Atlas Shrugged

Permabear · 17-09-2014 05:12PM

This post has been deleted.

Permabear · 17-09-2014 05:22PM

This post has been deleted.

Turtwig · 17-09-2014 05:23PM

“Making it” is almost never easy, but Mr. Santacruz found the French bureaucracy to be an unbridgeable moat around his ambitions. Having received his master’s in finance at the University of Nottingham in England, he returned to France to work with a friend’s father to open dental clinics in Marseille. “But the French administration turned it into a herculean effort,” he said.

A one-month wait for a license turned into three months, then six. They tried simplifying the corporate structure but were stymied by regulatory hurdles. Hiring was delayed, partly because of social taxes that companies pay on salaries. In France, the share of nonwage costs for employers to fund unemployment benefits, education, health care and pensions is more than 33 percent. In Britain, it is around 20 percent.

“Every week, more tax letters would come,” Mr. Santacruz recalled.

The government has since simplified procedures and reduced the social costs for start-ups. But those changes came too late for Mr. Santacruz, whose venture folded before it could get off the ground.

I guess quoting that bold section of the article that follows the snippet quoted wouldn't be objective.

oscarBravo · 17-09-2014 05:24PM

Valmont wrote: »

BP wouldn't have been in the gulf in the first place had another set of regulations not prohibited them from tapping the easily accessible oil reserves in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska.

Because a Gulf-scale oil spill in a wildlife refuge would have been sooo much better.

Why does 'regulation' have to be written and enforced by a state? There plenty of examples of certain industries having commonly accepted standards of practice which have not first been decreed by a legislator in government.

There's nothing about government regulation that prevents industry from adopting its own, more stringent standards.

My point continues to be that industry will spend the absolute minimum it needs to on things like worker health and safety and environmental protection. If a business calculates that it's cheaper to pay compensation for the occasional death of a worker or chemical spill than to prevent those deaths and/or spills in the first place, then that's the rational approach for that business to take - which doesn't make it the right approach from a societal perspective.

Permabear · 17-09-2014 05:34PM

This post has been deleted.

Brian Shanahan · 17-09-2014 05:36PM

Valmont wrote: »

Brian, you're assuming there that without the state we would have no law or legal system. Ancient Ireland and Brehon law prove this isn't the case.

A) Ancient Ireland was far from being libertarian, Brehon Laws were intrusive on nearly every aspect of a person's life, i.e. the opposite of the libertarian ideal.

There was a state structure in ancient Ireland, albeit basic in scope, which was, again, in principle at least far more extensive than the libertarian ideal.

So your analogy fails, and fails miserably to try and paint a society having laws without a legal or state system in place to enforce them.

PopePalpatine · 17-09-2014 05:41PM

I wonder...what would happen to price-fixers and cartels in a libertarian society?

oscarBravo · 17-09-2014 05:41PM

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I wonder...what would happen to price-fixers and cartels in a libertarian society?

Apparently they'd be out-competed.

robindch · 17-09-2014 05:41PM

NYT wrote:

[...[] their country was marked by a deeper antipathy toward the wealthy than could be addressed with a few new policies.

A common misunderstanding amongst conservatives.

Liberals tend to distrust relative inequality much more than they distrust absolute wealth, or the people who have acquired it.

Permabear · 17-09-2014 05:42PM

This post has been deleted.

Brian Shanahan · 17-09-2014 05:45PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

You know it is baseless assertions like this, which you constantly post, which make it pointless debating with you on the nature of libertarianism or society in general.

Like a YEC or a neo-classical economist you are a tunnel-visioned true believer who either ignores, discards or denigrates anything brought up which contradicts your point of view, no matter how well based in evidence it is (like the demonstrated fact that Rand's philosophy is in large part based off her admiration of psychopathy). And you will accept any lie or misrepresentation, and will have no difficulty repeating same ad nauseum, as long as it agrees with your chosen worldview (everybody to a greater or lesser extent does this, mind, but like the creationists you take this tendency to extremes) and, worst of all, you will distort and mangle the words of others in order to make their arguments look foolish, badly made or flat out wrong.

For these reasons, I have decided that I will neither post nor read anything else you put up on this website.

Turtwig · 17-09-2014 05:45PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Wow you really missed the point.

This is too much a political debate than an actual discussion. You're cherry picking and washing over points others make. (Others may also be guilty of the same.) I've no business in reading such tripe. It doesn't inform me, it doesn't help me understand the libertarian the position. It does absolutely nothing.

Brian Shanahan · 17-09-2014 05:50PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

Bhopal, or BP in the Gulf, happen in spite of regulations designed to prevent them,

More correctly these accidents cited have happened because companies have done everything in their power, bribery and regulatory capture in the case of Bhopal, and advancement of libertarian ideology amongst regulators and legislators in the case of Deepwater Horizon to ensure that regulation to enforce good behaviour is neutred.

This use of shady tactics to avoid general societal responsibilities alone is reason enough to conclude that regulation is a necessary government intervention to ensure that private companies don't misbehave, and that what is currently called the "free market" is more accurately described as a Lawless Market.

oscarBravo · 17-09-2014 05:51PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

So Alcoa approached the calculus differently, and it worked out for them - that's good news for everyone concerned.

The problem is, you're arguing for companies to have the right to decide whether or not to put that sort of emphasis on worker health and safety, which means that some companies will crunch the numbers differently and decide that it's cheaper in the long run to skimp on it.

My non-libertarian view is that they shouldn't have that right.

Permabear · 17-09-2014 05:51PM

This post has been deleted.

robindch · 17-09-2014 05:51PM

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I wonder...what would happen to price-fixers and cartels in a libertarian society?

