and hope they feel the same way about their nation as well. Under those terms I hope we can continually finds ways to peacefully works together and trade. |
|
|
|
Rape is an act of violence and domination just for the sole gratification of the aggressor. In contrast, there are good
benefits of a state along with bad effect and actions.
The two do not compare enough so I reject your premise.
Very well, If I rob you to pay for my grandmother's new hip, does that make the robbery OK? Does the fact that I am robbing you to pay for my grandmother's new hip make you purchasing a better lock a non-voluntary transaction? Why keep making up these storied scenario? Lets just stick the the discussion at hand. If that is all you can come up with to make your point, it doesn't sound like you have much of a rebuttal other than using stories with shock value and sympathy to make your point. In desperate times all people including you may do things that you wouldn't agree with. |
|
|
|
With this said, I say that there is no voluntary association with the state because if they do not join, they are subjugated to it. How does AnCap survive in this reality?
There may be no voluntary association with the state, but there can be voluntary association to defend against the state. Get enough people together, and they can defend against the subjugation. The only requirement or "rule of law" is that they agree that subjugating another is wrong. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muHg86Mys7IIts doesn't sound voluntary though, like you put it, it would be in there best interest but that may not be their ultimate wishes. Its a necessity out of being is a dire situation. So, both parties agree, and nobody is forced to join, but because they're doing it to defend against state aggression, it's not voluntary? Have I correctly summarized your position? Basically yes, they type of person that would be part of this sounds like the person who does not want to be part of state but a voluntary association. The second you see this threat, you are then forced to act or be dominated. History is filled with this type of domination so this is not speculation. I see. So does the existence of rape make all sex non-consensual? What about defending my spouse from rape? First off, I am disgusted that this is the best example you could come up with. Rape is an act of violence and domination just for the sole gratification of the aggressor. In contrast, there are good benefits of a state along with bad effect and actions.
The two do not compare enough so I reject your premise. |
|
|
|
It always comes down to this: incentives matter.
Yes. So many people forget this. It's the most basic law of economics, but all too often, it's simply ignored. He is correct on this. We should incentivize companies to pay a fair tax and create domestic jobs for the nation they are headquartered in. They have gain a significant advantage being able to pool capital as a corporation. With this advantage, they should contribute to the general welfare of that country. If not then it is acting like a parasite. There is no free lunch. |
|
|
|
With this said, I say that there is no voluntary association with the state because if they do not join, they are subjugated to it. How does AnCap survive in this reality?
There may be no voluntary association with the state, but there can be voluntary association to defend against the state. Get enough people together, and they can defend against the subjugation. The only requirement or "rule of law" is that they agree that subjugating another is wrong. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muHg86Mys7IIts doesn't sound voluntary though, like you put it, it would be in there best interest but that may not be their ultimate wishes. Its a necessity out of being is a dire situation. So, both parties agree, and nobody is forced to join, but because they're doing it to defend against state aggression, it's not voluntary? Have I correctly summarized your position? Basically yes, they type of person that would be part of this sounds like the person who does not want to be part of state but a voluntary association. The second you see this threat, you are then forced to act or be dominated. History is filled with this type of domination so this is not speculation. |
|
|
|
|
This is a complete failure. There is now TWO (2) laws that government the United States. If you have major influence and power, you get to do vast criminal activities and the state uses your vital place in the current societal order to justify not applying the same law equally. Once we let this stand, we will likely start to see a break and collapse in order and social justice.
This is against everything we stand for, it is absurd.
Dalkore
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
