|
AyeYo
|
 |
July 08, 2011, 10:40:52 PM |
|
And if a 100% popular vote was required to pass any law, I'd be perfectly happy with it.
That's not what you said. You said people simply need to be allowed to leave if they don't like it, which they're currently perfectly free to do. What's stopping you from leaving? The country you live in sounds like a really terrible place with all that killing, extorting, robbing, and mens with gun stuff going on. |
Enjoying the dose of reality or getting a laugh out of my posts? Feel free to toss me a penny or two, everyone else seems to be doing it! 1Kn8NqvbCC83zpvBsKMtu4sjso5PjrQEu1
|
|
|
|
myrkul (OP)
|
|
July 08, 2011, 10:42:59 PM |
|
And if a 100% popular vote was required to pass any law, I'd be perfectly happy with it.
That's not what you said. You said people simply need to be allowed to leave if they don't like it, which they're currently perfectly free to do. What's stopping you from leaving? The country you live in sounds like a really terrible place with all that killing, extorting, robbing, and mens with gun stuff going on. Find me a place where I can move where there is none of that... Oh and you said you'd help? |
|
|
|
|
Anonymous
Guest
|
|
July 08, 2011, 10:45:22 PM |
|
No possibility of failure.
|
|
|
|
|
|
AyeYo
|
|
July 08, 2011, 10:46:30 PM |
|
And if a 100% popular vote was required to pass any law, I'd be perfectly happy with it.
That's not what you said. You said people simply need to be allowed to leave if they don't like it, which they're currently perfectly free to do. What's stopping you from leaving? The country you live in sounds like a really terrible place with all that killing, extorting, robbing, and mens with gun stuff going on. Find me a place where I can move where there is none of that... Oh and you said you'd help? Yup, we have passports that will allow you to get into other countries and other countries have immigration departments that will help facilitate your move. Well since killing, extorting, robbing, and men with guns only bother you if they're from the government, then finding you somewhere to live is really easy... I've heard this place has a booming small boat industry, no functioning government, and thus no laws, order, or any of that stuff you hate:  |
Enjoying the dose of reality or getting a laugh out of my posts? Feel free to toss me a penny or two, everyone else seems to be doing it! 1Kn8NqvbCC83zpvBsKMtu4sjso5PjrQEu1
|
|
|
|
JA37
|
|
July 08, 2011, 10:48:02 PM |
|
No possibility of failure.
 |
|
|
|
|
myrkul (OP)
|
|
July 08, 2011, 10:50:01 PM |
|
What is it about that monopoly that doesn't work?
Monopolies give poor service for high prices. That includes monopolies that get to wear fancy costumes. And AyeYo, I knew you'd point to Somalia. It's not a problem of no government. Somalia has too many people trying to be the government. Pass. |
|
|
|
|
JA37
|
|
July 08, 2011, 10:53:24 PM |
|
Monopolies give poor service for high prices. That includes monopolies that get to wear fancy costumes.
Except that the monopoly I presented to you does work. You get access to new drugs. They get their investment back. Is a new drug the poor service you're referring to? If you don't like the price just wait until the patent expires. Nothing forces you to buy. But a working monopoly is against your world view isn't it? |
|
|
|
|
myrkul (OP)
|
|
July 08, 2011, 10:56:01 PM |
|
Monopolies give poor service for high prices. That includes monopolies that get to wear fancy costumes.
Except that the monopoly I presented to you does work. You get access to new drugs. They get their investment back. Is a new drug the poor service you're referring to? If you don't like the price just wait until the patent expires. Nothing forces you to buy. But a working monopoly is against your world view isn't it? It only 'works' because it's temporary. Take it away, and everything still works just as well. |
|
|
|
|
JA37
|
|
July 08, 2011, 11:02:49 PM |
|
It only 'works' because it's temporary. Take it away, and everything still works just as well.
So now monopolies DO work? Good to know. I could have sworn I saw someone say that they didn't. |
|
|
|
|
myrkul (OP)
|
|
July 08, 2011, 11:03:53 PM |
|
It only 'works' because it's temporary. Take it away, and everything still works just as well.
So now monopolies DO work? Good to know. I could have sworn I saw someone say that they didn't. Notice the quotes. |
|
|
|
|
Anonymous
Guest
|
|
July 08, 2011, 11:04:37 PM |
|
They work terribly because they have no incentive to be viable nor charge objective prices that can only be found in a competitive environment.
|
|
|
|
|
MoonShadow
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 1708
Merit: 1010
|
|
July 08, 2011, 11:05:53 PM |
|
It only 'works' because it's temporary. Take it away, and everything still works just as well.
