Anarcho - Capitalism

BluePlanet

SupaNova wrote: »

Before government intervention financial institutions would not lend sub prime. Governments pushed for a way to make it happen, that's how securitizations and collaterized mortgage obligation came about to my knowledge. These were first introduced by government backed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

I have not read anything to say that the private banks came up with this on their own for their own use and pushed the the scheme on governments, if you can point me to something that suggests this?

Rubbish!
Securitzation, CDO's came about with deregulation of financial services act. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. The exact opposite of over-regulation!

BluePlanet

Can't wait for the de-regulation of the nuclear engery sector huh?
Poor companies burdened with all that unecessary regulation.

SupaNova

Securitzation, CDO's came about with deregulation of financial services act. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. The exact opposite of over-regulation!

That was passed in 1999? securitization and CDO's were around a lot longer.

SupaNova

Can't wait for the de-regulation of the nuclear engery sector huh?
Poor companies burdened with all that unecessary regulation.

I have already made it clear that i am talking about financial regulation, and we are talking about the financial crisis. I have made my point clear on environmental regulation. Read the the thread before making silly statements like libertarians want no nuclear regulation.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

oscarBravo

SupaNova wrote: »

How did regulations come about? Because people wanted them, the market(the consumers are the market). Likewise with product safety. There should always be a sense of buyer beware.

Yes, there should - but that shouldn't absolve the seller of the responsibility to produce a quality product. Sure, the market will punish a supplier who kills his customers, but wouldn't it be better if the seller was required to meet standards in advance?

Now, you can claim that the market will force suppliers to meet minimum standards, which may be true - it's not unlikely that a company that kills several of its customers will be forced out of business. How that's a better solution than requiring the company to meet non-customer-killing standards in the first place is beyond me.

We have product reviews for every product on amazon, why can't people do this for developments from contractors, why can't we have reviews of banks and businesses and their practices?

Yeah, that would be great. It would be so much better to have someone find out that they shouldn't buy an apartment because someone else's building collapsed than to have a minimum required building standard.

why do we need to put our faith in a group of very small individuals. We can waste our time on facebook and forums but not do a little research on products we buy.

Why do you feel it's better to force consumers to do the research to find out whether or not the product they buy is safe than to force the manufacturer to make a safe product in the first place?

I have heard of the De Beers monopoly, they were criminals from the documentary i've seen. That monopoly has plenty of blood on its hands, nothing to do with people interacting freely.

Whoah, back up. You claimed that monopolies don't happen in a free market. De Beers didn't gain their monopoly as a result of government regulation; they gained it through market manipulation. Now, you're the true believer: you explain to me how the market allowed a monopoly to exist for so long.

It seems to me that you're pinning your hopes on a free market composed of idealists who wouldn't dream of doing anything underhand in order to gain unfair advantage. If that's your vision of a free market, I have a free market in second-hand bridges that might interest you.

As for Microsoft, they were dominant for a long time because they offered the best products and services.

Heh. You clearly don't know the first thing about the software business.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

SupaNova

Yeah, that would be great. It would be so much better to have someone find out that they shouldn't buy an apartment because someone else's building collapsed than to have a minimum required building standard

Please stop with these wild exaggerations. I have never argued for no safety regulation or no environmental regulation.

Why do you feel it's better to force consumers to do the research to find out whether or not the product they buy is safe than to force the manufacturer to make a safe product in the first place?

I have never said their should be no safety regulations. The consumers decide the minimum safety regulations. When you buy a car, if safety is your concern, you do research to find the safest car you can afford. Lets say that car is 25% safer and 25% more expensive. Should all other manufacturers be required to raise their safety standards?

Whoah, back up. You claimed that monopolies don't happen in a free market. De Beers didn't gain their monopoly as a result of government regulation; they gained it through market manipulation.

They gained through brutal force and colonialism. They done everything in their power to keep their monopoly, they operated like a criminal gang. There is nothing free market about the De Beers monopoly.

SupaNova

Heh. You clearly don't know the first thing about the software business.

