Government regulation always a bad thing?

[Anonymous]

It's an argument of whims and desires. You can't reasonably explain his perspective.

[1713876761]

1713876761

[1713876761]

1713876761

[1713876761]

1713876761

[kiba]

It's an argument of whims and desires. You can't reasonably explain his perspective.

He seems to give a damn about what other people "make off with".

For me, I don't give a damn what other people "make off with" as long as I prosper and get what I want. Typically, when I engage in economic exchange, it's only calculating for myself.

"Is this guy giving me a good deal or a bad deal?"

I don't even consider how much profit he made off of me. If he make a lot of profit, I might even get in the business myself and get myself a part of the pie.   But anyway, it's probably not worth getting into the business even with all the profit. It probably involves doing something I don't like.

To profit from, and to be profited from is just a fact of economic life to me. When somebody said economic life is just morally wrong, I get a lot riled up because to me that's like the law of physics and these guys are trying to destroy everything.

Maybe I shouldn't become so angry, because the law of economics will give these guys a good whipping 99% of the time.

[FatherMcGruder]

Why do you hate it when somebody prospers on the product of your labor?

I only hate when people take what doesn't belong to them.

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?

It is good to help others. We should also not govern each other.

For once, have you ever heard of positive externalities?

Government certainly has them. They may make government tolerable, but they don't make government a good thing.

Do you really want to restrict every single positive benefit and locked it behind a paywall?

No. Explain to me why you think I do. We can achieve greater benefits without government.

Society is not better off when artists jealously guard their work from commercial exploitation and modification.

Once an artist sells that which he as produced through his labor, the buyers can do whatever they want with it. The artist has no right to any portion of anything the buyers might produce from their own labor.

Are you going to refute my assertion that capitalism is a statist philosophy?

[kiba]

Are you going to refute my assertion that capitalism is a statist philosophy?

First: drop all political vocabularies and its substitution. This is critical for rational discourse.

Secondary..we can start discussing "exploitation" and "profit" without reference to said words or its substitute.

Thirdly: You will drop the idea of refuting anybody's arguments and focus on understanding.

Now we can start:

I think a good definition of labor is "work performed". That mean thinking, writing, talking, hacking, putting together, etc...to achieve a certain result. That result is a good or service.

[FatherMcGruder]

First: drop all political vocabularies and its substitution. This is critical for rational discourse.

Secondary..we can start discussing "exploitation" and "profit" without reference to said words or its substitute.

I'm not sure why these words are bad words but okay.

Thirdly: You will drop the idea of refuting anybody's arguments and focus on understanding.

This seems like evasion on your part but fine.

Now we can start:

I think a good definition of labor is "work performed". That mean thinking, writing, talking, hacking, putting together, etc...to achieve a certain result. That result is a good or service.

I suggest that labor is the creation of something. You can think and talk about something all you want, but you have not created something by doing so. Ideas come freely. You make them real with labor and you own that which you produce by your labor in proportion to the labor that you have contributed. So, if someone speaks of a vehicle that can fly, and I do all the engineering and building to create one, the resulting plane is solely mine. Because he contributed no labor to the construction of the plane, I owe nothing back to the person who first thought and spoke of one besides what things hey may have loaned to me. If he wants the plane he must buy it from me. If other people helped me engineer and build it, we will divvy up the proceeds of the sale of the plane according to the work we each contributed to its creation.

Perhaps you'd like to start another thread?

[kiba]

I suggest that labor is the creation of something. You can think and talk about something all you want, but you have not created something by doing so. Ideas come freely. You make them real with labor and you own that which you produce by your labor in proportion to the labor that you have contributed. So, if someone speaks of a vehicle that can fly, and I do all the engineering and building to create one, the resulting plane is solely mine. Because he contributed no labor to the construction of the plane, I owe nothing back to the person who first thought and spoke of one besides what things hey may have loaned to me. If he wants the plane he must buy it from me. If other people helped me engineer and build it, we will divvy up the proceeds of the sale of the plane according to the work we each contributed to its creation.

