I think you have completely failed to establish that your "gated community service charge" is even remotely comparable to a debt.
Please tell me what you think the difference is. I think that would be more efficient than me trying to guess.  |
|
|
|
Utter garbage.
You've seen it before, or did you base this analysis on the title? Care to elaborate the critique? |
|
|
|
All of the land in the USA hasn't been homesteaded. However, let's just say that for the sake of argument that the entire USA has been homesteaded and then all those people voluntarily pooled their ownership of their property together to create the government. Then I would have absolutely no problem with being deported, by force if necessary. You don't even need to put me on a boat. Just boot my ass into the ocean and tell me to sink or swim.
I don't really see what homesteading have to do with anything really. You live in a geographical area, state or gated community doesn't matter, and there are certain rules to follow. If you don't follow them there will be concequenses. Now I think BCEmporium put is quite well in a post above. And no, we're not related. Not that I know of anyway. I don't think any of my friends have any interest in Bitcoin. We do seem to share world view to some degree though, me and BCEmporium. |
|
|
|
It's private property. Everyone who lives there own an equal share and we set the rules by 2/3 majority vote. We decided that everyone +18 with income should pay. Could you refuse, after all you're just born there.
Who put you in this hypothetical gated community? Who is responsible? We own the community together so I guess "we"'re responsible. So, you're not responsible for kids born on your property, unless they're your kids. But collective owners of a gated community are collectively responsible for kids born on their property? I also don't think I put the responsibility of the children anywhere special, but parents are generally responsible for their children. It's a good thing none of you are actually in charge of a government/gated community, because it would be the most incompetently-run bureaucratic mess on earth. It took six replies to establish that parents are responsible for their children. Tax the fucking parents. Have you thought that through? You're saying that I'm somehow responsible for the debts of my grown children? The example was an +18 child with income, but still you want to make the parents responsible? For an adult? Somehow I still think that it's more fair to make everyone accountable for their own actions after they are mature enough to understand consequenses, which happens to be set at 18 in most places. As long as we're making obnoxious points. I'm glad you're not in charge either, because your rules would suck. |
|
|
|
It's private property. Everyone who lives there own an equal share and we set the rules by 2/3 majority vote. We decided that everyone +18 with income should pay. Could you refuse, after all you're just born there. You didn't sign anything. Is it an act of agression to toss you out. Can we keep some of your stuff as payment for services already provided that you decided not to pay for? Is that agresson?
Even more fun, let's say you get a share just by being born there, and the rules say we can't take that share away form you by force, so we can't throw you out unless you give up that share of your own free will. How can we get you to pay the fee? Can we lock you up until you agree to the rules, and pay? Is that agression? Let's also say that it's homesteaded. This is from a few posts ago. I deleted a misunderstanding from my side, just the questions remain. Please let me know how you think. From your latest post I gather that you think it's agression if the government puts you in jail for not paying taxes, but not if they strip you of your citizenship and put you on the next boat to wherever. |
|
|
|
If you come onto my property and refuse to leave when asked, you're the one committing aggression, not me. I'm justified in evicting you, by force if necessary. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?
That bit is crystal clear. And we agree on it, believe it or not. Now answer the questions in the stated example. |
|
|
|
So, you're not responsible for kids born on your property, unless they're your kids. But collective owners of a gated community are collectively responsible for kids born on their property?
I'm not sure I understand what you mean. But in the example I mentioned then each member of the community had an equal share of ownership and being born in that was given a share. Dying would relieve you of a share. I don't understand how you understood that to be collective responsibility for children. I also don't think I put the responsibility of the children anywhere special, but parents are generally responsible for their children. |
|
|
|
It doesn't really matter since the entire country hasn't been homesteaded therefore it isn't owned, collectively or otherwise.
Was that the answer to the question about the gated community? Homesteading? Seriously? So what if I "homestead" this bit of land, set up that gated community that we've been discussing. It's homesteaded, private property, owned by those who live there by the rules we set up. The problems that I pointed out still remains. The agression is still there. Or is it? I don't think you answered that question. Is locking you up only agression if the state does it, not if a private property owner does it (if they can't throw you out for the reason mentioned above). Is forcefully separating you from your friends and loved ones agression when the state does it, but defence when a private property owner does it? Or is it that when you have rules there is someone who has to enforce them? Perhaps that's just standard operating procedure when dealing with humans in a non trivial system? Call it agression if you like, but don't pretend that the state is the only one that does it. |
|
|
|
|
Got my coins back.
