Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

J'accuse le libertarians

1…5681011…19

Comments

  • #212
    20Cent
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,940 ✭✭✭20Cent


    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    case in hand: UPC vs Eircom and ****up that broadband roll-out has been in Ireland due to state interference and monopoly of telecoms. It took private companies to sidestep eircon and finally provide some real broadband to people.

    Yep private companies and competition are a good thing in most cases I agree. But essentials like water and electricity are too important to be left only in private hands.
    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    If Walmart are a monopoly then they will get broken down (or fall apart themselves). Monopolies are dangerous to an economy and the likes of Hayek acknowledged this a long time ago. BTW I had the privilege of working in a state monopoly the culture was rotten, I got to experience it first hand from the inside. Providing a good service and value was a long way down on the list after various entitlements and union led schemes. The state had to step in (after some prodding from the EU) to break up the cozy ESB cartel.

    Who would break them down?
    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    Take a trip to Switzerland, thats the closest example of a country today I can think of, real wealth + industries and real neutrality.

    Its easy to be wealthy with vaults of gold teeth, drug and dictators money.
    Immigrants have to prove they are wealthy before being allowed to move there, taxes are high also.


  • #213
    ei.sdraob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    simplistic2 wrote: »
    Why does it matter how big a business gets? and how could the ever incomptent state decide what killing compitition is?

    Those are good questions but we do have precedent of regulators breaking up monopolies or slapping them on the wrist, Microsoft and Intel vs EU springs to mind. Like I said these things need more discussion but monopolies that kill competition do have to be dealt with somehow (thats provided they dont collapse under own weight or get out competed via new technologies as Microsoft has for example)

    20Cent wrote: »
    Yep private companies and competition are a good thing in most cases I agree. But essentials like water and electricity are too important to be left only in private hands.
    Water and electricity are provided by private companies in many countries with no hassle, one can not run a good business by holding the customers ransom for too long before competition gets in (or customers die :0), state monopolies on the other hand have the power to pull certain strings to hold the country ransom and prevent competition from emerging/entering...

    20Cent wrote: »
    Who would break them down?
    Doesn't have to be the state, could be a company or regulator.
    The FED where I have recently paid a visit does a relatively good job of central banking (when compared to the mess we have in europe for example) with its mix of public/private involvement and clear mandate.
    20Cent wrote: »
    Its easy to be wealthy with vaults of gold teeth, drug and dictators money.
    Immigrants have to prove they are wealthy before being allowed to move there, taxes are high also.

    I aint saying its perfect but its a step in the right direction, once again there is no utopian system out there that can provide everything to everyone and keep all happy, just ways of doing things that seem "overall" better.


  • #214
    simplistic2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 331 ✭✭simplistic2


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Will they be able to enter into contracts?

    Yes, you will be able to accept your contract with microsoft.


  • #215
    simplistic2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 331 ✭✭simplistic2


    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    Like I said these things need more discussion but monopolies that kill competition do have to be dealt with somehow

    Shouldn't we then apply that prinicple to that of security to ensure we get best service? Afterall, security is a commodity like everything else in the market.


  • #216
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,848 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    simplistic2 wrote: »
    Yes, you will be able to accept your contract with microsoft.
    Then, by definition, it's not a fiction. You can't have a legally-binding contract with another party that doesn't exist; your acknowledgement that you can enter into a contract with a corporation is a tacit acceptance that a corporation has legal personality.

    With respect, I don't think you've thought your philosophy through very well.


  • Advertisement
  • #217
    ei.sdraob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    simplistic2 wrote: »
    Shouldn't we then apply that prinicple to that of security to ensure we get best service? Afterall, security is a commodity like everything else in the market.

    You are missing the point the about competition, my point on view on the subject of regulation falls in line with Hayek
    > which is the absolute minimum regulation possible to ensure that a competitive market is maintained (I keep stressing the word competition over several posts now). And a command economy to be avoided at all costs!


  • #218
    simplistic2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 331 ✭✭simplistic2


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Then, by definition, it's not a fiction. You can't have a legally-binding contract with another party that doesn't exist; your acknowledgement that you can enter into a contract with a corporation is a tacit acceptance that a corporation has legal personality.

    With respect, I don't think you've thought your philosophy through very well.

    Calm down, calm down.

