Bitcoin Forum
November 22, 2017, 07:51:22 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [All]
  Print  
Author Topic: Libertarian Anticapitalism  (Read 4885 times)
hugolp
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 784



View Profile
August 19, 2011, 05:17:11 PM
 #1

http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2011/08/libertarian-anticapitalism/

Quote
Libertarian Anticapitalism

For most of the 20th century, American libertarians were mostly seen as — and mostly saw themselves as — defenders of capitalism. Was that an accurate view of 20th century libertarians were about? If accurate, is that a good thing about libertarianism, or a defect that should be amended and avoided?

Well, it depends. Specifically, it depends on what you mean by “capitalism.” Now, I’ve had something to say about this before, and my friend Gary Chartier has broached the subject here at Bleeding Heart Libertarians, but I think the ground might be worth covering again in some more detail. (Partly because it may help as an introduction to where I come from on questions of freed markets, economic privilege, social justice, et cetera; and partly because some of the comments on Gary’s earlier post lead me to believe that a closer approach to the definitional question might help clear up communication.) First, though, let’s take a bit of a detour — to New York City.


About a year ago, the Wall Street Journal‘s Metropolis blog ran an item by Aaron Rutkoff on zoning and advertising in Times Square, called “Good Taste in Times Square? It’s Illegal.” As it turns out, the bright lights and “colorful corporate orgy” of Times Square advertising — as paradigmatic a symbol of American capitalism as you could hope for — is the result, not of unfettered free-market commercialism, but of a detailed set of mandates handed down in New York City’s special zoning ordinance for the “Special Midtown District:”

For those with the stomach to navigate the bureaucratic language, the zoning regulations make for interesting reading. What appears totally haphazard to the untrained tourist’s eye is actually planned down to the last square foot, with copious rules about how much of any surface must be covered in signage.

Own a building on Broadway but detest the flashing lights? Too bad. As the code states:

There shall be a minimum of one #illuminated sign# with a #surface area# of not less than 1,000 square feet for each 50 linear feet, or part thereof, of #street# frontage.

There are instructions for precisely which direction Times Square’s signage must face and extraordinarily detailed diagrams for how the brightness of mandatory illuminated displays shall be measured.

Does your building feature a blinking sign? The rules require that the unlit phase not exceed three seconds. When can the bright lights be switched off? No earlier than 1:00 a.m.

–Adam Rutkoff, “Good Taste in Times Square? It’s Illegal,”
Wall Street Journal Metropolis blog, 12 August 2010

The WSJ decided to sum up their findings by saying:

In a way, the zoning code governing the signs is wonderfully ironic. The bright lights of Times Square, one of the most visible and iconic testaments to the city’s hyper-capitalist verve, are maintained not by Adam Smith’s invisible hand but by little-known government regulations.

–Adam Rutkoff, “Good Taste in Times Square? It’s Illegal,”
Wall Street Journal Metropolis blog, 12 August 2010

Well. Whether or not something comes off as “ironic” depends upon your expectations; and on this point, I guess it may not be surprising that my expectations are not the same as those at the Wall Street Journal. In fact, I would say that a story like that of the Times Square zoning code is not only not especially “ironic;” it’s really paradigmatic — a illustratively typical example of how large-scale, in-your-face commerce typically works in these United States, and how it interacts with the corporate economy throughout the world. That’s why I have often referred to myself (following the example of Kevin Carson) a “free market anticapitalist” — because I believe in a really broad and radical version of property rights and market freedom in economic ownership and exchange, but (unlike, say, the Wall Street Journal) I think that the features conventionally associated with American capitalism — large-scale, top-down firms, the predominance of wage labor, corporate domination of economic and social life, the commercialization of social space etc. — are as often as not the products of state intervention, not of market dynamics. And, further, that a genuinely and consistently freed market would tend to undermine the prevalence and significance of these features in everyday life.

But “free market anticapitalism” is a term that raises eyebrows. Mainly because it doesn’t seem to make any sense. The reason I use it is because of the eyebrows it raises — not because I enjoy confusion or confrontation for its own sake, but because I think that existing ideas about the relationships between markets and capitalism are already confused, and that a superficial overlap in language tends to obscure the confusions that already exist. In particular, the term “capitalism” is used by almost all sides in economic debates as if it were obviously the ideal governing libertarian policy proposals, and is debated over both by nominal pro-”capitalists” and by nominal anti-”capitalists” as if it were perfectly obvious to everyone what it means.

.........
1511337082
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511337082

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511337082
Reply with quote  #2

1511337082
Report to moderator
1511337082
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511337082

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511337082
Reply with quote  #2

1511337082
Report to moderator
Join ICO Now Coinlancer is Disrupting the Freelance marketplace!
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1511337082
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511337082

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511337082
Reply with quote  #2

1511337082
Report to moderator
1511337082
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511337082

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511337082
Reply with quote  #2

1511337082
Report to moderator
Hawker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 952



View Profile WWW
August 19, 2011, 06:14:32 PM
 #2

If you are anti-capitalist, what are you actually for?  I mean this as a friendly question - not a critique of the WSJ tears over Times Square regulation.

           ▄▄███████▄▄
        ▄███▀▀
▄▄▄▄    ▀▄
     ▄▄█████████████▄▄  ▀▄
  ▄▀▀██▀           ▀▀██▄▄▀▄
▄▀  ██                 ▀██
  ██       ▀▀█▀▀         █
█▀        █ █ █        ▄█▀▄
▀▄         █ █ █       ▄█  █
 ██         █▄▄▄█      ▄█  ▄▀
  ██▄                ▄█▀  ▄▀
  ▀▄▀██▄▄          ▄█▀  ▄▀
   ▀▄ ▀▀███▄▄▄▄▄▄█████▀▀
     ▀▀▄▄▄▄▄▄▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
.UTRUST.▀████████▄
  ▀███████▄
    ▀██████▄
      ▀██████
       ▀█████
        ▀████▄
         █████
          ▀███
           ███
           ▀██
            ██
             █
             █
●  Download WHITEPAPER  ●
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ ▼ ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
facebook      twitter      slack
▀████████▄
  ▀███████▄
    ▀██████▄
      ▀██████
       ▀█████
        ▀████▄
         █████
          ▀███
           ███
           ▀██
            ██
             █
             █
TheGer
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 616



View Profile
August 19, 2011, 06:39:28 PM
 #3

Right from the first paragraph the writer attempts to pigeonhole Libertarian Ideals and wrap them up in Capitalism.  How about he just talks about Capitalism and leave the Libertarian stuff to people who know what it means.

Individual liberty, especially freedom of expression and action.

"For most of the 20th century, American libertarians were mostly seen as — and mostly saw themselves as — defenders of capitalism. Was that an accurate view of 20th century libertarians were about? If accurate, is that a good thing about libertarianism, or a defect that should be amended and avoided?"

Burst Asset manager for HalogenV1:  GPU + HDD mining(135 Mh/s, 28TB), 2 BTC Trading Account, 10k Bitconnect Loan, Asset dividends.  Asset pays out weekly at 70%
ASSET ID: 11867939260933214548

https://forums.burst-team.us/topic/7867/ann-halogenv1-burst-asset-gpu-hdd-mining-trading-account-burst-asset-dividends-payout-70-weekly
hugolp
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 784



View Profile
August 19, 2011, 07:28:50 PM
 #4

If you are anti-capitalist, what are you actually for?  I mean this as a friendly question - not a critique of the WSJ tears over Times Square regulation.

Im a free market anti-capitalist.

Quote
Right from the first paragraph the writer attempts to pigeonhole Libertarian Ideals and wrap them up in Capitalism.  How about he just talks about Capitalism and leave the Libertarian stuff to people who know what it means.

Individual liberty, especially freedom of expression and action.

"For most of the 20th century, American libertarians were mostly seen as — and mostly saw themselves as — defenders of capitalism. Was that an accurate view of 20th century libertarians were about? If accurate, is that a good thing about libertarianism, or a defect that should be amended and avoided?"

The author is a libertarian. Give the article a chance, youll like it.
Hawker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 952



View Profile WWW
August 19, 2011, 07:34:57 PM
 #5

If you are anti-capitalist, what are you actually for?  I mean this as a friendly question - not a critique of the WSJ tears over Times Square regulation.

Im a free market anti-capitalist.

...snip...

So if you are opposed to capitalism, do you have some other economic model in mind that you are for?


           ▄▄███████▄▄
        ▄███▀▀
▄▄▄▄    ▀▄
     ▄▄█████████████▄▄  ▀▄
  ▄▀▀██▀           ▀▀██▄▄▀▄
▄▀  ██                 ▀██
  ██       ▀▀█▀▀         █
█▀        █ █ █        ▄█▀▄
▀▄         █ █ █       ▄█  █
 ██         █▄▄▄█      ▄█  ▄▀
  ██▄                ▄█▀  ▄▀
  ▀▄▀██▄▄          ▄█▀  ▄▀
   ▀▄ ▀▀███▄▄▄▄▄▄█████▀▀
     ▀▀▄▄▄▄▄▄▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
.UTRUST.▀████████▄
  ▀███████▄
    ▀██████▄
      ▀██████
       ▀█████
        ▀████▄
         █████
          ▀███
           ███
           ▀██
            ██
             █
             █
●  Download WHITEPAPER  ●
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ ▼ ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
facebook      twitter      slack
▀████████▄
  ▀███████▄
    ▀██████▄
      ▀██████
       ▀█████
        ▀████▄
         █████
          ▀███
           ███
           ▀██
            ██
             █
             █
NghtRppr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


View Profile
August 19, 2011, 07:37:13 PM
 #6

Im a free market anti-capitalist.

So you're against private ownership of capital?
hugolp
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 784



View Profile
August 19, 2011, 08:39:33 PM
 #7

So you're against private ownership of capital?

Depends of what you mean by private ownership. I dont support the idea of strong property rights as anarcho-capitalist do. I have a less absolute and more utilitarian view. I think ownership or exclusive use rights is something that emerges in a society because its the most efficient economic structure. F.e. anarcho-capitalist say that once a property has been homesteaded it belongs to that person forever unless he decides to trade it. To me it seems unreasonable and since property is a social structure, once a property has been unused for a long period of time it can be considered unowned and homesteaded again.

Also, capitalism implies more than private property of capital. Contrary to what some people think, the word "capitalists" was used before Marx. Previous to Marx, clasical liberals (libertarians) and individualist anarchists used the word capitalists in a demeaning way to describe the people who was using the system of government control over the market to unjustly adquire wealth. Capitalism implies government control over the market. I oppose that and support a free market.

Quote
So if you are opposed to capitalism, do you have some other economic model in mind that you are for?

A free market.
NghtRppr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


View Profile
August 19, 2011, 08:53:36 PM
 #8

I think ownership or exclusive use rights is something that emerges in a society because its the most efficient economic structure.