So far as I can understand anything of libertarian thought, the concepts of price-fixing and cartels don't really exist. On the contrary, prices are simply what "the market can afford to pay" and cartels, if they're addressed at all, are probably handwaved as "groups of people co-operating" or somesuch.

Neither does libertarianism seem to approve of the related idea that a market functions more efficiently if the consumers trust the products being sold, the agents, manufacturers and so on. In fact, trust itself simply doesn't seem to exist as a meaningful concept in the first place. It's all about assets and transfer. Nothing about people.

Turtwig · 17-09-2014 05:52PM

robindch wrote: »

A common misunderstanding amongst conservatives.

Liberals tend to distrust relative inequality much more than they distrust absolute wealth, or the people who have acquired it.

I don't think it's a misunderstanding, I think it's a rhetorical technique. Like one where any time inequality is mentioned the phrase 'class warfare' get's trotted out. Or like in Irish politics just about everything seems to create or cost jobs. It's politics after all.

PopePalpatine · 17-09-2014 05:54PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

Apparently they'd be out-competed.

I recognise that can happen in some (and perhaps most) industries, but what about industries in which the finances required to compete with these cartels are massive?

robindch · 17-09-2014 05:55PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Here's the fuel market in Ireland attempting a little self-regulation:

http://www.independent.ie/life/motoring/car-talk/drivers-told-to-be-alert-for-petrol-stretching-30539815.html

Independent wrote:

Revenue Commissioners, Customs and Excise and Gardai have been investigating the practice after reports of significant fuel contamination in the west, border regions and midlands. Petrol stretching involves adding up to 10pc of kerosene to petrol before selling it to unwitting drivers. [...] Kerosene will damage an engine even more quickly than most laundered diesel and vehicles with smaller petrol engines are most at risk. The damage is so severe in many cases that engine pistons have melted and end up coated in carbon, leaving the driver facing massive repair bills.

Turtwig · 17-09-2014 05:55PM

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Like a YEC or a neo-classical economist you are a tunnel-visioned true believer who either ignores, discards or denigrates anything brought up which contradicts your point of view, no matter how well based in evidence it is (like the demonstrated fact that Rand's philosophy is in large part based off her admiration of psychopathy). And you will accept any lie or misrepresentation, and will have no difficulty repeating same ad nauseum, as long as it agrees with your chosen worldview (everybody to a greater or lesser extent does this, mind, but like the creationists you take this tendency to extremes) and, worst of all, you will distort and mangle the words of others in order to make their arguments look foolish, badly made or flat out wrong.

Mod.

Chill the tone a little.

Ta.

Permabear · 17-09-2014 06:00PM

This post has been deleted.

Permabear · 17-09-2014 06:02PM

This post has been deleted.

Turtwig · 17-09-2014 06:05PM

I wonder if it's anything to do with many filling stations also operating as garages that repair cars.

Having said all that the countries with the cheapest price of buying petrol don't exactly inspire me with confidence.

robindch · 17-09-2014 06:05PM

Turtwig wrote: »

I don't think it's a misunderstanding, I think it's a rhetorical technique. Like one where any time inequality is mentioned the phrase 'class warfare' get's trotted out. Or like in Irish politics just about everything seems to create or cost jobs. It's politics after all.

Yes, the phrase has far more basis in political mud-slinging than in fact.

One of the things that I find curious about the Randian/libertarian thing as a whole is how the movement does so much of its thinking in cliches, but cliches which derive from such dreadful prose.

A quick google of "Ayn Rand Quotes" and I get this, this and this - they remind me of nothing so much as what Deepak Chopra would say if his twin, and sole, obsessions were money and government.

robindch · 17-09-2014 06:08PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Ah, so you now accept that the market must be externally regulated because the suppliers can't be trusted to self-regulate?

This is progress indeed.

Permabear · 17-09-2014 06:12PM

This post has been deleted.

Permabear · 17-09-2014 06:21PM

This post has been deleted.

robindch · 17-09-2014 06:42PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

But I thought your belief was that the market will always self-regulate and that the profit motive won't ever get in the way of providing a safe product?

Or are you now backtracking and saying, as you appear to be, that the market can't be trusted?

And in any case, where the state is applying a constant level of tax at the point of entry to all market players, then the level of state tax is irrelevant to this - it could be zero or zillions and so long as all petrol pump owners must pay it equally per unit product sold. State tax doesn't even come into this issue. This is an issue where market suppliers can't be trusted to supply a safe product.

Karl Stein · 17-09-2014 06:54PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Lol. I don't think you could have chosen a worse/better example of a good that underscores the symbiosis of Capitalism and the state.

Middle Eastern oil has enchanted global powers and global capital since the early twentieth century [...] The most visible and celebrated event in that history occurred when Franklin D. Roosevelt hosted ‘Abd al-‘Aziz Ibn Saud, the founding monarch of Saudi Arabia [...] The meeting permanently linked Middle Eastern oil with American national security.

oxfordjournals.org

As for taxation, well, oil companies ain't going to build those roads, bridges, and tunnels - virtuous Capitalist cars need evil socialist roads. Expensive oil isn't such a bad thing because it helps investment flow toward R&D'ing cleaner more sustainable energy sources that will help with the transition to them when oil extraction reaches its peak (if it already hasn't).

robindch · 17-09-2014 06:57PM

Just to clarify my last post, the issue you have is purely with the different rates of tax applied to different products, but your basic premise is that the market and market players will always be right. Whereas this example shows that they can't be trusted to supply safe product.

Yes, there will be a motivation upon the part of the corrupt which derives from the tax differential, but the corruption starts and ends at the people who wash the petrol with kerosene - proving the point that market players can't be trusted.

Which is really the point of this discussion.

Atlas Shrugged

Comments