    The name "Bill" is a fiction. The name "Bruce" is a fiction. They represent individuals. Individuals enter into contracts using these fictions. Both individuals are fully liable for any injuries they cause.

    In a statist system, Bill can set up a corporation that has limited liability meaning he can screw the world up and the statist legal system will protect him.

    In a free society, Bill could set up a business called Bills' finely crafted broomsticks but he cannot go and shaft the world because he is fully liable for his actions.

    Yes, Bill will be able to enter into contracts using his business name on behalf of the individual himself.


  • #219
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,848 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    simplistic2 wrote: »
    Calm down, calm down.
    I'm completely calm, thanks.
    The name "Bill" is a fiction. The name "Bruce" is a fiction. They represent individuals. Individuals enter into contracts using these fictions. Both individuals are fully liablefor any injuries they cause.
    I find it really hard to have an intelligent conversation with someone who makes up definitions for words as they go along.
    In a statist system, Bill can set up a corporation that has limited liabilitymeaning he can screw the world up and the statist legal system will protect him.

    In a free society, Bill could set up a business called Bills' finely crafted broomsticks but he cannot go and shaft the world because he is fully liable for his actions.
    Limited liability doesn't mean that Bill isn't liable for the actions of the company he runs. If the manager of a company acts in a manner that is criminally negligent, the "statist legal system" can and will prosecute that manager for criminal negligence.

    If a limited company goes bust, limited liability protects the shareholders from exposure beyond the shares that they own. I'm unclear why that's a bad thing, or why you feel it's important that I should be personally bankrupted along with any company I happen to own shares in.


  • #220
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,848 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    simplistic2 wrote: »
    Yes, Bill will be able to enter into contracts using his business name on behalf of the individual himself.
    You edited this in while I was replying.

    You seem determined to illustrate your entire philosophy using examples which are simplified to the point of meaninglessness. We're not talking about individuals making broomsticks; we're talking about the tens of thousands of people who have pooled their resources to make the manufacture of complex machinery possible. The entity representing those pooled resources must have separate legal personality in order for business and trade to be scalable.

    You can keep dumbing the argument down if you have to, but that only serves to illustrate that your philosophy can't cope with real-world scenarios.


  • #221
    simplistic2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 331 ✭✭simplistic2


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I'm completely calm, thanks. I find it really hard to have an intelligent conversation with someone who makes up definitions for words as they go along. Limited liability doesn't mean that Bill isn't liable for the actions of the company he runs. If the manager of a company acts in a manner that is criminally negligent, the "statist legal system" can and will prosecute that manager for criminal negligence.

    If a limited company goes bust, limited liability protects the shareholders from exposure beyond the shares that they own. I'm unclear why that's a bad thing, or why you feel it's important that I should be personally bankrupted along with any company I happen to own shares in.

    Sorry, I'm wrong on that definiton then. What I mean is that the actions of the individuals in the company are protected from liability.

    If a ceo orders his workers to dump waste somewhere, the workers nor the ceo are ever held personally liable, it is the corporation that is. Thats what I mean by limited liability.


  • Advertisement
  • #222
    simplistic2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 331 ✭✭simplistic2


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    You edited this in while I was replying.

    You seem determined to illustrate your entire philosophy using examples which are simplified to the point of meaninglessness. We're not talking about individuals making broomsticks; we're talking about the tens of thousands of people who have pooled their resources to make the manufacture of complex machinery possible. The entity representing those pooled resources must have separate legal personality in order for business and trade to be scalable.

    You can keep dumbing the argument down if you have to, but that only serves to illustrate that your philosophy can't cope with real-world scenarios.

    What's your argument?

    That if something works on a small scale it won't work on a large one?


  • #223
    simplistic2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 331 ✭✭simplistic2


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    You edited this in while I was replying.

    We're not talking about individuals making broomsticks; we're talking about the tens of thousands of people who have pooled their resources to make the manufacture of complex machinery possible.

    You can keep dumbing the argument down if you have to, but that only serves to illustrate that your philosophy can't cope with real-world scenarios.

    Ok, Bill hires 1000s of employees to make his fine wooden broomsticks.

    If he orders his accounting deparment to cook the books to gain investment. He is personally liable and the individuals that engaged in it are also. Not the legal fiction.

    If he orders his marketing department to defraud customers, he becomes personally liable and so do those making the claims, not the legal fiction.