If I take unoccupied land, clear it, plow it and plant a crop. Then I have a better claim to that land because everyone else is a latecomer compared to me. If you want to claim that, as a latecomer, you have a better claim compared to me then another person even later than you can make the same argument. To have ownership at all, you have to recognize the prior-later distinction.

anarcho-capitalist say that once a property has been homesteaded it belongs to that person forever unless he decides to trade it

That's nonsense. If a property owner removes his or her interest from it, isn't trying to sell it, do anything with it, etc, it can eventually be considered abandoned and can be homesteaded again.

Capitalism implies government control over the market. I oppose that and support a free market.

Words obtain meaning based on their usage. Few people use that word that way. They usually just mean private ownership of capital. If you want to mean something else, then use a different word or say exactly what you mean. You're just making things ambiguous by arguing against a definition that few people currently use. I call government control of private property, fascism.

As I figured, you're just redefining words so you can raise controversy when we agree on the ideas but differ on language choice. Those are the most pointless and uninteresting debates imaginable. Let's just agree that private property should be controlled by its rightful owner and leave it at that. Call yourself anti-capitalistic if you want but you're just causing confusion.

"How many legs does a dog have if you call a tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it one."
hugolp
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 784



View Profile
August 19, 2011, 09:07:03 PM
 #9

If I take unoccupied land, clear it, plow it and plant a crop. Then I have a better claim to that land because everyone else is a latecomer compared to me. If you want to claim that, as a latecomer you have a better claim compared to me then another person even later than you can make the same argument. To have ownership at all you have to recognize the prior-later distinction.

Yes, if you read what I wrote I never claimed that as long as you are using a property it can be taken from you.

Quote
That's nonsense. If a property owner removes his or her interest from it, isn't trying to sell it, do anything with it, etc, it can eventually be considered abandoned and can be homesteaded again.

Well, I agree (thats the point I was trying to make), but anarcho-capitalists (at least the "offical" doctrine) dont agree with this.

Quote
Words obtain meaning based on their usage. Few people use that word that way. They usually just mean, private ownership of capital. If you want to mean something else, then use a different word or say exactly what you mean. You're just making thing ambiguous by arguing against a definition that few people currently use.

I dont think the most common use of the word capitalism is private control of property. What is commonly understood is that the system we have now is capitalism. I dont think there is much discussion about it. If you go to the street and start asking what word would they use to define the present system, capitalism would win and by a big distance.

I oppose the present system, a system of government control over the market, therefore and according to your own words, I oppose capitalism.

Quote
I call government control of private property, fascism.

Well, there are degrees of control. Usually its only called fascism at the later stages of the process.

Quote
As I figured you're just redefining words so you can raise controversy when we agree on the ideas but differ on language choice. Those are the most pointless and uninteresting debates imaginable. Let's just agree that private property should be controlled by its rightful owner and leave it at that. Call yourself anti-capitalistic if you want but you're just causing confusion.

"How many legs does a dog have if you call a tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it one."

But its not really a matter of definitions. Usually left-libertarians, while defending individualism, also are more positive about the role of cooperatives in a free market, while anarcho-capitalists usually consider them inefficient. In general, left-libertarians are more concern against hierarchical structures and consider the present system very different of what a free market would produce, whereas anarcho-capitalist consider it more similar (even when they correctly point that its not a free market and some things would be different).
NghtRppr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


View Profile
August 19, 2011, 09:29:59 PM
 #10

Well, I agree (thats the point I was trying to make), but anarcho-capitalists (at least the "offical" doctrine) dont agree with this.

No, if you remove your interest from it, you are implicitly declaring your intention to abandon it. (Note: I'm not saying the property is simply disused) I've never read anyone argue that once owned, property can never be abandoned. You simply just inquire if anyone is still using some property and if nobody comes forward in a reasonable amount of time, it can be considered abandoned. If someone says, yes, here's my title, I still want it. Then even if it's not in use, you can't have it.

Quote
What is commonly understood is that the system we have now is capitalism.

That's not because they think capitalism equals government control of the market but rather because they don't believe that the government does control the market. Ask that question in the streets and see what response you get.
Hawker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 952



View Profile WWW
August 19, 2011, 10:33:18 PM
 #11

You say you are for a "free market" and against "capitalism."  I use quotation marks as your have your own definitions of  "free market" and "capitalism."

Why don't you define what you mean by "free market" and by "capitalism" so we know what you are on about?


           ▄▄███████▄▄
        ▄███▀▀
▄▄▄▄    ▀▄
     ▄▄█████████████▄▄  ▀▄
  ▄▀▀██▀           ▀▀██▄▄▀▄
▄▀  ██                 ▀██
  ██       ▀▀█▀▀         █
█▀        █ █ █        ▄█▀▄
▀▄         █ █ █       ▄█  █
 ██         █▄▄▄█      ▄█  ▄▀
  ██▄                ▄█▀  ▄▀
  ▀▄▀██▄▄          ▄█▀  ▄▀
   ▀▄ ▀▀███▄▄▄▄▄▄█████▀▀
     ▀▀▄▄▄▄▄▄▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
.UTRUST.▀████████▄
  ▀███████▄
    ▀██████▄
      ▀██████
       ▀█████
        ▀████▄
         █████
          ▀███
           ███
           ▀██
            ██
             █
             █
●  Download WHITEPAPER  ●
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ ▼ ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
facebook      twitter      slack
▀████████▄
  ▀███████▄
    ▀██████▄
      ▀██████
       ▀█████
        ▀████▄
         █████
          ▀███
           ███
           ▀██
            ██
             █
             █
hugolp
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 784



View Profile
August 20, 2011, 08:59:15 AM
 #12

No, if you remove your interest from it, you are implicitly declaring your intention to abandon it. (Note: I'm not saying the property is simply disused) I've never read anyone argue that once owned, property can never be abandoned. You simply just inquire if anyone is still using some property and if nobody comes forward in a reasonable amount of time, it can be considered abandoned. If someone says, yes, here's my title, I still want it. Then even if it's not in use, you can't have it.

Well, in my view its not enough that someone comes after 15 years and says: "hey! Im still interested" and then goes away again. In my opinion in that case that property would be unowned. But I can tell you that I have discussed this with anarcho-capitalists and they consider that "no use" is not cause enough to declare a property unowned.

Quote
That's not because they think capitalism equals government control of the market but rather because they don't believe that the government does control the market. Ask that question in the streets and see what response you get.

I think people understand that we dont have a free market. Some (so called) "economists" like to say stupid things to blame the free market, but thats it.

Quote
You say you are for a "free market" and against "capitalism."  I use quotation marks as your have your own definitions of  "free market" and "capitalism."

Why don't you define what you mean by "free market" and by "capitalism" so we know what you are on about?

I already have, no?
Hawker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 952



View Profile WWW
August 20, 2011, 09:55:35 AM
 #13

No you haven't defined them.  Your posts are meaningless without defining what you mean by "free market" and "capitalism" and let us see what you actually support.

           ▄▄███████▄▄
        ▄███▀▀
▄▄▄▄    ▀▄
     ▄▄█████████████▄▄  ▀▄
  ▄▀▀██▀           ▀▀██▄▄▀▄
▄▀  ██                 ▀██
  ██       ▀▀█▀▀         █
█▀        █ █ █        ▄█▀▄
▀▄         █ █ █       ▄█  █
 ██         █▄▄▄█      ▄█  ▄▀
  ██▄                ▄█▀  ▄▀
  ▀▄▀██▄▄          ▄█▀  ▄▀
   ▀▄ ▀▀███▄▄▄▄▄▄█████▀▀
     ▀▀▄▄▄▄▄▄▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
.UTRUST.▀████████▄
  ▀███████▄
    ▀██████▄
      ▀██████
       ▀█████
        ▀████▄
         █████
          ▀███
           ███
           ▀██
            ██
             █
             █
●  Download WHITEPAPER  ●
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ ▼ ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
facebook      twitter      slack
▀████████▄
  ▀███████▄
    ▀██████▄
      ▀██████
       ▀█████
        ▀████▄
         █████
          ▀███
           ███
           ▀██
            ██
             █
             █
hugolp
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 784



View Profile
August 20, 2011, 11:00:43 AM
 #14

No you haven't defined them.  Your posts are meaningless without defining what you mean by "free market" and "capitalism" and let us see what you actually support.

Ive said:

Quote from: hugolp
Also, capitalism implies more than private property of capital. Contrary to what some people think, the word "capitalists" was used before Marx. Previous to Marx, clasical liberals (libertarians) and individualist anarchists used the word capitalists in a demeaning way to describe the people who was using the system of government control over the market to unjustly adquire wealth. Capitalism implies government control over the market. I oppose that and support a free market.

Quote from: hugolp
I dont think the most common use of the word capitalism is private control of property. What is commonly understood is that the system we have now is capitalism. I dont think there is much discussion about it. If you go to the street and start asking what word would they use to define the present system, capitalism would win and by a big distance.

I oppose the present system, a system of government control over the market, therefore and according to your own words, I oppose capitalism.

And my view on private property:

Quote from: hugolp
Depends of what you mean by private ownership. I dont support the idea of strong property rights as anarcho-capitalist do. I have a less absolute and more utilitarian view. I think ownership or exclusive use rights is something that emerges in a society because its the most efficient economic structure. F.e. anarcho-capitalist say that once a property has been homesteaded it belongs to that person forever unless he decides to trade it. To me it seems unreasonable and since property is a social structure, once a property has been unused for a long period of time it can be considered unowned and homesteaded again.

and

Quote from: hugolp
Well, in my view its not enough that someone comes after 15 years and says: "hey! Im still interested" and then goes away again. In my opinion in that case that property would be unowned. But I can tell you that I have discussed this with anarcho-capitalists and they consider that "no use" is not cause enough to declare a property unowned.

It is true that I have not defined free market. Im an anarchist so I see a free market completelly free of any government interference.
Hawker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 952



View Profile WWW
August 20, 2011, 01:29:56 PM
 #15

So getting rid of all those pesky food safety regulations and like?


           ▄▄███████▄▄
        ▄███▀▀
▄▄▄▄    ▀▄
     ▄▄█████████████▄▄  ▀▄
  ▄▀▀██▀           ▀▀██▄▄▀▄
▄▀  ██                 ▀██
  ██       ▀▀█▀▀         █
█▀        █ █ █        ▄█▀▄
▀▄         █ █ █       ▄█  █
 ██         █▄▄▄█      ▄█  ▄▀
  ██▄                ▄█▀  ▄▀
  ▀▄▀██▄▄          ▄█▀  ▄▀
   ▀▄ ▀▀███▄▄▄▄▄▄█████▀▀
     ▀▀▄▄▄▄▄▄▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
.UTRUST.▀████████▄
  ▀███████▄
    ▀██████▄
      ▀██████
       ▀█████
        ▀████▄
         █████
          ▀███
           ███
           ▀██
            ██
             █
             █
●  Download WHITEPAPER  ●
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ ▼ ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
facebook      twitter      slack
▀████████▄
  ▀███████▄
    ▀██████▄
      ▀██████
       ▀█████
        ▀████▄
         █████
          ▀███
           ███
           ▀██
            ██
             █
             █
kokjo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1050

You are WRONG!