There are other reasons why they were dominant. According to your knowledge of the software industry why were Microsoft dominant for so long?

silverharp

oscarBravo wrote: »

It seems to me that you're pinning your hopes on a free market composed of idealists who wouldn't dream of doing anything underhand in order to gain unfair advantage.

who would believe that? I fully expect to come across a % of spivs in anything I do or buy in life. However we are coming from a base that if something is regulated by the state we can "go asleep at the wheel" , this way of running things is niave. A more robust system would allow competition in everything including regulatation or more accruately rating.
The state is the fast breeder of monoplolies and cartels, a free market does the opposite. Next time you have to wait several hours in an A&E ponder how things might be different if we had the sme choice of heathcare as we do restaruants or hotels.

SupaNova

Originally Posted by oscarBravo
It seems to me that you're pinning your hopes on a free market composed of idealists who wouldn't dream of doing anything underhand in order to gain unfair advantage.

Like the above poster said people wont always behave responsibility or morally. The idea that we can elect a government and regulations to enforce responsibility is completely naive. Who oversees the government and regulators?

Can you not see how regulations provide barriers to entry and therefore less competition?

Ever increasing regulation will lead in the direction of a monopoly of one state bank and state regulatory body. Imagine the catastrophe of that bank failing.

Valmont

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I agree although I find the no-state/small-state distinction quite an interesting thought experiment. Speaking practically, the issue of reducing the government from an extra large to a large is slightly more pressing.

I guess you could probably tell I'm over halfway through On Liberty by Rothbard at the moment.

simplistic2

oscarBravo wrote: »

Unless I've misunderstood your arguments, you're describing anyone who believes in the legitimacy of a state as a supporter of murderers and thieves. Which is a bit like trying to bring people around to a worldview by yelling at them that they are brainless idiots for disagreeing with it - it's unlikely to achieve the desired outcome. I do live a life grounded in reason and virtue. Now, you might disagree with that assertion, because you have your own personal definitions of those words, and you refuse to budge even slightly from your own perspective. The problem with that is that you can't possibly accept a world in which anyone disagrees with you. Until everyone complies with your personal definitions of reason and virtue, you can't possibly achieve the society you dream of. Which pretty much means it's not gonna happen. If you refuse to be friends with anyone who doesn't completely and unquestioningly agree with everything you do and say, you must be a very, very lonely person. That's an exercise in shocking arrogance. You're basically claiming that people only disagree with your phenomenally blinkered worldview because they were abused as children?

I've heard some breathtaking hubris in my time, but that is so far out there I'm having trouble believing anyone could possibly think that way. I really must try running my business that way some time. Rather than, y'know, anticipating problems and planning for them, I'll just wave my hand and hope that somehow things will just magically sort themselves out. That'll make for a nice, short business plan. I really have a great deal of difficulty comprehending this point of view. I guess that's just a sign that I was beaten to a pulp by my parents. That is, after all, the only reason why people disagree with you, isn't it?

Of course it's the only reason. To be honest, I think you should take a shower.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

simplistic2

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Hmm...how is this legal system paid for? ...taxes?

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I know you don't , I was referring to the standard outcome of giving anyone the power to regulate just one area...it never stops with just one area.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Of course I want an anarchic free for all ...funnliy enough the British government agree with me on that one too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBcz-Y8lqOg&feature=player_embedded

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vi0meiActlU&feature=related

simplistic2

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

On that note!

http://www.citizen-times.com/article/20110319/NEWS01/110319006/1001/news/Liberty-Dollar-fake-currency-creator-convicted-federal-court?odyssey=nav|head

The leader of a group that marketed a fake currency called Liberty Dollars in the Asheville area and elsewhere has been found guilty by a federal jury of conspiracy against the government in a case of “domestic terrorism.”

Note the "fake" placed nice and snug before currency.

SupaNova

simplistic2 wrote: »

Hmm...how is this legal system paid for? ...taxes?




I know you don't , I was referring to the standard outcome of giving anyone the power to regulate just one area...it never stops with just one area.