So now monopolies DO work? Good to know. I could have sworn I saw someone say that they didn't. The monopolies that do work, don't work any better than if they didn't exist. A benign monopoly such as a limted term copyright may not cause any harm, but it can still be a limitation upon the consumer (that's the point, after all) so the best case can never be acheived under the monopoly. Thus, on the whole, monopolies make the public worse off than they could have been otherwise. |
"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."
- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
|
|
|
|
JA37
|
|
July 08, 2011, 11:11:05 PM |
|
They work terribly because they have no incentive to be viable nor charge objective prices that can only be found in a competitive environment.
How does that apply to the example I gave? Are you forced to buy any of my drugs? Or am I as a drug company not subject to market forces and have to set a price that the market can bear? |
|
|
|
|
JA37
|
|
July 08, 2011, 11:16:15 PM |
|
The monopolies that do work, don't work any better than if they didn't exist. A benign monopoly such as a limted term copyright may not cause any harm, but it can still be a limitation upon the consumer (that's the point, after all) so the best case can never be acheived under the monopoly. Thus, on the whole, monopolies make the public worse off than they could have been otherwise.
I'm not talking copyright here, but patents. It's a whole other beast. Patents have a reasonable expiration date. How can you be sure that patents don't benefit the consumer? Perhaps they get access to drugs that they otherwise wouldn't get, because nobody would take the risk of investing in something that could be easily copied? Perhaps the monopoly I described is the best thing that could happen to the public, even if it is a limitation of their right to do whatever they choose with the pill, like copying it. |
|
|
|
|
myrkul (OP)
|
|
July 08, 2011, 11:19:04 PM |
|
The monopolies that do work, don't work any better than if they didn't exist. A benign monopoly such as a limted term copyright may not cause any harm, but it can still be a limitation upon the consumer (that's the point, after all) so the best case can never be acheived under the monopoly. Thus, on the whole, monopolies make the public worse off than they could have been otherwise.
I'm not talking copyright here, but patents. It's a whole other beast. Patents have a reasonable expiration date. Copyrights used to, too. |
|
|
|
|
JA37
|
|
July 08, 2011, 11:24:27 PM |
|
Copyrights used to, too.
So change it. Start a lobby group. Fund it. You're always talking about how in an AnCap society good people will band together and take down the bad guys. Let's see it happen. |
|
|
|
|
myrkul (OP)
|
|
July 08, 2011, 11:26:10 PM |
|
Copyrights used to, too.
So change it. Start a lobby group. Fund it. You're always talking about how in an AnCap society good people will band together and take down the bad guys. Let's see it happen. I'm trying. Rather than gnawing at the branches, though, I am striking the root. |
|
|
|
MoonShadow
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1708
Merit: 1010
|
|
July 08, 2011, 11:26:39 PM |
|
How can you be sure that patents don't benefit the consumer? Perhaps they get access to drugs that they otherwise wouldn't get, because nobody would take the risk of investing in something that could be easily copied? Perhaps the monopoly I described is the best thing that could happen to the public, even if it is a limitation of their right to do whatever they choose with the pill, like copying it.
That's the theory, but the practice doesn't seem to really hold water. It's based entirely upon the business model that new drugs are priced at the cost of production plus a portion of the costs of research, which is how it actually works today. However, there could be, and likely are, better ways to mitigate the financial risks of research. For example, you never pay for UL testing, producers pay for that. Why would they do this? Because their insurance is cheaper. They either pay UL to test their products for public safety and function, or they pay much more in insurance premiums. It's a kind of subscription service. Likewise, insurance companies, or health care foundations, could fund the research using a subscription model. |
"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."
- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
|
|
|
|
Explodicle
|
|
July 08, 2011, 11:52:49 PM |
|
Since I was asked to explain "moderate":
I'm a left-libertarian. I believe in self-ownership, non-aggression, and most other libertarian concepts. I differ from most libertarians in that I believe the planet itself and its resources are public property. Thus, I believe a limited state is justified. I chose "moderate" because I think the state should spend on whatever maximizes utility; for example, if some education spending is more cost effective at reducing crime than just spending more on police.
|
|
|
|
|
|
myrkul (OP)
|
|
July 09, 2011, 12:04:05 AM |
|
Since I was asked to explain "moderate":
I'm a left-libertarian. I believe in self-ownership, non-aggression, and most other libertarian concepts. I differ from most libertarians in that I believe the planet itself and its resources are public property. Thus, I believe a limited state is justified. I chose "moderate" because I think the state should spend on whatever maximizes utility; for example, if some education spending is more cost effective at reducing crime than just spending more on police.
If you believe in non-aggression, how can you justify aggressing on the people you 'protect'? |
|
|
|
|
Poll