View Profile
August 20, 2011, 02:19:56 PM
 #16

So getting rid of all those pesky food safety regulations and like?


yes any drug-laws, income taxes, trading regulations, governement inforced embargos.
that kind of stuff.

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves and wiser people so full of doubts." -Bertrand Russell
hugolp
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 784



View Profile
August 20, 2011, 02:20:59 PM
 #17

So getting rid of all those pesky food safety regulations and like?

And reducing taxes so people can self-organize saftey consumer associations, yes. But honestly, there are other more pressing matters than those.
AyeYo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154


View Profile
August 20, 2011, 02:49:01 PM
 #18

So getting rid of all those pesky food safety regulations and like?

And reducing taxes so people can self-organize saftey consumer associations, yes. But honestly, there are other more pressing matters than those.


So you're only anti capitalism in the way in which you define capitalism.  You're very much pro capitalism in the way in the rest of the modern world understands capitalism.

Gotta keep those definitions on the move so that people will hopefully take your words at face value, while you actually mean another thing entirely.

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
Hawker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 952



View Profile WWW
August 20, 2011, 03:08:36 PM
 #19

So getting rid of all those pesky food safety regulations and like?

And reducing taxes so people can self-organize saftey consumer associations, yes. But honestly, there are other more pressing matters than those.

In the real world, that means you are happy to see people die of food poisoning. 

Can't see the benefit myself.  Even with lower taxes, being poisoned is never fun.

           ▄▄███████▄▄
        ▄███▀▀
▄▄▄▄    ▀▄
     ▄▄█████████████▄▄  ▀▄
  ▄▀▀██▀           ▀▀██▄▄▀▄
▄▀  ██                 ▀██
  ██       ▀▀█▀▀         █
█▀        █ █ █        ▄█▀▄
▀▄         █ █ █       ▄█  █
 ██         █▄▄▄█      ▄█  ▄▀
  ██▄                ▄█▀  ▄▀
  ▀▄▀██▄▄          ▄█▀  ▄▀
   ▀▄ ▀▀███▄▄▄▄▄▄█████▀▀
     ▀▀▄▄▄▄▄▄▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
.UTRUST.▀████████▄
  ▀███████▄
    ▀██████▄
      ▀██████
       ▀█████
        ▀████▄
         █████
          ▀███
           ███
           ▀██
            ██
             █
             █
●  Download WHITEPAPER  ●
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ ▼ ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
facebook      twitter      slack
▀████████▄
  ▀███████▄
    ▀██████▄
      ▀██████
       ▀█████
        ▀████▄
         █████
          ▀███
           ███
           ▀██
            ██
             █
             █
hugolp
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 784



View Profile
August 20, 2011, 03:29:12 PM
 #20

In the real world, that means you are happy to see people die of food poisoning. 

Can't see the benefit myself.  Even with lower taxes, being poisoned is never fun.

Are you trying to keep the debate honest?  Roll Eyes

I guess that what happened last month here in the EU with the people poisoned by food did not happened since we have the government taking care of safety. Or should I say that since you support those agencies you are guilty of what happened?

You can try to play all the rethoric tricks you want. You have said nothing.
AyeYo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154


View Profile
August 20, 2011, 05:01:18 PM
 #21

In the real world, that means you are happy to see people die of food poisoning. 

Can't see the benefit myself.  Even with lower taxes, being poisoned is never fun.

Are you trying to keep the debate honest?  Roll Eyes

I guess that what happened last month here in the EU with the people poisoned by food did not happened since we have the government taking care of safety. Or should I say that since you support those agencies you are guilty of what happened?

You can try to play all the rethoric tricks you want. You have said nothing.


Just point out where anyone claimed that the current system is flawless and I'll give you the benefit of a doubt that your post isn't a raging strawman.

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
Hawker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 952



View Profile WWW
August 20, 2011, 05:20:48 PM
 #22

In the real world, that means you are happy to see people die of food poisoning. 

Can't see the benefit myself.  Even with lower taxes, being poisoned is never fun.

Are you trying to keep the debate honest?  Roll Eyes

I guess that what happened last month here in the EU with the people poisoned by food did not happened since we have the government taking care of safety. Or should I say that since you support those agencies you are guilty of what happened?

You can try to play all the rethoric tricks you want. You have said nothing.


Just point out where anyone claimed that the current system is flawless and I'll give you the benefit of a doubt that your post isn't a raging strawman.

As he said.

Even with the power to close down contaminated food facilities, its almost impossible to eliminate food poisoning.   hugolp; your concept is some kind of voluntary food safety club.  Surely you can think of some better way to prevent people being killed by e.coli?

           ▄▄███████▄▄
        ▄███▀▀
▄▄▄▄    ▀▄
     ▄▄█████████████▄▄  ▀▄
  ▄▀▀██▀           ▀▀██▄▄▀▄
▄▀  ██                 ▀██
  ██       ▀▀█▀▀         █
█▀        █ █ █        ▄█▀▄
▀▄         █ █ █       ▄█  █
 ██         █▄▄▄█      ▄█  ▄▀
  ██▄                ▄█▀  ▄▀
  ▀▄▀██▄▄          ▄█▀  ▄▀
   ▀▄ ▀▀███▄▄▄▄▄▄█████▀▀
     ▀▀▄▄▄▄▄▄▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
.UTRUST.▀████████▄
  ▀███████▄
    ▀██████▄
      ▀██████
       ▀█████
        ▀████▄
         █████
          ▀███
           ███
           ▀██
            ██
             █
             █
●  Download WHITEPAPER  ●
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ ▼ ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
facebook      twitter      slack
▀████████▄
  ▀███████▄
    ▀██████▄
      ▀██████
       ▀█████
        ▀████▄
         █████
          ▀███
           ███
           ▀██
            ██
             █
             █
NghtRppr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


View Profile
August 20, 2011, 05:29:09 PM
 #23

Well, in my view its not enough that someone comes after 15 years and says: "hey! Im still interested" and then goes away again.

If I own a house, it's my house. If I want it to sit there unused then that's my choice. Maybe I just like the idea of having a house that I could always live in, in an emergency. The point is, I might want to use it someday and that's all that matters. Let's say that I already own a house that I live in and I buy another house for $50,000. I have it there for 15 years doing nothing with it. Then, you come along and move in to it claiming it's unowned. The next day, the house I was living in burns to the ground and I'm homeless. Do you think that's fair?
kokjo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1050

You are WRONG!


View Profile
August 20, 2011, 05:32:02 PM
 #24

Well, in my view its not enough that someone comes after 15 years and says: "hey! Im still interested" and then goes away again.

If I own a house, it's my house. If I want it to sit there unused then that's my choice. Maybe I just like the idea of having a house that I could always live in, in an emergency. The point is, I might want to use it someday and that's all that matters. Let's say that I already own a house that I live in and I buy another house for $50,000. I have it there for 15 years doing nothing with it. Then, you come along and move in to it claiming it's unowned. The next day, the house I was living in burns to the ground and I'm homeless. Do you think that's fair?
/trolling
absolutly fair!

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves and wiser people so full of doubts." -Bertrand Russell
lemonginger
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 210


firstbits: 121vnq


View Profile
August 20, 2011, 05:32:25 PM
 #25

Wait, now the justification for the State is e.coli? Not warlords or marauding bandits but food posioning? Sheesh, debate sure has gone downhill since I last checked the politics forums.

Also, as I have mentioned before I am personally a libertarian socialist and I do agree that anarcho-capitalists <-> free market anti capitalists // mutualists <-> libertarian socialists all come down on a spectrum based primarily on how "sticky" they think property rights are (and whether they believe in the alienability of labor, but that is a different issue). Unfortunately, many AnCaps not only go to an extreme with very sticky property rights, but believe that those property rights are somehow natural, rather than simply a social arrangement, which makes it very difficult to argue about things.
Explodicle
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 947


View Profile
August 20, 2011, 06:12:08 PM
 #26

Well, in my view its not enough that someone comes after 15 years and says: "hey! Im still interested" and then goes away again.

If I own a house, it's my house. If I want it to sit there unused then that's my choice. Maybe I just like the idea of having a house that I could always live in, in an emergency. The point is, I might want to use it someday and that's all that matters. Let's say that I already own a house that I live in and I buy another house for $50,000. I have it there for 15 years doing nothing with it. Then, you come along and move in to it claiming it's unowned. The next day, the house I was living in burns to the ground and I'm homeless. Do you think that's fair?

So why would anyone ever declare that they abandon a house? It's not like they're paying taxes on it. I worry that bandits would rob this house, but honest men would leave it untouched indefinitely. Or worse yet, a prankster bandit posts an "abandoned" sign!
hugolp
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 784



View Profile
August 20, 2011, 06:50:09 PM
 #27

If I own a house, it's my house.

We are discussing the validity and reach of property rights. You can not justify owning something by saying that you own it. We are discussing exactly that concept, what it means to own something.

Quote
If I want it to sit there unused then that's my choice.

Again, it all boils down to your idea of property rights.

Quote
Maybe I just like the idea of having a house that I could always live in, in an emergency. The point is, I might want to use it someday and that's all that matters. Let's say that I already own a house that I live in and I buy another house for $50,000. I have it there for 15 years doing nothing with it. Then, you come along and move in to it claiming it's unowned. The next day, the house I was living in burns to the ground and I'm homeless. Do you think that's fair?

If you are able to have a house of $50.000 there unused I am sure you are capable of storing some wealth in other ways that allow you to recover from your loss. Also, Im not being very strick. If you visit your house from time to time, it can still be considered yours. I dont think its fair or socially stable in a voluntary society to have a bunch of capital unused for years and years. People will not accept that arrangement and will lead to violantions of property rights. Only under a represive society those type of situations are accepted.

Quote from: lemonginger
Wait, now the justification for the State is e.coli? Not warlords or marauding bandits but food posioning? Sheesh, debate sure has gone downhill since I last checked the politics forums.

Yes, its like that with those people. I think that when they see a thread with adult conversations they come to distract.

EDIT: Btw, lemonginger last time I check mutualist were socialists. I dont consider myself a mutualist or a socialist, although I have taken or share a lot of ideas with them, because I dont feel that strongly about wage labour as they do. I guess Im near them, but somewhere in between.
Hawker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 952



View Profile WWW
August 20, 2011, 06:54:45 PM
 #28

You were the one came here saying you believe in a free market but not capitalism.  e.coli is a useful illustration of why food regulation is needed. 

I'm still not sure what you mean by anti-capitalist which still allows for free market trading. 

           ▄▄███████▄▄
        ▄███▀▀
▄▄▄▄    ▀▄
     ▄▄█████████████▄▄  ▀▄
  ▄▀▀██▀           ▀▀██▄▄▀▄
▄▀  ██                 ▀██
  ██       ▀▀█▀▀         █
█▀        █ █ █        ▄█▀▄
▀▄         █ █ █       ▄█  █
 ██         █▄▄▄█      ▄█  ▄▀
  ██▄                ▄█▀  ▄▀
  ▀▄▀██▄▄          ▄█▀  ▄▀
   ▀▄ ▀▀███▄▄▄▄▄▄█████▀▀
     ▀▀▄▄▄▄▄▄▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
.UTRUST.▀████████▄
  ▀███████▄
    ▀██████▄
      ▀██████
       ▀█████
        ▀████▄
         █████
          ▀███
           ███
           ▀██
            ██
             █
             █
●  Download WHITEPAPER  ●
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ ▼ ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
facebook      twitter      slack
▀████████▄
  ▀███████▄
    ▀██████▄
      ▀██████
       ▀█████
        ▀████▄
         █████
          ▀███
           ███
           ▀██
            ██
             █
             █
NghtRppr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


View Profile
August 20, 2011, 07:08:17 PM
 #29

e.coli is a useful illustration of why food regulation is needed

Passing a law requiring food to be safe is like passing a law requiring people to wear parachutes when skydiving. Most people are going to do that anyways. The ones that don't, they have the right not to.
Hawker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 952



View Profile WWW
August 20, 2011, 07:18:34 PM
 #30

e.coli is a useful illustration of why food regulation is needed

Passing a law requiring food to be safe is like passing a law requiring people to wear parachutes when skydiving. Most people are going to do that anyways. The ones that don't, they have the right not to.

No.  Its like the law requiring that every parachute be traceable and that all its part be traceable.  That way, when a parachute fails, the is a very short time before the manufacturer is able to recall all other parachutes with the same faulty component.


           ▄▄███████▄▄
        ▄███▀▀
▄▄▄▄    ▀▄
     ▄▄█████████████▄▄  ▀▄
  ▄▀▀██▀           ▀▀██▄▄▀▄
▄▀  ██                 ▀██
  ██       ▀▀█▀▀         █
█▀        █ █ █        ▄█▀▄
▀▄         █ █ █       ▄█  █
 ██         █▄▄▄█      ▄█  ▄▀
  ██▄                ▄█▀  ▄▀
  ▀▄▀██▄▄          ▄█▀  ▄▀
   ▀▄ ▀▀███▄▄▄▄▄▄█████▀▀
     ▀▀▄▄▄▄▄▄▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
.UTRUST.▀████████▄
  ▀███████▄
    ▀██████▄
      ▀██████
       ▀█████
        ▀████▄
         █████
          ▀███
           ███
           ▀██
            ██
             █
             █
●  Download WHITEPAPER  ●
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ ▼ ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
facebook      twitter      slack
▀████████▄
  ▀███████▄
    ▀██████▄
      ▀██████
       ▀█████
        ▀████▄
         █████
          ▀███
           ███
           ▀██
            ██
             █
             █
NghtRppr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


View Profile
August 20, 2011, 08:02:07 PM
 #31

Way to completely miss the point. The point is, few people are going to jump out of a plane without a parachute. Few people are going to eat food that hasn't been inspected. The ones that do, have that right. End of story.
Hawker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 952



View Profile WWW
August 20, 2011, 08:45:19 PM
 #32

Way to completely miss the point. The point is, few people are going to jump out of a plane without a parachute. Few people are going to eat food that hasn't been inspected. The ones that do, have that right. End of story.

To say someone has the right to be poisoned is a bit strange.  In the real world, people have no way of knowing what food is safe and what is not.  That's why food regulation is needed. 

           ▄▄███████▄▄
        ▄███▀▀
▄▄▄▄    ▀▄
     ▄▄█████████████▄▄  ▀▄
  ▄▀▀██▀           ▀▀██▄▄▀▄
▄▀  ██                 ▀██
  ██       ▀▀█▀▀         █
█▀        █ █ █        ▄█▀▄
▀▄         █ █ █       ▄█  █
 ██         █▄▄▄█      ▄█  ▄▀
  ██▄                ▄█▀  ▄▀
  ▀▄▀██▄▄          ▄█▀  ▄▀
   ▀▄ ▀▀███▄▄▄▄▄▄█████▀▀
     ▀▀▄▄▄▄▄▄▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
.UTRUST.▀████████▄
  ▀███████▄
    ▀██████▄
      ▀██████
       ▀█████
        ▀████▄
         █████
          ▀███
           ███
           ▀██
            ██
             █
             █
●  Download WHITEPAPER  ●
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ ▼ ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
facebook      twitter      slack
▀████████▄
  ▀███████▄
    ▀██████▄
      ▀██████
       ▀█████
        ▀████▄
         █████
          ▀███
           ███
           ▀██
            ██
             █
             █
AyeYo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154


View Profile
August 20, 2011, 09:02:05 PM
 #33

Way to completely miss the point. The point is, few people are going to jump out of a plane without a parachute. Few people are going to eat food that hasn't been inspected. The ones that do, have that right. End of story.

To say someone has the right to be poisoned is a bit strange.  In the real world, people have no way of knowing what food is safe and what is not.  That's why food regulation is needed.  


Bro, you clearly are too dumb to understand our superior mindset.  People should know before hand what food is spoiled and what food isn't.  If they aren't capable of predicting the future, then obviously they should reconsider whether they're able to handle the risks of eating food in an unregulated environment.  They have the option to hire a food tester who will eat their food for them to make sure it's safe.  1-2 weeks later, if he isn't dead, they'll know the food was good 1-2 weeks ago.  If that time frame isn't sufficient and they're rolling in money (as everyone will be in libertopia), they can hire a private firm to culture test each one of their meals before they eat it.  This will only have a 2-3 day turn around time and will let them know the food was good 2-3 days ago.  If that still doesn't suit them, maybe they'd be better off just not eating or drinking.  Freedom isn't risk free.

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
lemonginger
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 210


firstbits: 121vnq


View Profile
August 20, 2011, 11:18:03 PM
 #34

*yawn*

really, of all the things to get up in arms about, food safety is a really boring one everyone. It is easily accomplished without state action and one could argue that Big Ag (which has always been a good example of state/corporate incest) and costly regulations have made food MORE unsafe because big ass factory farms and giant slaughterhouses are much much more likely to result in unsafe food than smaller operations.

--

hugo: most mutualists do not identify as socialists but as "free market anti-capitalists" and individualist anarchists. Kevin Carson, for example, does not identify as a socialist.

to quote mutualist.org

Quote
Our ultimate vision is of a society in which the economy is organized around free market exchange between producers, and production is carried out mainly by self-employed artisans and farmers, small producers' cooperatives, worker-controlled large enterprises, and consumers' cooperatives.  To the extent that wage labor still exists (which is likely, if we do not coercively suppress it), the removal of statist privileges will result in the worker's natural wage, as Benjamin Tucker put it, being his full product.

But yes, it's a spectrum of course with an-cap on one side and libertarian communism on the other and various degrees of markets and property rights, mutualism, syndalicalism, egoism etc etc in between
AyeYo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154


View Profile
August 21, 2011, 03:23:54 AM
 #35

*yawn*

really, of all the things to get up in arms about, food safety is a really boring one everyone. It is easily accomplished without state action and one could argue that Big Ag (which has always been a good example of state/corporate incest) and costly regulations have made food MORE unsafe because big ass factory farms and giant slaughterhouses are much much more likely to result in unsafe food than smaller operations.

The illogic, it burns!  Let's try to break down this non-sensical post.



Food safety is easily accomplished without state action - how? explanation needed

Big Ag and factory farms make food more unsafe - I agree, but how is this at all relevant to a discussion on regulation?  Raising, processing, and cooking all your own food would be the safest of all, but that's hardly relevant either.

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
hugolp
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 784



View Profile
August 21, 2011, 07:32:16 AM
 #36

hugo: most mutualists do not identify as socialists but as "free market anti-capitalists" and individualist anarchists. Kevin Carson, for example, does not identify as a socialist.

to quote mutualist.org

Quote
Our ultimate vision is of a society in which the economy is organized around free market exchange between producers, and production is carried out mainly by self-employed artisans and farmers, small producers' cooperatives, worker-controlled large enterprises, and consumers' cooperatives.  To the extent that wage labor still exists (which is likely, if we do not coercively suppress it), the removal of statist privileges will result in the worker's natural wage, as Benjamin Tucker put it, being his full product.

But yes, it's a spectrum of course with an-cap on one side and libertarian communism on the other and various degrees of markets and property rights, mutualism, syndalicalism, egoism etc etc in between

I am too lazy to look it up now but I have seen Kevin Carson refering to himself as a socialist and a the rest of the mutualist that I know do also. Benjamin Tucker was a socialist, as was Lysander Spooner, and they are his ideological precedents. At the end that branch comes from Proudhom that is a socialist. They are not marxists, but they are socialists.

I personally dont care much if someone calls him/herself socialist. I think the word socialism is a bit useless. I dont see how a stalinists, a progressive, an anarcho-syndicalist and a mutualist can all call themselves socialists and assume they are in some kind of common tent, when they are opposites. What does a stalinists have in common with an anarcho-syndicalist? Yes, they might use similar vocabulary and rethoric, but thats all.

Btw, I dont see how anarcho-syndicalism/anarcho-communism makes any sense. When I discovered mutualism (which is what lead me to become an anarchist) I also investigated anarcho-syndicalism/anarcho-communism. What I read is that they oppose the market and money itself, but they want to substitute it with something that looks very similar to a market and money. So basically they want to form local communes that would exchange (not trade!! that would be a market, they exchange, but I see no difference) their products in some exchangers (not a market!!, again I dont see the difference) based in the time it has taken to produce the goods. So basically imposing a "time to produce" monetary standard, but again, its not money according to them. I dont see how a market based in some "time" monetary standard is not a market and is not money, but also there are several problems with this situation, basically that producers would be compelled to lie about the time it took to produce the products to adquire certain goods. According to my very superficial readings anarcho-syndicalists argue it wont happen because, since "capitalism" is gone, people will act very different. To me this is wishfull thinking. While it is true that the dynamics of capitalism creates certain harmful ractions, believing that without capitalism humans will react according to how each anarcho-syndicalists thinks society has to be is 100% wishfull thinking. When you question this, they reffer to Marx writtings as scientific proof (!!!!!). It seems to me like a religion, where once something has happened (you die and got to heaven, capitalism ends) everybody will start acting by your personal and subjective moral standards. Honestly, I dont see how it makes any sense.
Hawker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 952



View Profile WWW
August 21, 2011, 09:37:45 AM
 #37

*yawn*

really, of all the things to get up in arms about, food safety is a really boring one everyone. It is easily accomplished without state action ...snip...

Actually it can't be accomplished without state action.  Food safety requires the ability to force firms to close down and only a state can legally force you to do stuff.


           ▄▄███████▄▄
        ▄███▀▀
▄▄▄▄    ▀▄
     ▄▄█████████████▄▄  ▀▄
  ▄▀▀██▀           ▀▀██▄▄▀▄
▄▀  ██                 ▀██
  ██       ▀▀█▀▀         █
█▀        █ █ █        ▄█▀▄
▀▄         █ █ █       ▄█  █
 ██         █▄▄▄█      ▄█  ▄▀
  ██▄                ▄█▀  ▄▀
  ▀▄▀██▄▄          ▄█▀  ▄▀
   ▀▄ ▀▀███▄▄▄▄▄▄█████▀▀
     ▀▀▄▄▄▄▄▄▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
.UTRUST.▀████████▄
  ▀███████▄
    ▀██████▄
      ▀██████
       ▀█████
        ▀████▄
         █████
          ▀███
           ███
           ▀██
            ██
             █
             █
●  Download WHITEPAPER  ●
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ ▼ ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
facebook      twitter      slack
▀████████▄
  ▀███████▄
    ▀██████▄
      ▀██████
       ▀█████
        ▀████▄
         █████
          ▀███
           ███
           ▀██
            ██
             █
             █
kokjo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1050

You are WRONG!


View Profile
August 21, 2011, 04:59:32 PM
 #38


Food safety is easily accomplished without state action - how? explanation needed


20 people eat poisened food from company A(by mistake).
20 people gets sick
30000 people are seeing this 20 getting sick, from food poisened.
30000 people decides(indevidualy) not to buy from company A.
company A is screwed.
other companies B-Z are realizing, its stupid to poisen their food.

no need for governement action. no need to force any one to anything.

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves and wiser people so full of doubts." -Bertrand Russell
qbg
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 75


View Profile
August 21, 2011, 05:02:57 PM
 #39

*yawn*

really, of all the things to get up in arms about, food safety is a really boring one everyone. It is easily accomplished without state action ...snip...

Actually it can't be accomplished without state action.  Food safety requires the ability to force firms to close down and only a state can legally force you to do stuff.
Not necessarily. The industry could produce an organization similar to the USDA which performs random inspections and ensures a rigorous set of standards are being followed in exchanged for permission to use the group's trademark on their product. Consumers can then just look for the trademark.

This assumes that the use of the trademark is enforceable, naturally.
Hawker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 952



View Profile WWW
August 21, 2011, 05:17:37 PM
 #40


Food safety is easily accomplished without state action - how? explanation needed


20 people eat poisened food from company A(by mistake).
20 people gets sick
30000 people are seeing this 20 getting sick, from food poisened.
30000 people decides(indevidualy) not to buy from company A.
company A is screwed.
other companies B-Z are realizing, its stupid to poisen their food.

no need for governement action. no need to force any one to anything.

lol

Have you even thought about this for a second?  

20 people get food poisoning.  They have no idea what food poisoned them and if there is no food regulation, there will be no inspectors to try and find a common link.  So yes you are correct they made a mistake but they have no way of telling what mistake.  And if its e.coli or salmonella, a lot of people will die directly as a result of the lack of food regulation.

Its really worth thinking of how things work in real life before coming up with nonsense posts like that.  In your best case scenario, 20 people get very sick and a lot of them die. In the worst case, we return to the 19th century where people were being killed off by bad food and drink all the time but no-one knew.


           ▄▄███████▄▄
        ▄███▀▀
▄▄▄▄    ▀▄
     ▄▄█████████████▄▄  ▀▄
  ▄▀▀██▀           ▀▀██▄▄▀▄
▄▀  ██                 ▀██
  ██       ▀▀█▀▀         █
█▀        █ █ █        ▄█▀▄
▀▄         █ █ █       ▄█  █
 ██         █▄▄▄█      ▄█  ▄▀
  ██▄                ▄█▀  ▄▀
  ▀▄▀██▄▄          ▄█▀  ▄▀
   ▀▄ ▀▀███▄▄▄▄▄▄█████▀▀
     ▀▀▄▄▄▄▄▄▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
.UTRUST.▀████████▄
  ▀███████▄
    ▀██████▄
      ▀██████
       ▀█████
        ▀████▄
         █████
          ▀███
           ███
           ▀██
            ██
             █
             █
●  Download WHITEPAPER  ●
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ ▼ ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
facebook      twitter      slack
▀████████▄
  ▀███████▄
    ▀██████▄
      ▀██████
       ▀█████
        ▀████▄
         █████
          ▀███
           ███
           ▀██
            ██
             █
             █
JA37
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 378


View Profile
August 21, 2011, 09:08:12 PM
 #41

no need for governement action. no need to force any one to anything.

I think Shell would be on your side. Must be tedious to have to inform the government about their accidents. Perhaps that's why they didn't do it right away
I'm sure Shell would love if there weren't anyone out there who could force them to do anything.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904006104576504572754151598.html

Ponzi me: http://fxnet.bitlex.org/?ref=588
Thanks to the anonymous person who doubled my BTC wealth by sending 0.02 BTC to: 1BSGbFq4G8r3uckpdeQMhP55ScCJwbvNnG
Anonymous
Guest

August 21, 2011, 10:09:12 PM
 #42

Shell would be very unhappy if there was no government to bail them out from their accidents as opposed to having to pay up when they pollute people's property. They would be bankrupt in the latter scenario.

Government enables horrible disasters. In this case, it happens that things are minor and it would be better to avoid confrontation altogether.
JA37
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 378


View Profile
August 22, 2011, 06:55:18 AM
 #43

Shell would be very unhappy if there was no government to bail them out from their accidents as opposed to having to pay up when they pollute people's property. They would be bankrupt in the latter scenario.

Government enables horrible disasters. In this case, it happens that things are minor and it would be better to avoid confrontation altogether.

Bankrupt? Oh, right, in your world being right, as opposed to being rich, actually helps you in court. Back here in the real world, you just go ahead and try to sue Shell and we'll see how that turns out.
And who owns the north sea in your world? Can I claim it? How do you homestead the sea? Put out buoys? Is it free to pollute as long as there's nobody directly impacted?

Minor? Largest oil spill in the north sea for over 10 years is minor?

Ponzi me: http://fxnet.bitlex.org/?ref=588
Thanks to the anonymous person who doubled my BTC wealth by sending 0.02 BTC to: 1BSGbFq4G8r3uckpdeQMhP55ScCJwbvNnG
Hawker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 952



View Profile WWW
August 22, 2011, 07:58:25 AM
 #44

Shell would be very unhappy if there was no government to bail them out from their accidents as opposed to having to pay up when they pollute people's property. They would be bankrupt in the latter scenario.

Government enables horrible disasters. In this case, it happens that things are minor and it would be better to avoid confrontation altogether.

Surely the libertarian position is that Shell owns the sea it is drilling under?  No-one else owns it and its worthless without Shell drilling there.  In a libertarian paradise,  its Shell's property and its no-one else's business what they do there.  So Shell can pollute all it wants.

           ▄▄███████▄▄
        ▄███▀▀
▄▄▄▄    ▀▄
     ▄▄█████████████▄▄  ▀▄
  ▄▀▀██▀           ▀▀██▄▄▀▄
▄▀  ██                 ▀██
  ██       ▀▀█▀▀         █
█▀        █ █ █        ▄█▀▄
▀▄         █ █ █       ▄█  █
 ██         █▄▄▄█      ▄█  ▄▀
  ██▄                ▄█▀  ▄▀
  ▀▄▀██▄▄          ▄█▀  ▄▀
   ▀▄ ▀▀███▄▄▄▄▄▄█████▀▀
     ▀▀▄▄▄▄▄▄▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
.UTRUST.▀████████▄
  ▀███████▄
    ▀██████▄
      ▀██████
       ▀█████
        ▀████▄
         █████
          ▀███
           ███
           ▀██
            ██
             █
             █
●  Download WHITEPAPER  ●
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ ▼ ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
facebook      twitter      slack
▀████████▄
  ▀███████▄
    ▀██████▄
      ▀██████
       ▀█████
        ▀████▄
         █████
          ▀███
           ███
           ▀██
            ██
             █
             █
kokjo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1050

You are WRONG!


View Profile
August 22, 2011, 08:15:32 AM
 #45

Shell would be very unhappy if there was no government to bail them out from their accidents as opposed to having to pay up when they pollute people's property. They would be bankrupt in the latter scenario.

Government enables horrible disasters. In this case, it happens that things are minor and it would be better to avoid confrontation altogether.

Surely the libertarian position is that Shell owns the sea it is drilling under?  No-one else owns it and its worthless without Shell drilling there.  In a libertarian paradise,  its Shell's property and its no-one else's business what they do there.  So Shell can pollute all it wants.
OMG you are just too stupid. narrow minded, and plain dumb! troll go away!

if they are polluting the ocean with oil. the oil are oing to sail away! into other people property.
if they keep the oil spills on their property, its fine with me. but when they are polluting my property, im(and many others) going to sue them


"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves and wiser people so full of doubts." -Bertrand Russell
Hawker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 952



View Profile WWW
August 22, 2011, 10:31:41 AM
 #46

Shell would be very unhappy if there was no government to bail them out from their accidents as opposed to having to pay up when they pollute people's property. They would be bankrupt in the latter scenario.

Government enables horrible disasters. In this case, it happens that things are minor and it would be better to avoid confrontation altogether.

Surely the libertarian position is that Shell owns the sea it is drilling under?  No-one else owns it and its worthless without Shell drilling there.  In a libertarian paradise,  its Shell's property and its no-one else's business what they do there.  So Shell can pollute all it wants.
OMG you are just too stupid. narrow minded, and plain dumb! troll go away!

if they are polluting the ocean with oil. the oil are oing to sail away! into other people property.
if they keep the oil spills on their property, its fine with me. but when they are polluting my property, im(and many others) going to sue them



Its interesting that in your best case scenario, there is huge pollution of the oceans as the oil companies own them.  Are you sure that would be a good thing? 

Anyway, how can you sue?  You are a libertarian and have no state, remember?  All you have is voluntary arbitration companies and Shell can choose which it uses.  I'd expect them to use an arbitration company they own themselves and as there is no state, there is nothing you can do about it.


           ▄▄███████▄▄
        ▄███▀▀
▄▄▄▄    ▀▄
     ▄▄█████████████▄▄  ▀▄
  ▄▀▀██▀           ▀▀██▄▄▀▄
▄▀  ██                 ▀██
  ██       ▀▀█▀▀         █
█▀        █ █ █        ▄█▀▄
▀▄         █ █ █       ▄█  █
 ██         █▄▄▄█      ▄█  ▄▀
  ██▄                ▄█▀  ▄▀
  ▀▄▀██▄▄          ▄█▀  ▄▀
   ▀▄ ▀▀███▄▄▄▄▄▄█████▀▀
     ▀▀▄▄▄▄▄▄▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
.UTRUST.▀████████▄
  ▀███████▄
    ▀██████▄
      ▀██████
       ▀█████
        ▀████▄
         █████
          ▀███
           ███
           ▀██
            ██
             █
             █
●  Download WHITEPAPER  ●
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ ▼ ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
facebook      twitter      slack
▀████████▄
  ▀███████▄
    ▀██████▄
      ▀██████
       ▀█████
        ▀████▄
         █████
          ▀███
           ███
           ▀██
            ██
             █
             █
hugolp
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 784



View Profile
August 22, 2011, 10:49:45 AM
 #47

Shell would be very unhappy if there was no government to bail them out from their accidents as opposed to having to pay up when they pollute people's property. They would be bankrupt in the latter scenario.

Government enables horrible disasters. In this case, it happens that things are minor and it would be better to avoid confrontation altogether.

Surely the libertarian position is that Shell owns the sea it is drilling under?  No-one else owns it and its worthless without Shell drilling there.  In a libertarian paradise,  its Shell's property and its no-one else's business what they do there.  So Shell can pollute all it wants.
OMG you are just too stupid. narrow minded, and plain dumb! troll go away!

if they are polluting the ocean with oil. the oil are oing to sail away! into other people property.
if they keep the oil spills on their property, its fine with me. but when they are polluting my property, im(and many others) going to sue them

Stop feeding the trolls. Weve tell them about property rights in environmental issues, they know not all libertarians are anarchists, weve tell them there would be courts in anarchy. They keep ignoring it, because they are trolls.

This was an interesting thread with adult conversation and they are derailing it. As long as you keep feeding them they will keep derailing it with stupid answers.
JA37
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 378


View Profile
August 22, 2011, 11:18:27 AM
 #48

Stop feeding the trolls. Weve tell them about property rights in environmental issues, they know not all libertarians are anarchists, weve tell them there would be courts in anarchy. They keep ignoring it, because they are trolls.

This was an interesting thread with adult conversation and they are derailing it. As long as you keep feeding them they will keep derailing it with stupid answers.

I'm sorry. I don't mean to derail the thread.
I just don't see how this should work. What about weak corrolations? Let's say that Shell poisons a bit of their sea, but only trace amounts reach your property, however you can see after 15 years that the amount of fish you get is decreasing slowly but steadily? Can you sue? How do you prove that it's their fault?

What if I overfish my sea-property which collapses the fish population, leading to a growth of algae that kills off a lot of fish in your sea-property, can you sue me for that? What if the link isn't that clear cut? Let's say that there are a few steps in between?

And after the damage is irreversible, then what? What good does money do when your property is destroyed for the foreseeable future?

Ponzi me: http://fxnet.bitlex.org/?ref=588
Thanks to the anonymous person who doubled my BTC wealth by sending 0.02 BTC to: 1BSGbFq4G8r3uckpdeQMhP55ScCJwbvNnG
Anonymous
Guest

August 22, 2011, 12:02:01 PM
 #49

Organisms have adapted very well to oil contamination. In fact, it has helped several species. One could even consider the oil natural just as human's other effects have been considered a permanent part of the environment. To worry about these minute effects is pedantry in the scheme of things. Three species will always die a day and strains of fish will always deplete. We're not special nor omnipotent. We affect things just as much as any other species and we can only prevent our affects so much without otherwise inhibiting our ability to sustain happily.

Nonetheless, the market has always spared species it deemed desirable -- such as the lobster -- that would be extinct otherwise. It used to be peasant food until it was overfished, haha. Now it's bred and highly valuable due to this scarcity. It all balances out in the end.

As for overfishing affecting your property, it should be your responsibility to contain your own fish or otherwise consider them a part of the commons. If your "property" can be so easily affected then it should not be considered your property in the first place.

Hawker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 952



View Profile WWW
August 22, 2011, 12:40:03 PM
 #50

Shell would be very unhappy if there was no government to bail them out from their accidents as opposed to having to pay up when they pollute people's property. They would be bankrupt in the latter scenario.

Government enables horrible disasters. In this case, it happens that things are minor and it would be better to avoid confrontation altogether.

Surely the libertarian position is that Shell owns the sea it is drilling under?  No-one else owns it and its worthless without Shell drilling there.  In a libertarian paradise,  its Shell's property and its no-one else's business what they do there.  So Shell can pollute all it wants.
OMG you are just too stupid. narrow minded, and plain dumb! troll go away!

if they are polluting the ocean with oil. the oil are oing to sail away! into other people property.
if they keep the oil spills on their property, its fine with me. but when they are polluting my property, im(and many others) going to sue them

Stop feeding the trolls. Weve tell them about property rights in environmental issues, they know not all libertarians are anarchists, weve tell them there would be courts in anarchy. They keep ignoring it, because they are trolls.

This was an interesting thread with adult conversation and they are derailing it. As long as you keep feeding them they will keep derailing it with stupid answers.

Its an interesting thread but you idea of being for free markets but against capitalism is daft.  Its not trolling to point out that the idea is daft.  If a society has any chance of working, you need to control pollution and to ensure safe food.  Your basic concept fails to do either and while everyone is free to believe anything they choose, everyone is also free to point out that a daft idea is, well, daft.

           ▄▄███████▄▄
        ▄███▀▀
▄▄▄▄    ▀▄
     ▄▄█████████████▄▄  ▀▄
  ▄▀▀██▀           ▀▀██▄▄▀▄
▄▀  ██                 ▀██
  ██       ▀▀█▀▀         █
█▀        █ █ █        ▄█▀▄
▀▄         █ █ █       ▄█  █
 ██         █▄▄▄█      ▄█  ▄▀
  ██▄                ▄█▀  ▄▀
  ▀▄▀██▄▄          ▄█▀  ▄▀
   ▀▄ ▀▀███▄▄▄▄▄▄█████▀▀
     ▀▀▄▄▄▄▄▄▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
.UTRUST.▀████████▄
  ▀███████▄
    ▀██████▄
      ▀██████
       ▀█████
        ▀████▄
         █████
          ▀███
           ███
           ▀██
            ██
             █
             █
●  Download WHITEPAPER  ●
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ ▼ ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
facebook      twitter      slack
▀████████▄
  ▀███████▄
    ▀██████▄
      ▀██████
       ▀█████
        ▀████▄
         █████
          ▀███
           ███
           ▀██
            ██
             █
             █
Anonymous
Guest

August 22, 2011, 01:11:40 PM
 #51

Shell would be very unhappy if there was no government to bail them out from their accidents as opposed to having to pay up when they pollute people's property. They would be bankrupt in the latter scenario.

Government enables horrible disasters. In this case, it happens that things are minor and it would be better to avoid confrontation altogether.

Surely the libertarian position is that Shell owns the sea it is drilling under?  No-one else owns it and its worthless without Shell drilling there.  In a libertarian paradise,  its Shell's property and its no-one else's business what they do there.  So Shell can pollute all it wants.
OMG you are just too stupid. narrow minded, and plain dumb! troll go away!

if they are polluting the ocean with oil. the oil are oing to sail away! into other people property.
if they keep the oil spills on their property, its fine with me. but when they are polluting my property, im(and many others) going to sue them

Stop feeding the trolls. Weve tell them about property rights in environmental issues, they know not all libertarians are anarchists, weve tell them there would be courts in anarchy. They keep ignoring it, because they are trolls.

This was an interesting thread with adult conversation and they are derailing it. As long as you keep feeding them they will keep derailing it with stupid answers.

Its an interesting thread but you idea of being for free markets but against capitalism is daft.  Its not trolling to point out that the idea is daft.  If a society has any chance of working, you need to control pollution and to ensure safe food.  Your basic concept fails to do either and while everyone is free to believe anything they choose, everyone is also free to point out that a daft idea is, well, daft.
Pollution and food safety isn't even ensured now with overreaching regulation. I guess the only answer is more state mandates.

Your concept fails to count for history and the fact that pure control doesn't work. The desire for a clean environment and safe food comes from the very people that need them. Not from authority.



AyeYo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154


View Profile
August 22, 2011, 02:06:13 PM
 #52



As for overfishing affecting your property, it should be your responsibility to contain your own fish or otherwise consider them a part of the commons. If your "property" can be so easily affected then it should not be considered your property in the first place.



HAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAH

So then no one can own property!  The entire world is interconnected and what happens on each little piece of it affects all others to greater or lesser extents.

You'll learn about externalities someday when you're older.

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
Hawker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 952



View Profile WWW
August 22, 2011, 03:00:06 PM
 #53

...snip...
Pollution and food safety isn't even ensured now with overreaching regulation. I guess the only answer is more state mandates.

Your concept fails to count for history and the fact that pure control doesn't work. The desire for a clean environment and safe food comes from the very people that need them. Not from authority.

[/quote]

Last time I looked there is very little pollution and food poisoning due to retail food is very rare.  So the existing system works fine.  Hugolp wants to replace this with some wishy-washy communal inspection system which will have zero enforcement power.  That cannot work.

I agree with you that the  desire for a clean environment and safe food comes from the very people that need them.  Where we differ is that you believe that if Shell develops a marine resource offshore, Shell owns that area and it free to pollute it.


           ▄▄███████▄▄
        ▄███▀▀
▄▄▄▄    ▀▄
     ▄▄█████████████▄▄  ▀▄
  ▄▀▀██▀           ▀▀██▄▄▀▄
▄▀  ██                 ▀██
  ██       ▀▀█▀▀         █
█▀        █ █ █        ▄█▀▄
▀▄         █ █ █       ▄█  █
 ██         █▄▄▄█      ▄█  ▄▀
  ██▄                ▄█▀  ▄▀
  ▀▄▀██▄▄          ▄█▀  ▄▀
   ▀▄ ▀▀███▄▄▄▄▄▄█████▀▀
     ▀▀▄▄▄▄▄▄▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
.UTRUST.▀████████▄
  ▀███████▄
    ▀██████▄
      ▀██████
       ▀█████
        ▀████▄
         █████
          ▀███
           ███
           ▀██
            ██
             █
             █
●  Download WHITEPAPER  ●
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ ▼ ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
facebook      twitter      slack
▀████████▄
  ▀███████▄
    ▀██████▄
      ▀██████
       ▀█████
        ▀████▄
         █████
          ▀███
           ███
           ▀██
            ██
             █
             █
kokjo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1050

You are WRONG!


View Profile
August 22, 2011, 03:05:36 PM
 #54

...snip...
Pollution and food safety isn't even ensured now with overreaching regulation. I guess the only answer is more state mandates.

Your concept fails to count for history and the fact that pure control doesn't work. The desire for a clean environment and safe food comes from the very people that need them. Not from authority.


Last time I looked there is very little pollution and food poisoning due to retail food is very rare.  So the existing system works fine.  Hugolp wants to replace this with some wishy-washy communal inspection system which will have zero enforcement power.  That cannot work.

I agree with you that the  desire for a clean environment and safe food comes from the very people that need them.  Where we differ is that you believe that if Shell develops a marine resource offshore, Shell owns that area and it free to pollute it.


[/quote]
you have still not justifyed why they need to have enforcement power.
they need no enforcement power. think of it as some sort of rating agency, but for food instead of finacial assets.

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves and wiser people so full of doubts." -Bertrand Russell
Hawker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 952



View Profile WWW
August 22, 2011, 03:34:31 PM
 #55

...snip...
Pollution and food safety isn't even ensured now with overreaching regulation. I guess the only answer is more state mandates.

Your concept fails to count for history and the fact that pure control doesn't work. The desire for a clean environment and safe food comes from the very people that need them. Not from authority.


Last time I looked there is very little pollution and food poisoning due to retail food is very rare.  So the existing system works fine.  Hugolp wants to replace this with some wishy-washy communal inspection system which will have zero enforcement power.  That cannot work.

I agree with you that the  desire for a clean environment and safe food comes from the very people that need them.  Where we differ is that you believe that if Shell develops a marine resource offshore, Shell owns that area and it free to pollute it.


you have still not justifyed why they need to have enforcement power.
they need no enforcement power. think of it as some sort of rating agency, but for food instead of finacial assets.
[/quote]

I agree kokjo.  Libertarians that move from enforcement to relying on a rating agency type system ignore the fact that rating agencies are easy to corrupt. Because they compete for clients, they can't really slam the clients.

A rating agency type inspection system is sensible if there is an enforcement agency that can sack corrupted rating agents and processes companies that take advantage of the corrupted rating agents.  But that requires a state.

           ▄▄███████▄▄
        ▄███▀▀
▄▄▄▄    ▀▄
     ▄▄█████████████▄▄  ▀▄
  ▄▀▀██▀           ▀▀██▄▄▀▄
▄▀  ██                 ▀██
  ██       ▀▀█▀▀         █
█▀        █ █ █        ▄█▀▄
▀▄         █ █ █       ▄█  █
 ██         █▄▄▄█      ▄█  ▄▀
  ██▄                ▄█▀  ▄▀
  ▀▄▀██▄▄          ▄█▀  ▄▀
   ▀▄ ▀▀███▄▄▄▄▄▄█████▀▀
     ▀▀▄▄▄▄▄▄▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
.UTRUST.▀████████▄
  ▀███████▄
    ▀██████▄
      ▀██████
       ▀█████
        ▀████▄
         █████
          ▀███
           ███
           ▀██
            ██
             █
             █
●  Download WHITEPAPER  ●
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ ▼ ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
facebook      twitter      slack
▀████████▄
  ▀███████▄
    ▀██████▄
      ▀██████
       ▀█████
        ▀████▄
         █████
          ▀███
           ███
           ▀██
            ██
             █
             █
kokjo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1050

You are WRONG!


View Profile
August 22, 2011, 03:41:09 PM
 #56

...snip...
Pollution and food safety isn't even ensured now with overreaching regulation. I guess the only answer is more state mandates.

Your concept fails to count for history and the fact that pure control doesn't work. The desire for a clean environment and safe food comes from the very people that need them. Not from authority.


Last time I looked there is very little pollution and food poisoning due to retail food is very rare.  So the existing system works fine.  Hugolp wants to replace this with some wishy-washy communal inspection system which will have zero enforcement power.  That cannot work.

I agree with you that the  desire for a clean environment and safe food comes from the very people that need them.  Where we differ is that you believe that if Shell develops a marine resource offshore, Shell owns that area and it free to pollute it.


you have still not justifyed why they need to have enforcement power.
they need no enforcement power. think of it as some sort of rating agency, but for food instead of finacial assets.

I agree kokjo.  Libertarians that move from enforcement to relying on a rating agency type system ignore the fact that rating agencies are easy to corrupt. Because they compete for clients, they can't really slam the clients.

A rating agency type inspection system is sensible if there is an enforcement agency that can sack corrupted rating agents and processes companies that take advantage of the corrupted rating agents.  But that requires a state.
[/quote]
corrupt rating agencies would not work. if the rating agencies are wrong they lose trust.

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves and wiser people so full of doubts." -Bertrand Russell
AyeYo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154


View Profile
August 22, 2011, 03:53:50 PM
 #57


corrupt rating agencies would not work. if the rating agencies are wrong they lose trust.

Yea like S&P.  They nearly destroyed the world with their horrifically wrong CDO ratings and now no one listens to them anymore... oh wait...


Being idealistic is great, but being realistic is better.

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
kokjo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1050

You are WRONG!


View Profile
August 22, 2011, 03:56:46 PM
 #58


corrupt rating agencies would not work. if the rating agencies are wrong they lose trust.

Yea like S&P.  They nearly destroyed the world with their horrifically wrong CDO ratings and now no one listens to them anymore... oh wait...


Being idealistic is great, but being realistic is better.
i don't listen to them. Smiley im realistic.
people that is wroking with money, are stupid, and often big risk takers. they should be in a casino instead.

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves and wiser people so full of doubts." -Bertrand Russell
AyeYo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154


View Profile
August 22, 2011, 04:06:43 PM
 #59


corrupt rating agencies would not work. if the rating agencies are wrong they lose trust.

Yea like S&P.  They nearly destroyed the world with their horrifically wrong CDO ratings and now no one listens to them anymore... oh wait...


Being idealistic is great, but being realistic is better.
i don't listen to them. Smiley im realistic.
people that is wroking with money, are stupid, and often big risk takers. they should be in a casino instead.

The fact that you don't listen to them is irrelevant.  The rest of the world still does and they're still alive and thriving.  That means your theory that people will shun these poor raters en masse and make them go out of business is obviously bunk.  You're going to have to come up with another method to deal with poor or corrupt ratings agencies.

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
Explodicle
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 947


View Profile
August 22, 2011, 04:09:58 PM
 #60

If I recall correctly, food was very unsafe in the early industrial revolution, prior to regulation. Why didn't food rating agencies spring up then? Not enough internet? A conspiracy to stop them? Not enough time for the market to adjust? Since the government does an imperfect job of protecting the food supply, do any such rating agencies exist already?

The theory makes perfect sense to me, so now I wonder why it has not already happened.
kokjo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1050

You are WRONG!


View Profile
August 22, 2011, 04:12:48 PM
 #61


corrupt rating agencies would not work. if the rating agencies are wrong they lose trust.

Yea like S&P.  They nearly destroyed the world with their horrifically wrong CDO ratings and now no one listens to them anymore... oh wait...


Being idealistic is great, but being realistic is better.
i don't listen to them. Smiley im realistic.
people that is wroking with money, are stupid, and often big risk takers. they should be in a casino instead.

The fact that you don't listen to them is irrelevant.  The rest of the world still does and they're still alive and thriving.  That means your theory that people will shun these poor raters en masse and make them go out of business is obviously bunk.  You're going to have to come up with another method to deal with poor or corrupt ratings agencies.
no i don't have to come up with anything. i don't trust them, and i did not lose anything. its not my problem.
if STUPID people are listning to corrupt rating agencies, its totaly free for them to do that.

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves and wiser people so full of doubts." -Bertrand Russell
kokjo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1050

You are WRONG!


View Profile
August 22, 2011, 04:18:18 PM
 #62

If I recall correctly, food was very unsafe in the early industrial revolution, prior to regulation. Why didn't food rating agencies spring up then? Not enough internet? A conspiracy to stop them? Not enough time for the market to adjust? Since the government does an imperfect job of protecting the food supply, do any such rating agencies exist already?

The theory makes perfect sense to me, so now I wonder why it has not already happened.
1. its likely because, the workers was getting exploited by the capitalism. their did not have time for considring food safety.
2. likely... its easier to communicate over large distance, with the internet. and there by organizing alot more
3. sure, it must be the evil food companies.
4. ...
5. i don't know.

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves and wiser people so full of doubts." -Bertrand Russell
Hawker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 952



View Profile WWW
August 22, 2011, 05:00:10 PM
 #63

Food rating agencies didn't emerge because there is no market for them.  Food safety law is not some kind of power grab; its a response to a complex problem that had to be addressed by the state after people realised they were being poisoned and demanded protection.



           ▄▄███████▄▄
        ▄███▀▀
▄▄▄▄    ▀▄
     ▄▄█████████████▄▄  ▀▄
  ▄▀▀██▀           ▀▀██▄▄▀▄
▄▀  ██                 ▀██
  ██       ▀▀█▀▀         █
█▀        █ █ █        ▄█▀▄
▀▄         █ █ █       ▄█  █
 ██         █▄▄▄█      ▄█  ▄▀
  ██▄                ▄█▀  ▄▀
  ▀▄▀██▄▄          ▄█▀  ▄▀
   ▀▄ ▀▀███▄▄▄▄▄▄█████▀▀
     ▀▀▄▄▄▄▄▄▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
.UTRUST.▀████████▄
  ▀███████▄
    ▀██████▄
      ▀██████
       ▀█████
        ▀████▄
         █████
          ▀███
           ███
           ▀██
            ██
             █
             █
●  Download WHITEPAPER  ●
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ ▼ ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
facebook      twitter      slack
▀████████▄
  ▀███████▄
    ▀██████▄
      ▀██████
       ▀█████
        ▀████▄
         █████
          ▀███
           ███
           ▀██
            ██
             █
             █
kokjo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1050

You are WRONG!


View Profile
August 22, 2011, 05:05:14 PM
 #64

Food rating agencies didn't emerge because there is no market for them.  Food safety law is not some kind of power grab; its a response to a complex problem that had to be addressed by the state after people realised they were being poisoned and demanded protection.



im not demanding protection.

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves and wiser people so full of doubts." -Bertrand Russell
AyeYo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154


View Profile
August 22, 2011, 05:15:34 PM
 #65


corrupt rating agencies would not work. if the rating agencies are wrong they lose trust.

Yea like S&P.  They nearly destroyed the world with their horrifically wrong CDO ratings and now no one listens to them anymore... oh wait...


Being idealistic is great, but being realistic is better.
i don't listen to them. Smiley im realistic.
people that is wroking with money, are stupid, and often big risk takers. they should be in a casino instead.

The fact that you don't listen to them is irrelevant.  The rest of the world still does and they're still alive and thriving.  That means your theory that people will shun these poor raters en masse and make them go out of business is obviously bunk.  You're going to have to come up with another method to deal with poor or corrupt ratings agencies.
no i don't have to come up with anything. i don't trust them, and i did not lose anything. its not my problem.
if STUPID people are listning to corrupt rating agencies, its totaly free for them to do that.


You claim was that inaccurate or corrupt rating agencies would go out of business due to being shunned by the public.  That requires that they be shunned by more than just you.  Since that's not happening, your claim is WRONG.

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
kokjo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1050

You are WRONG!


View Profile
August 22, 2011, 05:23:55 PM
 #66

your claim is WRONG.
no. people are stupid and naive

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves and wiser people so full of doubts." -Bertrand Russell
AyeYo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154


View Profile
August 22, 2011, 05:25:32 PM
 #67

your claim is WRONG.
no. people are stupid and naive

And also poorly informed and ignorant, which is exactly why your claim is 100% false in the real world.

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
Hawker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 952



View Profile WWW
August 22, 2011, 05:27:41 PM
 #68

your claim is WRONG.
no. people are stupid and naive

You may have a low regard for your fellow humanity but that doesn't mean you can poison them!

           ▄▄███████▄▄
        ▄███▀▀
▄▄▄▄    ▀▄
     ▄▄█████████████▄▄  ▀▄
  ▄▀▀██▀           ▀▀██▄▄▀▄
▄▀  ██                 ▀██
  ██       ▀▀█▀▀         █
█▀        █ █ █        ▄█▀▄
▀▄         █ █ █       ▄█  █
 ██         █▄▄▄█      ▄█  ▄▀
  ██▄                ▄█▀  ▄▀
  ▀▄▀██▄▄          ▄█▀  ▄▀
   ▀▄ ▀▀███▄▄▄▄▄▄█████▀▀
     ▀▀▄▄▄▄▄▄▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
.UTRUST.▀████████▄
  ▀███████▄
    ▀██████▄
      ▀██████
       ▀█████
        ▀████▄
         █████
          ▀███
           ███
           ▀██
            ██
             █
             █
●  Download WHITEPAPER  ●
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ ▼ ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
facebook      twitter      slack
▀████████▄
  ▀███████▄
    ▀██████▄
      ▀██████
       ▀█████
        ▀████▄
         █████
          ▀███
           ███
           ▀██
            ██
             █
             █
JA37
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 378


View Profile
August 25, 2011, 12:16:03 PM
 #69

Organisms have adapted very well to oil contamination. In fact, it has helped several species. One could even consider the oil natural just as human's other effects have been considered a permanent part of the environment. To worry about these minute effects is pedantry in the scheme of things. Three species will always die a day and strains of fish will always deplete. We're not special nor omnipotent. We affect things just as much as any other species and we can only prevent our affects so much without otherwise inhibiting our ability to sustain happily.

Nonetheless, the market has always spared species it deemed desirable -- such as the lobster -- that would be extinct otherwise. It used to be peasant food until it was overfished, haha. Now it's bred and highly valuable due to this scarcity. It all balances out in the end.

As for overfishing affecting your property, it should be your responsibility to contain your own fish or otherwise consider them a part of the commons. If your "property" can be so easily affected then it should not be considered your property in the first place.

I hope you're trolling me because this has to be the dumbest thing I've read in a while. But I'll bite anyway.
Oil spill hurts the ecosystem, there's no doubt about that. NONE. Some species might temporarily benefit from the contamination, but the net effect is ALWAYS negative for the environment. All scientists not on oil-money agrees with this. And while I agree that oil is to be considered natural, but so is arsenic, yet both are bad in too high concentrations.

No, we are not special nor omnipotent, but to say that we affect the environment just as much as any other species is just plain dumb. We have a huge impact on our surroundings which we manipulate like no other species.

The market has absolutely no idea which species are valuable. It only know which ones are profitable.

Oh, there's a "commons" now. Who owns that? Can anyone use it? How much? Are there any rules or regulations in place for this "commons"?

Yes, property can be easily affected by things from the outside. Your apple farm could be affected by the factory in the next city, or state, that does something that kills off bees. However it will be impossible for you to prove that it's their actions that does so, since they are so far away and there could be another thousand reasons why your apples don't grow. So your apple farm isn't your property now since it can be so easily affected?

Don't be daft. I know you're not an idiot, so don't play one on the internet.

Ponzi me: http://fxnet.bitlex.org/?ref=588
Thanks to the anonymous person who doubled my BTC wealth by sending 0.02 BTC to: 1BSGbFq4G8r3uckpdeQMhP55ScCJwbvNnG
J180
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 122


View Profile
August 25, 2011, 12:22:09 PM
 #70


Don't be daft. I know you're not an idiot, so don't play one on the internet.


I might be misunderstanding this. Are you saying that Immanuel Go doesn't actually believe what he writes, that's just playing a role for fun?
JA37
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 378


View Profile
August 25, 2011, 12:37:21 PM
 #71


Don't be daft. I know you're not an idiot, so don't play one on the internet.


I might be misunderstanding this. Are you saying that Immanuel Go doesn't actually believe what he writes, that's just playing a role for fun?
He's usually rather well reasoned but this latest post was just plain dumb, and he's been smarter than that before. Dead wrong and naive naturally but smarter.

Ponzi me: http://fxnet.bitlex.org/?ref=588
Thanks to the anonymous person who doubled my BTC wealth by sending 0.02 BTC to: 1BSGbFq4G8r3uckpdeQMhP55ScCJwbvNnG
J180
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 122


View Profile
August 25, 2011, 10:15:35 PM
 #72


Don't be daft. I know you're not an idiot, so don't play one on the internet.


I might be misunderstanding this. Are you saying that Immanuel Go doesn't actually believe what he writes, that's just playing a role for fun?
He's usually rather well reasoned but this latest post was just plain dumb, and he's been smarter than that before. Dead wrong and naive naturally but smarter.

My question was whether he wrote something, which he thinks is wrong, purposefully.
JA37
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 378


View Profile
August 26, 2011, 05:37:38 AM
 #73


Don't be daft. I know you're not an idiot, so don't play one on the internet.


I might be misunderstanding this. Are you saying that Immanuel Go doesn't actually believe what he writes, that's just playing a role for fun?
He's usually rather well reasoned but this latest post was just plain dumb, and he's been smarter than that before. Dead wrong and naive naturally but smarter.

My question was whether he wrote something, which he thinks is wrong, purposefully.
It's very hard to know what another person thinks, but I do hope so.

Ponzi me: http://fxnet.bitlex.org/?ref=588
Thanks to the anonymous person who doubled my BTC wealth by sending 0.02 BTC to: 1BSGbFq4G8r3uckpdeQMhP55ScCJwbvNnG
The Script
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336



View Profile
August 30, 2011, 09:02:58 AM
 #74

Organisms have adapted very well to oil contamination. In fact, it has helped several species. One could even consider the oil natural just as human's other effects have been considered a permanent part of the environment. To worry about these minute effects is pedantry in the scheme of things. Three species will always die a day and strains of fish will always deplete. We're not special nor omnipotent. We affect things just as much as any other species and we can only prevent our affects so much without otherwise inhibiting our ability to sustain happily.

As for overfishing affecting your property, it should be your responsibility to contain your own fish or otherwise consider them a part of the commons. If your "property" can be so easily affected then it should not be considered your property in the first place.

I hope you're trolling me because this has to be the dumbest thing I've read in a while. But I'll bite anyway.
Oil spill hurts the ecosystem, there's no doubt about that. NONE. Some species might temporarily benefit from the contamination, but the net effect is ALWAYS negative for the environment. All scientists not on oil-money agrees with this. And while I agree that oil is to be considered natural, but so is arsenic, yet both are bad in too high concentrations.

To me the idea that oil spills are good for the economy feels like the Broken Window fallacy in a new form.  Net loss, for sure.

No, we are not special nor omnipotent, but to say that we affect the environment just as much as any other species is just plain dumb. We have a huge impact on our surroundings which we manipulate like no other species.

Agree.

Nonetheless, the market has always spared species it deemed desirable -- such as the lobster -- that would be extinct otherwise. It used to be peasant food until it was overfished, haha. Now it's bred and highly valuable due to this scarcity. It all balances out in the end.

The market has absolutely no idea which species are valuable. It only know which ones are profitable.

The market isn't an entity that thinks and feels.  It is not an acting individual.  The market is a process of trades and interactions between acting individuals.  To say that the market spares species may be technically correct but I feel that it leads to this idea that the market is a wise entity that somehow knows best.  Yes it's true that privately owning species often leads to increases in their populations, especially if they have food value (chickens, cows), but through the market process individuals can also (and have) eradicated numerous species.
FirstAscent
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812


View Profile
August 30, 2011, 10:56:34 PM
 #75

Nonetheless, the market has always spared species it deemed desirable -- such as the lobster -- that would be extinct otherwise. It used to be peasant food until it was overfished, haha. Now it's bred and highly valuable due to this scarcity. It all balances out in the end.

Dude, you need to broaden your reading. Spend a month reading some material outside of your special domain of interest. To think that the individuals you idolize and study are in turn well studied in the all the complex interactions of our planet Earth is to admit your naivete. Here are some recommendations:

http://www.amazon.com/Trophic-Cascades-Predators-Changing-Dynamics/dp/1597264873/

http://www.amazon.com/Where-Wild-Things-Were-Ecological/dp/1596916249/

http://www.amazon.com/Continental-Conservation-Scientific-Foundations-Regional/
jtimon
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372


View Profile WWW
October 06, 2011, 09:52:42 AM
 #76

Sorry, didn't read the whole thread.
Some of you may be interested in this site: http://c4ss.org/

Personally I'm for free markets and against capitalism.
Quote
it depends on what you mean by “capitalism.”

My definition of capitalism would be something like "a free market where the structure of money protects capital yields from competition".
For me, the wrong thing is capital-money. I believe that in a free monetary market free-moneys like freicoin and ripple would be the more competitive ones. But you've already told me you believe freicoin wouldn't be accepted by anyone. Ripple probably doesn't fit your definition of money, let's call it medium of exchange then.
The concept is simple but assumes that exists a minimum interest rate (basic interest) independent of growth and risk:
When the yields of the capitals of a certain sector get lower than that minimum interest rate, the investments in that sector stops, protecting the yields of those capitals from further competition. This way, there are sustained profits that don't have to fear competition.
To really free the market we need to suppress that minimum interest rate, and for that we need to know its source: the structure of capital-money.

2 different forms of free-money: Freicoin (free of basic interest because it's perishable), Mutual credit (no interest because it's abundant)
Sannyasi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 455



View Profile WWW
October 08, 2011, 12:45:41 AM
 #77

capitalism = better = future = grass is greener on the other side..... something must be worse and below you to recognize better and above. by thinking being a libertarian is better than being a capatalist you are being a capatalist. The only way to not be a capatalist is to not think any way is better than another way or to not take a side. I don't have a name for what I am, because giving it a name is taking a side- the side of whatever label i think is better than the next.

1DxP5iL6hN5Gd3cwmDz9uFSntW8ALBQaGK

http://gamerkeys.net/common/home.htm <- the best place to get games!

my portfoio: http://windowsofamind.com
jtimon
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372


View Profile WWW
October 08, 2011, 09:45:00 AM
 #78

capitalism = better = future

In fact capital-money discounts value from the future. It makes us prefer the short term.
I say I'm libertarian. Yes, that's a label.
I repeat, I'm for free market but against capital-money. We would be better with free-money and I believe free-money would triumph over capital-money when competing in a free market. If you believe the opposite you still have nothing to fear from people thinking like me. Because we both want a free monetary market.


2 different forms of free-money: Freicoin (free of basic interest because it's perishable), Mutual credit (no interest because it's abundant)
NghtRppr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


View Profile
October 08, 2011, 05:20:45 PM
 #79

I repeat, I'm for free market but against capital-money.

You have a different definition of capitalism than I do.
jtimon
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372


View Profile WWW
October 08, 2011, 06:10:46 PM
 #80

I repeat, I'm for free market but against capital-money.

You have a different definition of capitalism than I do.

Yes. I guess I would not see anything wrong with capitalism according to your definition.
The difference is how we want money to be. But we both want a free monetary market so we're in the same boat.

2 different forms of free-money: Freicoin (free of basic interest because it's perishable), Mutual credit (no interest because it's abundant)
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [All]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!