    And so on...till you have your complex ,multi-boundry and super fragmented contracts.


  • #224
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #225
    SupaNova
    Closed Accounts Posts: 788 ✭✭✭SupaNova


    20Cent wrote: »
    Yep private companies and competition are a good thing in most cases I agree. But essentials like water and electricity are too important to be left only in private hands.

    Food and water are more essential than electricity. If the free market can provide food, why do you think it wouldn't provide water or electricity? Government intervention in the area of food and price controls has historically lead to mass shortages, and mass over supply's. Governments starved millions of people when they took control over food in communist Russia and China.

    I have seen the same argument for healthcare, but we need to eat before we can get sick. If the government is better at providing than free market competition we should leave the government take control of everything. Its been done before and it didn't work out to well did it.


  • #226
    20Cent
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,940 ✭✭✭20Cent


    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    Water and electricity are provided by private companies in many countries with no hassle, one can not run a good business by holding the customers ransom for too long before competition gets in (or customers die :0), state monopolies on the other hand have the power to pull certain strings to hold the country ransom and prevent competition from emerging/entering...

    Which countries? Bet they are still highly regulated. You heard abut what happened in Bolivia?
    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    Doesn't have to be the state, could be a company or regulator.
    The FED where I have recently paid a visit does a relatively good job of central banking (when compared to the mess we have in europe for example) with its mix of public/private involvement and clear mandate.
    Where does this company or regulator get its authority from?
    You really think a company or regulator could take on an entity that has more money than many countries!!
    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    I aint saying its perfect but its a step in the right direction, once again there is no utopian system out there that can provide everything to everyone and keep all happy, just ways of doing things that seem "overall" better.

    Overall better for whom? Can see why a wealthy person would like it but not anyone else.


  • #227
    20Cent
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,940 ✭✭✭20Cent


    SupaNova wrote: »
    Food and water are more essential than electricity. If the free market can provide food, why do you think it wouldn't provide water or electricity? Government intervention in the area of food and price controls has historically lead to mass shortages, and mass over supply's. Governments starved millions of people when they took control over food in communist Russia and China.
    Food and water are highly regulated The free market does not provide food, without intervention there would hardly even be a farmer in Ireland now. Again with the Soviet union as if that is the only option!!
    SupaNova wrote: »
    I have seen the same argument for healthcare, but we need to eat before we can get sick. If the government is better at providing than free market competition we should leave the government take control of everything. Its been done before and it didn't work out to well did it.

    Only ideologues see everything in black and white. The world has done pretty well with a mixture of public and private.


  • #228
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #229
    20Cent
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,940 ✭✭✭20Cent


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.
    Its too simplistic to just blame gov or regulation for the financial disaster it was a two pronged disaster. Private investors were allowed run riot due to a reduction in regulation. There is no reason to believe that in an unregulated environment we wouldn't have loads of Bernie Madoffs ripping people off. Perhaps it would be useful for you to describe how it would work in libertarian land. Also no need to be rude!

    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.
    This is your argument for everything! This thread is about libertarianism, tell us why a private water supply would be better.
    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.
    So who will set up businesses in libertarian land!! Not only could a mistake bankrupt you without a welfare net or healthcare it could kill you!


  • #230
    ei.sdraob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    20Cent wrote: »
    tell us why a private water supply would be better.

    Come here to Galway for a demonstration, bring toilet roll :P


  • #231
    20Cent
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,940 ✭✭✭20Cent


    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    Come here to Galway for a demonstration, bring toilet roll :P

    Thats an example of a failure of public not an argument that private would be better.


  • Advertisement
  • #232
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,848 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    simplistic2 wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.
    And that's what I mean when I talk about you inventing definitions as you go along. That's not what limited liability means, and it's also not true: an agent of a company is personally liable for his own criminal activities, even when acting on behalf of the company. It's also the case that the company can be vicariously liable for the individual's actions. This isn't necessarily a bad thing.
    simplistic2 wrote: »
    What's your argument?

    That if something works on a small scale it won't work on a large one?
    No. My argument is that something that works on a small scale won't necessarily work on a large one. I hand-soldered a circuit board together the other day. The fact that the circuit board works doesn't mean that hand-soldering is the best way to make iPhones.
    simplistic2 wrote: »
    Ok, Bill hires 1000s of employees to make his fine wooden broomsticks.