Of course I want an anarchic free for all ...funnliy enough the British government agree with me on that one too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBcz-Y8lqOg&feature=player_embedded

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vi0meiActlU&feature=related

I'm in Thailand now and have been for the past few months and they do ignore rules quite a lot. But there is some very sensible ones that don't cause accidents
a) pedestrian crossings: If the light is still red and the people crossing have passed your car/bike you just drive on. Whats the point staying there with nothing in your way.
b)at crossroads when your light is red, but there is no traffic, people edge out and drive on.

I have never seen an accident from breaking the above rules. You can do this in front of the police.

People are paying attention when doing the above two things. Now thailand is a lot more dangerous per capita than european countries. But the biggest reason for this is the massive number of people driving bikes without helmets.

Should people be forced to wear helmets?
I don't think so, your responsible for your safety decisions.

I think a lot of the road rules enforced to the book are just about raising money for the gardai. Like doing people for driving 70 in a needless 50 zone. In Ireland they play road safety lip service. If they really cared they would be on our smaller country roads where speed is much more of a danger.

What i like about the thai police when they want money they are blatantly open about it, they will sweep the city at large in one or two days, and just pull the easy to spot targets to save time(anyone on a bike without a helmet), then leave it for a few weeks. Like the gardai in Ireland they mostly don't give a **** about road safety, purely a money raising racket.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Valmont

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The American state has done a great job of trampling all over their constitution, proclaiming that it is "living document" (read: arbitrary interpretation to achieve whatever end we deem expedient at the time).

Is the American experiment not an example of the failure of constitutional limits on governmental power? If we still believe this is a legitimate goal, then what could be changed about a constitution that could ensure state compliance?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

simplistic2

SupaNova wrote: »

I'm in Thailand now and have been for the past few months and they do ignore rules quite a lot. But there is some very sensible ones that don't cause accidents
a) pedestrian crossings: If the light is still red and the people crossing have passed your car/bike you just drive on. Whats the point staying there with nothing in your way.
b)at crossroads when your light is red, but there is no traffic, people edge out and drive on.

I have never seen an accident from breaking the above rules. You can do this in front of the police.

People are paying attention when doing the above two things. Now thailand is a lot more dangerous per capita than european countries. But the biggest reason for this is the massive number of people driving bikes without helmets.

Should people be forced to wear helmets?
I don't think so, your responsible for your safety decisions.

I think a lot of the road rules enforced to the book are just about raising money for the gardai. Like doing people for driving 70 in a needless 50 zone. In Ireland they play road safety lip service. If they really cared they would be on our smaller country roads where speed is much more of a danger.

What i like about the thai police when they want money they are blatantly open about it, they will sweep the city at large in one or two days, and just pull the easy to spot targets to save time(anyone on a bike without a helmet), then leave it for a few weeks. Like the gardai in Ireland they mostly don't give a **** about road safety, purely a money raising racket.

Theres nothing like tearing down the motorway at 70 in a tuk-tuk! If I remember correctly the taxis don't even have seatbelts, but I don't remember seeing any 10 car pile-ups.

I agree the Gardai don't give a hoot about your safety ,why would they? Their main concern is collecting revenue for thier employer. I'm awaiting the Gay Byrne crowd to start a campaign to have a Garda in every passenger seat, and force manufactures to fit a break pedal for them too!

simplistic2

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Then you have to accept that forced interaction is legitimate for welfare, bailouts, heathcare... Statist laws are just as arbitary those.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Extremist?...I like this quote.."ANARCHY is the radical notion that other people are not your property."

The problem for me is your use of the pronoun "WE". We do not need anything...if you want to live under a state I have no problem , I have no problem with communists, socialists etc. I am supportive of anybody who wants to take part in mad cap social experiments...just don't include me in them.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Private roads do not equal boy racers driving through playgrounds...

simplistic2

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

There is plenty to stop people rising to form a state. Statism is a religion it's only held together by peoples blind adherence to the democratic model. As soon as it is exposed as the fantasy that it is - there is no way of going back to it. Do you ever thing the people of Ireland will set up a monarch and start baying at the devine right of kings? What are the statistics for athiests to find god?

The perpetual war argument is irrational because who is going to fund a war to try and install another state? It would be like an islamic community declaring war on a scientific community to force them into a theocracy...it would be the worse economic decision a General could ever make.

I think statism will be dead by the end of the 21st century. They are doing some great work over in new Hampsire www.freestateproject.org. Once there is a working model of a free society it will spread like hot butter.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

simplistic2

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Yes you do have to accept it, and not only that, but you have to accept that any act of violence is also just dandy. Why?

Because when you say " the state" all you are saying is "individuals". If you say individuals have the right to enforce their preferences on other individuals , then ironically its actually statists that are arguing for a free-for-all.

So if you believe that individuals have the right to force wealth from other individuals pockets to fund a legal system. Then you believe that force is justified by arbitary preference...and welfare, healthcare, balouts and random acts of violence are merely arbitrary preferences.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Yeah ...but Locke was an extremest.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I don't believe a "breakdown" of society is necessary to achive a stateless society. Nor has any movement advocated full property rights and the elemination of the state following a breakdown of society.

A stateless society will most likly occur through non-compliance in concentrated areas like the example I gave of New Hampsire. I was also thinking about what it would be like to try it here, and really you would only need less than 5,000 in some tight costal region and the state would have to back off completly. There would be other benifits also, if a small community started here, the state would be effectively competing against the community for citizens and therefore would have to completely shrink in size. So, I think even if you are a small government advocate , the best way to shrink the government is not to petition them, but to out compete them.

SupaNova

Stateless Somalia doing better than state neighbors:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtGkTRnocZI

simplistic2

But...but...but we just need to get the right people in power...it's not the system ...it can change...it can change...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/25/guantanamo-files-lift-lid-prison

Guantánamo leaks lift lid on world's most controversial prison
• Innocent people interrogated for years on slimmest pretexts
• Children, elderly and mentally ill among those wrongfully held
• 172 prisoners remain, some with no prospect of trial or release

All you supporters of the idea of government are complicit in this.

oscarBravo

simplistic2 wrote: »

All you supporters of the idea of government are complicit in this.

Sure, because it's completely and utterly inconceivable that human beings would do bad things to other human beings in the absence of government. If every government disappeared in the morning, all the truly nasty, evil, disgusting human beings on the planet would realise that they were only despicable slimeballs because of the existence of governments, and would instantly mend their ways.

I'm having trouble deciding which worldview is more delusional, yours or bolshevik's.

simplistic2

oscarBravo wrote: »

Sure, because it's completely and utterly inconceivable that human beings would do bad things to other human beings in the absence of government. If every government disappeared in the morning, all the truly nasty, evil, disgusting human beings on the planet would realise that they were only despicable slimeballs because of the existence of governments, and would instantly mend their ways.

I'm having trouble deciding which worldview is more delusional, yours or bolshevik's.

If you support government you support "truly nasty, evil, disgusting human beings that are despicable slimeballs." Because government is the idea that you have the right to engage in "truly nasty, evil, disgusting" acts against other humans.

The least you could do, if you had any virtue or courage is withdraw support from an idea that spawns this filth.

oscarBravo

simplistic2 wrote: »

If you support government you support "truly nasty, evil, disgusting human beings that are despicable slimeballs." Because government is the idea that you have the right to engage in "truly nasty, evil, disgusting" acts against other humans.

And ideology is the unwavering belief, in the face of any and all evidence to the contrary, that <insert whatever the hell it is you're opposed to> is the sole and only reason that people do bad things, and that in the absence of <insert again> people will spontaneously become angels and stop doing the bad things they do.

I'm really not sure how long and hard you have to work at convincing yourself that free-market capitalists are morally incapable of being horrible, nasty people and that they are somehow forced at gunpoint by governments to overcome their better natures.

Ideologies of all stripes scare the hell out of me, because they almost invariably seem to require that a major chunk of their adherents' ability to think rationally be surgically removed.