How do you calculate how much work is done and percentage to give?

[kiba]

This seems like evasion on your part but fine.

Is the exchange voluntary? Yes or no? If yes, than it is an OK transaction. It doesn't matter if there is "exploitation" or whatever. It doesn't matter who get what.

That is my "idealogy".

Now, we discuss and understand.

[FatherMcGruder]

How do you calculate how much work is done and percentage to give?

However they should decide as long as no one takes advantage of the weaknesses of anyone else. It would probably involve time committed and tasks done. Particularly undesirable tasks might earn at a faster rate than desirable tasks so as to provide incentive to do them.

Is the exchange voluntary? Yes or no?

That is not a useful question when the consequence of not exchanging is destitution, when you don't own the product of your labor and have nothing to exchange but yourself. Although, an affirmative answer will make capitalists feel better.

It doesn't matter if there is "exploitation" or whatever. It doesn't matter who get what.

That is my "idealogy".

Now, we discuss and understand.

So you support government. Glad we cleared that up.

[kiba]

However they should decide as long as no one takes advantage of the weaknesses of anyone else. It would probably involve time committed and tasks done. Particularly undesirable tasks might earn at a faster rate than desirable tasks so as to provide incentive to do them.

What if the two sides disagree on who get what?

[kiba]

So you support government. Glad we cleared that up.

I disagree.

[kiba]

That is not a useful question when the consequence of not exchanging is destitution, when you don't own the product of your labor and have nothing to exchange but yourself. Although, an affirmative answer will make capitalists feel better.

I do not care if the exchange make me "destitute", only that I am in a better situation. I rather be alive, than dead. I rather be rich, than poor. What is fair or not fair does not matter to me.

[FatherMcGruder]

What if the two sides disagree on who get what?

They will either work it out or not work together.

I disagree.

Then please explain how an employer doesn't govern his employees.

I do not care if the exchange make me "destitute", only that I am in a better situation. I rather be alive, than dead. I rather be rich, than poor. What is fair or not fair does not matter to me.

So you don't mind if someone takes from you that which you labored to produce as long as you're somehow incrementally better off than before you labored? That sounds like a justification for slavery.

[Anonymous]

Well, I am apparently an evil capitalist because I am only managing the construction of a product and still acquiring profit.

[kiba]

So you don't mind if someone takes from you that which you labored to produce as long as you're somehow incrementally better off than before you labored? That sounds like a justification for slavery.

So? You would choose to die rather than work for a corporate overlord.

I am a free agent, choosing what I think is best for me. The fact that you think somebody exploiting me doesn't matter. I'll gladly defend my employer from you and your pitchfork, because he is the one who provide me food, shelter, and water.

What have you provided for me?

[FatherMcGruder]

Well, I am apparently an evil capitalist because I am only managing the construction of a product and still acquiring profit.

Well, you're probably an actively exploiting capitalist, but I wouldn't go so far as to call you evil. I was once a capitalist, after all. I was not evil. I was immature, ignorant, and naturally mimicking my peers and elders.

To be fair, you probably expend some labor to manage the product's construction. Assuming that the construction of this product requires management, did the workers you manage democratically delegate management responsibilities to you? Did you and the other workers come to an agreement as to the relative value of everyone's labor contributions? A negative answer to either of these questions may indicate a capitalist relationship.

So? You would choose to die rather than work for a corporate overlord.

No, but it isn't a free choice.

I am a free agent, choosing what I think is best for me. The fact that you think somebody exploiting me doesn't matter. I'll gladly defend my employer from you and your pitchfork, because he is the one who provide me food, shelter, and water.

What have you provided for me?

That sounds familiar:

Gadhafi supporters knotted up roads as they drove by honking their support for the man they call their dear leader. Thirty-three-year-old Sirhan Thirage(ph) was walking by with her mom and sisters. She said the reports of other countries getting ready to attack Libya have unnerved her.

Ms. SIRHAN THIRAGE: (Through translator) So much, of course, worried for my country. And if it happened, even if I was a woman, if they will attack us, I will go and defend my country.