    If he orders his accounting deparment to cook the books to gain investment. He is personally liable and the individuals that engaged in it are also. Not the legal fiction.

    If he orders his marketing department to defraud customers, he becomes personally liable and so do those making the claims, not the legal fiction.

    And so on...till you have your complex ,multi-boundry and super fragmented contracts.
    Where's the requirement in all of that for the absence of a state?
    Permabear wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.
    Ideologues in believing-in-ideology shocker. ;)

    I don't like ideologies. They tend to blind their adherents to pragmatism.
    A corporation can have a legal personality without having limited liability, though.
    True, but it turns out that we weren't actually talking about limited liability (in the generally understood sense of the phrase) at all.
    And I thought you were a Linux user?! :pac:
    Heh. I am - and I'm an open source ideologue, up to a point.

    If I was a total Free Software zealot, like Richard Stallman, I would use nothing but FOSS software, file formats and protocols throughout my life and work. I could probably manage, but it would make my life more difficult and I would be less productive. Instead, I use almost exclusively open source software, but I also use proprietary tools - hell, I even use Windows occasionally - because it's easier and/or more efficient to do so.

    All that said, open source works extremely well for software, and not so well for hardware (although there's a small and fast-growing open source hardware movement, I'm not waiting around for it to build me a replacement PC). The ideologue believes that if the ideology works in a contrived, small-scale example, there's no reason why it can't work on a global scale. The pragmatist in me realises that I can't "apt-get install" a bigger hard drive - I have to go out and buy one. But that doesn't mean I have to buy an operating system to install on it.


  • #233
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,848 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    20Cent wrote: »
    Thats an example of a failure of public not an argument that private would be better.
    And it's all too common a logical fallacy. It's not enough to point out where the state has failed to do something well; it's necessary to explain how it's not possible for a business to fail to do it well.

    In a free market, a company that supplied bad water would be put out of business by a company that supplied good water. Which is great, as a customer of the bad water company - just as soon as you've paid for the new pipes to be laid from your house to the good water company's supply.


  • #234
    RussellTuring
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 866 ✭✭✭RussellTuring


    simplistic2 wrote: »
    No, because like I said there are no corporations. They are not defending a corporation. If you remove the ceo does the whole business colapse?

    If the business is small and there is only one employer paying the wages then the security will be minimal.

    So the security guard will have a choice: Defend his master at a huge possible cost or arrest him and gain a reputation for being a moral, trustworthy person which will have a huge value in a non governmental society.

    What if the criminal is the business owner, rather than a CEO? Surely the business will then collapse. And about the term "master", were you being ironic?


  • #235
    ei.sdraob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    20Cent wrote: »
    Thats an example of a failure of public not an argument that private would be better.

    Largest city in one of the states I visited very recently, contracted out the cities water operations to private water company, this company after few years failed to maintain the infrastructure and collect unpaid bills, this company was in turn successfully sued and contract awarded to another company who is doing rather well. Now on the other hand was anyone at all held responsible for the sorry water situation here in Galway, i would have no objections to paying for water provided its clean and is not as hard as the **** they pump out now. But instead we will endup paying for water and still get a sh1t (no pun intended) service.

    Like I said before not many businesses get far by providing a bad service, provided there is competition. Once again competition is the keyword.


    You could make an argument on the other hand for keeping the infrastructure public such as pipes, roads, grid etc Or even better have the infrastructure under control of a sovereign wealth fund, I am amazed at the success of the Norwegian fund for example.


  • #236
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #237
    simplistic2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 331 ✭✭simplistic2


    RussellTuring wrote: »
    What if the criminal is the business owner, rather than a CEO? Surely the business will then collapse. And about the term "master", were you being ironic?

    True, so the security guard has a choice. Either fight for his employer destroying any chance he has a future employment and possibly his life.

    Or walk away.

    I don't think there will be any masters in a free society, it would be too difficult to get people to believe in the concept.


  • #238
    simplistic2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 331 ✭✭simplistic2


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    And that's what I mean when I talk about you inventing definitions as you go along. That's not what limited liability means, and it's also not true: an agent of a company is personally liable for his own criminal activities, even when acting on behalf of the company. It's also the case that the company can be vicariously liable for the individual's actions. This isn't necessarily a bad thing.