Thanks for letting me play, albeit not winning.
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting.
So they draw random amounts from a pool? Is there a thought behind A, B and C not getting their own coins back, or should that be possible too? Wouldn't you otherwise be able to guess that somone is A based on the fact that they don't have any A-coins?
|
|
|
|
Who put you in this hypothetical gated community? Who is responsible? The property owner?
If someone puts a kid in your backyard, are you obligated to let it stay there?
In this hypothetical example my parents liked this community so much that they moved there, and then had children who were born into it. We own the community together so I guess "we"'re responsible. Not unless it was my kid. |
|
|
|
Then obviously that's not an abusive monopoly since the only way to do that will be to charge the going rate of return which is between 5% and 10%. Also, you keep talking about economies of scale as if that doesn't apply to anyone else. It's just as easy for someone to get investors to raise the funds to do the same thing. Can you give me an example where that's impossible? You're going so far off the deep end that even if you are right, which hasn't been demonstrated yet, that it would at most apply to one or two markets which are likely to have substitutes. Oh no, someone has cornered the grape soda market! I guess I'll just drink orange soda. That's hardly something worthy of immoral practices such as taxation, coercive laws, etc.
So what? A small town may have only one drug store but unless they're charging $100 per aspirin then who cares? If they do that then it will make sense to open a second drug store. You keep switching back and forth between monopolies (who cares?) and abusive monopolies (can't exist in a free market) just like you keep switching between violence (again, violence self-defense is fine) and aggression (not cool). Please stick to the real issues. I'm glad you can read a dictionary but a single seller is not necessarily a problem.
How about gas prices? Technically an oligopoly but still. Concidering the profits they make they're overcharging, but there's no competition. And what happened to this question about our gated community? It's private property. Everyone who lives there own an equal share and we set the rules by 2/3 majority vote. We decided that everyone +18 with income should pay. Could you refuse, after all you're just born there. You didn't sign anything. Is it an act of agression to toss you out. You're saying no? Correct? Can we keep some of your stuff as payment for services already provided that you decided not to pay for? Is that agresson?
Even more fun, let's say you get a share just by being born there, and the rules say we can't take that share away form you by force, so we can't throw you out unless you give up that share of your own free will. How can we get you to pay the fee? Can we lock you up until you agree to the rules, and pay? Is that agression? |
|
|
|
Charging what the market will bear (before customers switch) is not the hallmark of a monopoly. In a true monopoly, customers cannot switch. Once upon a time, this may have been practically true with Microsoft, but it was a temporary monopoly permitted only because of copyright laws. It's obviously no longer true regardless.
That's a very narrow definition of a monopoly. If there's only one player in a given market, that player has a monopoly. Also if there's no real competition even if there are other players, that would also be concidered a monopoly. Like Microsofts dominance in the desktop market. Please explain how it was only possible through copyright laws. I don't quite understand that. |
|
|
|
From: http://www.nathanielbranden.com/catalog/articles_essays/question_of_monopolies.htmlThe question is often asked: What if a large, rich company kept buying out its smaller competitors or kept forcing them out of business by means of undercutting prices and selling at a loss—would it not be able to gain control of a given field and then start charging high prices and be free to stagnate with no fear of competition? The answer is: No, it would not be able to do it. If a company assumed heavy losses in order to drive out competitors then began to charge high prices to regain what it had lost, this would serve as an incentive for new competitors to enter the field and take advantage of the high profitability, without any losses to recoup. The new competitors would force prices down to the market level. The large company would have either to abandon its attempt to establish monopoly prices—or else go bankrupt fighting off the competitors its own polices would attract.
It is a matter of historical fact that no “price war” has ever succeeded in establishing a monopoly or in maintaining prices above the market level, outside the law of supply and demand. (“Price wars” have, however, acted as spurs to the economic efficiency of competing companies—and have thereby resulted in enormous benefits to the public, in terms of better products at lower prices.) In other words, it will never happen. Who said anything about selling at a loss? I was talking about reducing profit to make sure that you can't get your investment back. With economic of scale I should be able to undercut you and still sell at a profit, unless I'm utterly incompetent. You assume that anyone with a monopoly will charge unreasonably much. They won't unless they're morons. They will charge just below what incentivices others from entering the market. I agree with you if the barriers of entry are low. Then it's not possible to undercut and create/maintain a monopoly. |
|
|
|
Now you're just being intellectually dishonest. If a market is cornered then you can charge ridiculous prices. Why else would we give a shit? If there is only one brand of shoes but everyone is happy with that, why are you complaining? You're so desperate to be right about something, anything, that you resort to childish word games.
So, to keep you honest, let me rephrase. It is impossible to create an abusive monopoly through competition, which is what the issue really is. Now, argue against that instead of going off on irrelevant tangents.
I wasn't complaining. You were the one implying that monopolies are always bad and always an effect of government intervention. Again, no it's not. First of all, charging ridiculos prices is bad business practice and nothing you do, even if you have a monopoly. If you do, people will find alternative ways of doing things. You don't want to kill your market. If your maket has high barriers of entry, say cost, and you're the first in on that market you can charge very high prices since you're the first mover. Then when someone else tries to enter the same market I can lower prices through economics of scale to put them out of business and then raise the prices again. Is this an abusive monopoly to you? It is to me. Is it done through competition, I would say yes. |
|
|
|
Then why did you bring it up as an example? You're trying to be smug but it just shows that you have no plan of attack and are pulling arguments out of your ass.
You claimed that it wasn't possible to corner a market through competition. Clearly it is. Microsoft is a good example. Monopolies aren't inherintly bad, however they tend to abuse the power. That's where we agree, and all your examples comes from. Abuse of monopoly power. It's called FUD. While you're educating yourself on Wikipedia, look that up too.
No it's called an educated guess. Just because you don't agree with it doesn't make it FUD. I wasn't educating me, I was educating you.  That will ensure only that they are in the market. It doesn't ensure that they will be able to charge whatever they want and start a private army. It doesn't even ensure they will remain the dominate player. Did the moonshine makers dominate the market after prohibition ended? No. Is the mob still selling us liquor? No. Illegal rackets are so profitable because they are illegal. Take that away and it's just another industry charging market prices.
No, they are making profits that represent the potential risks of death, incarceration, etc.
Yes, scarsity drives up prices, we estabished that, and you can make up for price drop with volume. Is the mob selling liquor? Probably. It's a profitable business and they like profit. And they are criminals, often violent, so how keen are you in competing with them? I pulled out of the bar business just because there are too many criminals there, and you don't want to associate with them at all. Implied threats are used to make sure you buy from the "right" supplier. Again you're back to the perfect market. The response is just to raise taxes so they can stay in business. There's no incentive to improve. The government can do as shitty job as they want and nothing happens. Oh, well you get to vote in another four years which changes little to nothing.
Why not do both? There's always an incentive, you just don't want to see it. Didn't the governor of Wisconsin change things quite a lot. I seem to remember seeing it on the tv. If I'm benefiting, it's against my will. That's like shoving an ice cream sundae down my throat and saying I'm benefiting. Thanks but no thanks.
Or in the example with the gated community, you benefit from low crime rates, but still don't want to pay for it. If I own property, you have to follow my rules or leave. Am I required to let people live in my house? Why should I be required to let them live in my gated community?
It's private property. Everyone who lives there own an equal share and we set the rules by 2/3 majority vote. We decided that everyone +18 with income should pay. Could you refuse, after all you're just born there. You didn't sign anything. Is it an act of agression to toss you out. You're saying no? Correct? Can we keep some of your stuff as payment for services already provided that you decided not to pay for? Is that agresson? Even more fun, let's say you get a share just by being born there, and the rules say we can't take that share away form you by force, so we can't throw you out unless you give up that share of your own free will. How can we get you to pay the fee? Can we lock you up until you agree to the rules, and pay? Is that agression? |
|
|
|
Before I was born, I was not aware that entities called states, which claim the right to do things we would consider immoral if done by individuals, controlled almost all of the populated land on this planet. I was not aware that in order to stay out of prison, I would be forced at gunpoint (figuratively, though sometimes literally) to give up a large portion of my earned money, effectively making me a part time slave. If I had known these things, perhaps I would have made the decision to stay in the womb.
Since that's rather silly, at what point do you claim that I "knew in advance" that I would be stolen from for the rest of my life, and what action should I have taken to avoid it? When did I consent to be a slave?
Asked and answered. You don't start paying taxes the second you leave the birth canal. It takes a while. Enough time to figure out what a state is and what comes with it. Like stated above, Somalia is a very good place to be if you don't like the state interfering with your personal freedoms. You'll have Al-Shabab instead, but atleast that's not the state, right? |
|
|
|
Then why doesn't Microsoft charge $10,000 or $100,000 for their operating system? If they truly have the market cornered then they could do that and they would do that. Obviously, they don't. The fact is, if they were to start charging absorbent prices people would switch to Apple or Linux. Just because everyone likes a certain brand at a certain price doesn't mean they have a monopoly. A monopoly implies you can charge whatever you like and people will pay it. Even though Microsoft dominates the desktop market the mere threat of competition is enough to keep them in line. They want to keep their dominant position and part of doing that is not charging ridiculous prices. You really need to read more about economics since it's clear that you're just regurgitating misinformation.
You have a very narrow definition of monopoly. Microsoft is a de-facto monopoly (or natural monopoly) on the desktop. Please note that there's nothing wrong with that. If you provide a service or product that is far superior to everything else out there and everyone buys it, you have a monopoly. How do you keep such a monopoly? By charging a little less than the "pain threshold" of switching to something else. Have a look here for more information about monopolies: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MonopolyI don't think that it's me who need to read more ... That's an argument from ignorance.
Well what do you know. I can't forsee the future. Imagine that. I can make predictions and educated guesses though, but those are "too vague" for you. Again, where does their money come from? Drugs? Prostitution? Gambling? Please explain to me how they are going to keep making lots of money when all that will be legal?
Because they already have the structure in place and will most likely be the dominant player in those areas if they are legalized, and with an increased supply they can keep their margins even with falling prices? Perhaps? Yes really. Anyone that charges substantially more than it costs to produce drugs is inviting competition to undercut them. If someone sells crack for $100 a unit and it only costs $10 to make, someone else can sell it for $90, attract away their business and still make a tidy profit. The same argument then applies to the person selling for $90 which encourages someone to sell it for $80 and so on. The price will tend to shift towards cost plus a small profit. The larger the profit, the more incentive there is for others to enter the market. This is basic economics of which you are clearly ignorant.
"It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a 'dismal science.' But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance." -Rothbard
The same is true today, even with drugs being illegal. They make profits that are unimaginable. Why isn't someone trying to "undercut" them? What you're talking about is economic theory and how things work in a "perfect market". There aren't any perfect markets in the real world. I'm not ignorant, I'm just not naive.
Lost taxes aren't immediately felt and can't be directly attributed to that. That's no feedback mechanism. If private firms manage the roads and do poorly, they lose money and eventually go out of business. The firms that remain are necessarily doing a better job. I covered this in my first post so there's little point in repeating it here. Markets weed out incompetence. Governments aren't subject to market forces.
I agree that the market is great at some things, but you have a very idealistic view of things. Lost taxes are felt in the same way as lost revenue is felt. There's not a big difference there. And healthcare/IC is a very direct cost that is quite obvious, just like a burned down store would be for a private company. I see it as unethical to force me to pay for a service that I neither requested nor desire.
But you feel that you can use them and benefit from them without paying? Stop confusing violence with aggression. There's nothing wrong with violently defending yourself against a mugger or rapist. If you're against violence then you might as well lay down and die. I'm against aggression and private property is the central issue of what constitutes aggression. If I take the shirt off your back, it's not instantly clear that it's an act of aggression. After all, what if you stole the shirt from me yesterday and I'm just reclaiming my property? In that case, you're the aggressor, for stealing my property, not me.
Yes yes, defence good. Fine. How about answering the question. Is it an act of agression to toss you out of our gated community when you refuse to pay the fee that everyone above 18 with income must pay? After all, you were just born here and wish to remain with your parents in their house. |
|
|
|
Nice try, but you just made the argument that benefiting from services obligates you to pay, regardless of consent. How is my surprise lawn mowing service different from taxes, specifically?
I'm pretty sure I said the same thing in a previous post. Have a look. Taxes aren't a surprise. They are known well in advance. If your service is known in advance I accept it when I move to your area. Something like that. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