GREENE: Thirage said she's convinced the United Nations Security Council made its decision to intervene in Libya, based on lies.

Ms. THIRAGE: (Through translator) They're accusing - false accusations to our leader that he's killing us. But I want to say a word to the whole world, if even Gadhafi wanted to kill us, we will accept it. But we will never accept a foreigner coming to kill us. In fact, there's no father will kill his children. We are his - Gadhafi's children. We do not trust the foreigners.

http://www.npr.org/2011/03/18/134664499/After-Ceasefire-Gadhafis-Forces-May-Not-Have-Eased-Up

[kiba]

So? You would choose to die rather than work for a corporate overlord.

No, but it isn't a free choice.

I am a free agent, choosing what I think is best for me. The fact that you think somebody exploiting me doesn't matter. I'll gladly defend my employer from you and your pitchfork, because he is the one who provide me food, shelter, and water.

What have you provided for me?

That sounds familiar:

Gadhafi supporters knotted up roads as they drove by honking their support for the man they call their dear leader. Thirty-three-year-old Sirhan Thirage(ph) was walking by with her mom and sisters. She said the reports of other countries getting ready to attack Libya have unnerved her.

Ms. SIRHAN THIRAGE: (Through translator) So much, of course, worried for my country. And if it happened, even if I was a woman, if they will attack us, I will go and defend my country.

GREENE: Thirage said she's convinced the United Nations Security Council made its decision to intervene in Libya, based on lies.

Ms. THIRAGE: (Through translator) They're accusing - false accusations to our leader that he's killing us. But I want to say a word to the whole world, if even Gadhafi wanted to kill us, we will accept it. But we will never accept a foreigner coming to kill us. In fact, there's no father will kill his children. We are his - Gadhafi's children. We do not trust the foreigners.

http://www.npr.org/2011/03/18/134664499/After-Ceasefire-Gadhafis-Forces-May-Not-Have-Eased-Up

I have no further arguments.

[JA37]

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.

Obviously. You don't need rules for decent people. They do decent things anyway. Rules are there to keep the other ones from messing things up.

What will happen if a bad person is elected into a position of power? Bad things obviously. Look at germany in the 30:ies where Hitler was elected in a democratic way. And then you should look at how germany has setup their system today, where there are checks and balances to keep things like that from happening again. They learned a thing or two from that episode.

Are there bad laws in any society? Yes. Are they put there intentionally to screw people over by evildoers? No. Most of the time it's unintended consequences of the laws that screw people. Should the laws be changed when these consequences are discovered? Yes. Are the regulations there to prevent competition and protect 'old' companies? No. They're there to protect people and property.

About the housing example: There are codes on how to build a house to prevent it from collapsing, how to handle electricity in the house, how to insulate it, how to prevent water damage. All these regulations are put there to protect the inhabitants from harm (physical or financial). And the regulations aren't dreamed up by some bureaucrat in some ivory tower. They are the combined knowledge by the industry and researchers on how to build houses.

So when you buy a house, or a car, or an electrical appliance, you don't have to know every single detail about house foundations, or power steering, or grounding, because experts have already made sure that these things are 'good'. If you're an expert you could probably improve certain things in them, but I can assure you that you're not an expert in ALL areas.

But I think we agree that there should be regulations/standards in place.
Again, late answer, but finding an internet connections is proving difficult.

[Anonymous]

Housing codes can be assembled voluntarily. Government force is not necessary. Anyways, a company selling faultyhousing isn't going to have a lasting reputation.

[JA37]

Housing codes can be assembled voluntarily. Government force is not necessary. Anyways, a company selling faultyhousing isn't going to have a lasting reputation.

Yes they are. Assembled voluntarily I mean. The codes are a compilation of what everyone decent conciders good practice.
It is then signed into law to force those who doesn't follow good practice to do so.

And bad people doesn't have to have a lasting reputation, a quick sell and dash with the cash is usually good enough. And the damage has already benn done to those who bought the bad house....