    No. My argument is that something that works on a small scale won't necessarily work on a large one. I hand-soldered a circuit board together the other day. The fact that the circuit board works doesn't mean that hand-soldering is the best way to make iPhones.

    Where's the requirement in all of that for the absence of a state?

    Yes, I made a mistake, I make plenty of them. I have already answerd your other questions.


  • #239
    20Cent
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,940 ✭✭✭20Cent


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.
    Why am I a statist and you are not considering we both think there should be a state and a welfare net?
    I can see problems with both sides the ideologue such as yourself cannot.
    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    Finance regulations have been stripped away for decades making the crash and Bernie Madoff possible. Regulation of the financial markets is pathetic witness the lack of prosecutions. You then go from high finance to small business to argue against regulation totally different things.
    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    A private well is not possible for most people. For stories of success there are also stories of failure, Bolivia for example. Why say "beloved" state and call people statists? Is it some attempt to appear self sufficient and others are cowardly and dependent?


  • #240
    RussellTuring
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 866 ✭✭✭RussellTuring


    simplistic2 wrote: »
    True, so the security guard has a choice. Either fight for his employer destroying any chance he has a future employment and possibly his life.

    Or walk away.

    Well, since this type of behaviour happens all the time, will you now answer my hypothetical question as to why any person should feel compelled to follow the ruling of a private court which has no real authority over them?
    I don't think there will be any masters in a free society, it would be too difficult to get people to believe in the concept.

    Is an employer not a master?


  • Advertisement
  • #241
    RussellTuring
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 866 ✭✭✭RussellTuring


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    If a statist is just someone who believes this, then that's all just question-begging.
    Interestingly, though, when homebuyers, banks, and developers responded to ECB and domestic government policies that were expressly designed to create a credit bubble and foment a property boom, statists were quick to point the fingers of blame at those who were thus stimulated and incentivized to behave in exactly the ways they did, rather than those who were manipulating the levers of policy. When the bust happened, bankers and developers became the scapegoats for government policy gone disastrously awry — regardless of the fact that this disaster never would have occurred if not for the shortsighted and ruinous actions of government.

    You're still not really saying anything of relevance. Certainly this bust would not have happened,since we would be living in a different world, but this is not to say that another bust would be impossible.
    From a libertarian perspective, the danger inherent in giving a massive state the interventionist power to "steer" the economy is that the state all too often enacts stupid policies focused on goals relevant only to itself, such as winning the next election.

    Which they do by appeasing the voters and businesses. In your proposed model, it is instead businesses who make all the decisions, with the general public having a say only insofar as their buying power allows.

    There is equally little reason to believe that criminals such as Bernie Madoff, who ripped people off despite operating in one of the most heavily regulated business environments the world has ever seen, are even remotely deterred by the existence of said regulation. They ignore it. They break it.

    I know you didn't bring it up, but the Bernie Madoffs of this world didn't cause the crisis. You're right though; some people will never play by the rules. These exceptions, however, are not reason enough to not have any rules.
    Curiously, proponents of ever-greater business regulation, such as yourself, rarely acknowledge its downsides. Economics professors Mark and Nicole Crain estimate that the cost of complying with federal business regulation in the United States reached $1.75 trillion in 2010, or 14 percent of national income. Smaller businesses with fewer than 20 employees had regulatory costs 42 percent greater than firms with 20 to 499 employees; the small-business regulatory burden last year amounted to $10,585 annually per employee. And then lawmakers wonder why the economy is showing signs of endemic weakness. :rolleyes:

    Surely the strongest companies will still be able to compete. Most people apart from those on the far economic right accept regulation as a necessary evil of business. They would rather pay more for what they believe is a better system. Call it insurance.

    England and Wales are now completely served by private water companies, which are a marked improvement on the public services that existed before 1989. The World Bank has noted that "These reforms [i.e., privatization] have delivered an impressive volume of new investment, full compliance with the world’s most stringent drinking water standards, a higher quality of river water, and a more transparent water pricing system." Oftwat has noted substantial improvements in service quality, including a dramatic improvement in the quality of drinking water.

    Quite a few things are better since 1989.
    I myself have a private water supply, in the form of a privately drilled well, because (guess what) your beloved state doesn't supply water where I live. I drink from my own well when I'm in Donegal, and, as Monty Python would put it, "I'm not dead yet."

    Nor are the millions of people to whom the State supplies water.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement