Government regulation always a bad thing?

[JA37]

Nobody is proposing the idea of no regulation.

So the answer to the asked question in the topic is "No"?

[1714107381]

1714107381

[1714107381]

1714107381

[1714107381]

1714107381

[1714107381]

1714107381

[1714107381]

1714107381

[1714107381]

1714107381

[kiba]

So the answer to the asked question in the topic is "No"?

If you read the discussion, we provide a bit more nuanced answer. Basically we agree that it is true that some regulations will do good, but we do not agree with the method of enforcement. Hence, we're still opposed to government regulation on ethical ground.

[FatherMcGruder]

Actually, it's the worker who is in the position to neogitate as it is related to workplace condition. This is not related to worker competition but employer competition.

Worker: Why should I work in this cheap-o building instead of working in that safe building?

Employer: I pay twice as much wage as that other guy over there.

Worker: Hmm, I think I walk away...

Employer: No, don't go. I'll pay triple as much wage.

Worker: ok.

That which the worker produces or helps to produce has a fair market value. Why does he have to negotiate the ownership for his rightful share? It's his as soon as he makes it. Yet somehow, his capitalist employer has the power to take it. Government gives him that power.

We are unable to have a rational discussion because people here do not feel exploited when somebody profit off of them. Nobody feel ashamed and nobody cares.

I don't see how that precludes a rational, civil discussion. We already agree that government is exploitative, that it uses things like coercion to take advantage of people, right? Yet, many people do not feel exploited by their governments. That does not mean that government is not exploitative.

If you don't simply feel exploited even though you fully understand the situation, well..what ya going to do?

Then you are either a capitalist yourself and hoping to gain power over people, are doing a favor, or are playing out a fetish. That's no reason not to educate yourself and possibly change your mind.

[barbarousrelic]

That which the worker produces or helps to produce has a fair market value. Why does he have to negotiate the ownership for his rightful share? It's his as soon as he makes it. Yet somehow, his capitalist employer has the power to take it. Government gives him that power.

"Fair market value" can only be determined by observing a large group of people negotiating deals, and the concept does not even exist without individuals making such negotiations.

[kiba]

I don't see how that precludes a rational, civil discussion. We already agree that government is exploitative, that it uses things like coercion to take advantage of people, right? Yet, many people do not feel exploited by their governments. That does not mean that government is not exploitative.

We are arguing definitions and words. That lead us to nowhere.

When an entire community feel no emotional response, your argumentation lead to nowhere. We simply just don't feel exploited or exploiting anybody.

Then you are either a capitalist yourself and hoping to gain power over people, are doing a favor, or are playing out a fetish. That's no reason not to educate yourself and possibly change your mind.

No, I considered and thought the answer is different from what you think is right. I am not doing anyone a favor, or a fetish. If that make me a capitalist, so be it.

People can look at the same situation and reach completely different conclusion.

[kiba]

Let ban these words: involuntary, voluntary, profit, exploitation, coercion and related words that stand for the same thing.

Maybe, a fruitful discussion will results.

[theymos]

What if I build an unsafe house that impacts those around it. Let's say that my house is prone to fires, and that will destroy/damage every house around it. Isn't it resaonable to have regulations in place to prevent damage to other peoples property?

The owner of the unsafe property would be liable for damages in case of fires. The victims could also sue.

In anarcho-capitalism, doing things that result in the death/harm of many people (or lots of property) would be incredibly dangerous, since you'd have the protection agencies of every victim seeking retribution against you and your single protection agency.

[JA37]

The owner of the unsafe property would be liable for damages in case of fires. The victims could also sue.

In anarcho-capitalism, doing things that result in the death/harm of many people (or lots of property) would be incredibly dangerous, since you'd have the protection agencies of every victim seeking retribution against you and your single protection agency.

Yes, but that's something that happens "after the fact". Wouldn't it be better to have something in place that would prevent the event in the first place, or atleast minimize the effect.

But like Kiba said above, rules should be in place. It's just a question about who should enforce them. The community or the government. And I agree, if your actions (or inactions) could harm others, there should be rules in place to prevent you from behaving in that way.

[theymos]

Yes, but that's something that happens "after the fact". Wouldn't it be better to have something in place that would prevent the event in the first place, or atleast minimize the effect.

There is something: people don't want to lose money, so they avoid being liable for such things.

[JA37]

There is something: people don't want to lose money, so they avoid being liable for such things.

That could happen. Or they could just not spend money on these safety measures and if sh*t hits the fan they make sure that THEY don't have any assets that can be touched by the victims, or their families. It's not hard being a slum lord if you want to. Find a drug addict, let him be the fall guy in return for a token amount of money, profit from it yourself. If your current fall guy gets bothersome, get rid of him and find your next guy. There's no shortage. Most will be content with a steady supply of money to buy drugs.

This happens today, in our society. The difference is that today the government sais, "Ok, we can't touch your money but we can enforce the safety standards for your house, fix it or lose the right to keep tennants, ie income".

[BitterTea]

There is something: people don't want to lose money, so they avoid being liable for such things.

That could happen. Or they could just not spend money on these safety measures and if sh*t hits the fan they make sure that THEY don't have any assets that can be touched by the victims, or their families. It's not hard being a slum lord if you want to. Find a drug addict, let him be the fall guy in return for a token amount of money, profit from it yourself. If your current fall guy gets bothersome, get rid of him and find your next guy. There's no shortage. Most will be content with a steady supply of money to buy drugs.

This happens today, in our society. The difference is that today the government sais, "Ok, we can't touch your money but we can enforce the safety standards for your house, fix it or lose the right to keep tennants, ie income".

Since we are apparently examining the actions of the worst possible human beings...

What happens when the person you described ("slum lord") is the person making the rules? Since a sufficient percentage of humanity is this kind of person that it warrants discussion, what happens when a bunch of stupid or evil people elect such an individual into a position of power?

In fact, these types of people thrive in government, and what happens is what you see today. Laws that harm rather than help, regulations which help the entrenched business interests instead of protecting individuals, etc.

[Anonymous]

Government is profitable for some people. It just so happens they are existing businesses who can use regulations to keep competitors away.

While ever there is a profit motive to have a government someone will seek it. It just so happens that has negative effects on the rest of us.

So how do we have government that is unprofitable ?

 

[Anonymous]

I also think people are confused over "regulations" and 'standards".

Standards usually evolve organically from the industry or community actually involved in the process while regulations are perverse control of human behaviour usually done by agents with no involvement in the thing they regulate. Because of this fact unintended consequences occur.

Its akin to letting a baker set the rules for the butcher or the candlestick maker .

[grondilu]

I also think people are confused over "regulations" and 'standards".

Standards usually evolve organically from the industry or community actually involved in the process while regulations are perverse control of human behaviour usually done by agents with no involvement in the thing they regulate. Because of this fact unintended consequences occur.

Its akin to letting a baker set the rules for the butcher or the candlestick maker .

Very true.

[FatherMcGruder]

"Fair market value" can only be determined through the process of people negotiating deals. Such a concept does not exist without the existence of the market of people negotiating deals.

Yes, so, if my employer sells something I made for 800 BTC, but only gives me a fraction of that, why can I not sell it on the same market and collect all 800 BTC? Because my employer will charge me with theft!

I don't see how that precludes a rational, civil discussion. We already agree that government is exploitative, that it uses things like coercion to take advantage of people, right? Yet, many people do not feel exploited by their governments. That does not mean that government is not exploitative.

We are arguing definitions and words. That lead us to nowhere.

When an entire community feel no emotional response, your argumentation lead to nowhere. We simply just don't feel exploited or exploiting anybody.

You felt an emotional response as soon I stated my distaste for trickle-down economics. It took a few posts to build up, but you let it out eventually. Which really provoked you more, that I expressed something that you felt was illogical, or that I challenged a system in which you think you have an advantage? I suppose it doesn't really matter to the discussion, but you'd do well to investigate for yourself.

No, I considered and thought the answer is different from what you think is right. I am not doing anyone a favor, or a fetish. If that make me a capitalist, so be it.

People can look at the same situation and reach completely different conclusion.

Okay, so you are a capitalist. And you will exploit others for profit. I can't make you think that that is a bad thing. Perhaps they will enjoy being exploited. But since you cannot exploit others without the help of a government, and therefore cannot make profit without government, you must also support government.

Let ban these words: involuntary, voluntary, profit, exploitation, coercion and related words that stand for the same thing.

Maybe, a fruitful discussion will results.

I do not understand.

That could happen. Or they could just not spend money on these safety measures and if sh*t hits the fan they make sure that THEY don't have any assets that can be touched by the victims, or their families. It's not hard being a slum lord if you want to. Find a drug addict, let him be the fall guy in return for a token amount of money, profit from it yourself. If your current fall guy gets bothersome, get rid of him and find your next guy. There's no shortage. Most will be content with a steady supply of money to buy drugs.

This happens today, in our society. The difference is that today the government sais, "Ok, we can't touch your money but we can enforce the safety standards for your house, fix it or lose the right to keep tennants, ie income".

Since we are apparently examining the actions of the worst possible human beings...

What happens when the person you described ("slum lord") is the person making the rules? Since a sufficient percentage of humanity is this kind of person that it warrants discussion, what happens when a bunch of stupid or evil people elect such an individual into a position of power?

In fact, these types of people thrive in government, and what happens is what you see today. Laws that harm rather than help, regulations which help the entrenched business interests instead of protecting individuals, etc.

That slum lord doesn't need any kind of election. He's already making the rules. He's already the governor of his little slum state.

[theymos]

Yes, so, if my employer sells something I made for 800 BTC, but only gives me a fraction of that, why can I not sell it on the same market and collect all 800 BTC? Because my employer will charge me with theft!

If you can make the item without the employer, what's stopping you from doing so? Clearly the employer is offering something that allows you to complete the item.

[kiba]

You felt an emotional response as soon I stated my distaste for trickle-down economics. It took a few posts to build up, but you let it out eventually. Which really provoked you more, that I expressed something that you felt was illogical, or that I challenged a system in which you think you have an advantage? I suppose it doesn't really matter to the discussion, but you'd do well to investigate for yourself.

This is not about advantages, this is about survival and prosperity. I don't care and nor I should care if somebody is 100,000 times richer than me. I don't care about equality, alienation, and other such concepts.

I care about prosperity and survival. When activities are voluntary and especially when they bring prosperity, you better damn well believe that I will defend it. I will even defend the potion of immortality and everlasting youth from deathlovers and enemies of technologies.

That is what my angry outbrust is about.

[kiba]

Let ban these words: involuntary, voluntary, profit, exploitation, coercion and related words that stand for the same thing.

Maybe, a fruitful discussion will results.

It's a rationality technique. It leads us away from emotionally charged words, such as "capitalists", and force us to really consider and understand.

If you don't agree to it, I am getting out of this debate. I cannot stand making endless argumentation that lead to nowhere.

[FatherMcGruder]

If you can make the item without the employer, what's stopping you from doing so?

I cannot. Employers control the necessary equipment. I cannot buy the equipment without submitting to an exploitative lender. He will require some of that which I produce for himself without doing any work. As a worker, it is very difficult to escape freeloaders in a capitalist society.

Clearly the employer is offering something that allows you to complete the item.

All he is offering is permission to use, but not own, the equipment because he has the power to keep me out unless I pay his tax. Of course, has no other use for this equipment other than to extort from me the product of my labor.

This is not about advantages, this is about survival and prosperity. I don't care and nor I should care if somebody is 100,000 times richer than me. I don't care about equality, alienation, and other such concepts.

I care about prosperity and survival. When activities are voluntary and especially when they bring prosperity, you better damn well believe that I will defend it. I will even defend the potion of immortality and everlasting youth from deathlovers and enemies of technologies.

That is what my angry outbrust is about.

Survival and prosperity are very different things. I am not content to merely survive while someone else prospers on the product of my labor. Survival is for animals. I am a man. No slaveholder, employer, landlord, lender, or any other government ought to tax my prosperity, to simply allow me to survive. Capitalists, of course, do not share this view, and I can't make them. But capitalists should own their support for government because that is what they do. They govern. They tax. They say, "if you don't like it, get out!", even if the only place to go is the territory of some other capitalist/government. Go ahead and be a capitalist, but know what it means.

It's a rationality technique. It leads us away from emotionally charged words, such as "capitalists", and force us to really consider and understand.

If you don't agree to it, I am getting out of this debate. I cannot stand making endless argumentation that lead to nowhere.

Feel free to present suggestions for substitutes.

[kiba]

Survival and prosperity are very different things. I am not content to merely survive while someone else prospers on the product of my labor. Survival is for animals. I am a man. No slaveholder, employer, landlord, lender, or any other government ought to tax my prosperity, to simply allow me to survive. Capitalists, of course, do not share this view, and I can't make them. But capitalists should own their support for government because that is what they do. They govern. They tax. They say, "if you don't like it, get out!", even if the only place to go is the territory of some other capitalist/government. Go ahead and be a capitalist, but know what it means.

Why do you hate it when somebody prospers on the product of your labor? Is it not true that we all prosper on each other's work. Shouldn't we work toward that goal of helping each other prosper?

For once, have you ever heard of positive externalities? Do you really want to restrict every single positive benefit and locked it behind a paywall? Society is not better off when artists jealously guard their work from commercial exploitation and modification.