- Jan 15, 2000
- 7,052
- 0
- 0
I see the right parroting this notion time and time again. Someone argue why a system with no government intervention, rules, or regulations is better than one with them.
Also note my sig -
Craig234 said:Ideology is the enemy.
Voluntary trades yield the most production, because both sides have fear of loss to check their behavior. In some cases, we sacrifice quality/choice for convenience, like government roads over toll roads. But that's not a very good tradeoff for most things.
Some rules can be benign and worth the cost while others can be completely ridiculous. Most rules are actually created via big companies bribing so-called regulators to pass them because they know they will hurt competitors. That's right, who's regulating the regulators? They are just as greedy as everyone else. The more you accept the idea that someone should save you from your own choices, the more that's going to happen.
Things that could never be choices, such as murder and theft, are far easier to police than things that could. Because choice implies competition, and only a competing body would try and bribe an institution of force (the government) into preventing consumers from choosing competitors.
In cases where you see greed and rampant speculation causing problems, you'll want to look hard at government activity in that area and whether it offloaded risk onto the taxpayer, thereby creating a "win-win" gambling situation. It gets more complex when you realize that the problems of some regulations can be mitigated by other regulations. Glass-Steagall mitigated the problems created by FDIC insurance. Once you remove fear of loss from depositors and banks no longer have to compete on safety of deposits, it becomes necessary to limit what banks can do with those deposits. You can't just have one or the other, but when Clinton removed the restrictions and left FDIC alone, that's exactly what he did. Some socialists are more short-sighted than others.
Voluntary trades yield the most production, because both sides have fear of loss to check their behavior. In some cases, we sacrifice quality/choice for convenience, like government roads over toll roads. But that's not a very good tradeoff for most things.
Some rules can be benign and worth the cost while others can be completely ridiculous. Most rules are actually created via big companies bribing so-called regulators to pass them because they know they will hurt competitors. That's right, who's regulating the regulators? They are just as greedy as everyone else. The more you accept the idea that someone should save you from your own choices, the more that's going to happen.
Things that could never be choices, such as murder and theft, are far easier to police than things that could. Because choice implies competition, and only a competing body would try and bribe an institution of force (the government) into preventing consumers from choosing competitors.
In cases where you see greed and rampant speculation causing problems, you'll want to look hard at government activity in that area and whether it offloaded risk onto the taxpayer, thereby creating a "win-win" gambling situation. It gets more complex when you realize that the problems of some regulations can be mitigated by other regulations. Glass-Steagall mitigated the problems created by FDIC insurance. Once you remove fear of loss from depositors and banks no longer have to compete on safety of deposits, it becomes necessary to limit what banks can do with those deposits. You can't just have one or the other, but when Clinton removed the restrictions and left FDIC alone, that's exactly what he did. Some socialists are more short-sighted than others.
Excellent post. It's always nice to see someone that gets it.
The problem is with unrestrained anything. Certainly it's more cost efficient to drop toxins the sewer. Disposal of dioxin in a safe manner cuts profit. I'd say that government regulation is a positive thing. The problem is when regulation is extended too far or badly implemented. If someone dumps a bottle of a diuretic on the floor and they spill out it would be ridiculous to insist that each pill goes into their own individual hazmat bag That is both extraordinarily expensive and unneeded, but that's how we're supposed to do it. Why? "Because that's the regs" according to the authorities and you will be punished if you don't". That is the only answer.
I've never heard anyone complain about "free market" healthcare. I hear them complain about "for profit" healthcare, and I think there are lots of legitimate complaints about the latter.The point of his post was not "Regulation bad." It's that many times regulation exists because of market distortion due to regulation or other government meddling. The free market frequently gets blamed by the left when in fact very few markets actually are free. You should know this well in your field, the left complains about how awful "free market" healthcare is when in fact there is no such thing as free market healthcare.
I've never heard anyone complain about "free market" healthcare. I hear them complain about "for profit" healthcare, and I think there are lots of legitimate complaints about the latter.
Please feel free to direct me to an instance of someone complaining about "free market" healthcare, however.
I've never heard anyone complain about "free market" healthcare. I hear them complain about "for profit" healthcare, and I think there are lots of legitimate complaints about the latter.
Please feel free to direct me to an instance of someone complaining about "free market" healthcare, however.
Is a truly free market system actually a good thing?
All regulations should be abolished.
They've always caused more harm than good.
All regulations should be abolished. They've always caused more harm than good. The state murders people and it doesn't stop people from murdering more than agents of the state murder. I don't want paper money in existence and regulations are necessary for paper money to exist in the long term.
Everything the state does is inefficient. The larger and more centralized a state is, the more harmful it is.
I just wish more people would apply the lesson learned from the 18th Amendment to the whole U.S. Federal Constitution.
Nature has a certain order of things and the collective cannot know how to preserve the laws of nature. The state is a revolt against nature.
I ran a search on "free market healthcare." I see a lot of people talking about healthcare and the so-called "free market," but none that gave me the distinct impression that anyone actually thought that healthcare was a legitimately free market.Bringing up a bunch of links with a phone isn't something I care to do but we have a search feature. There are people who believe we have free market healthcare. Hard to believe but true.
"Nature" probably would've thinned you from the herd a long, long time ago.
Is profit evil?
I see the left parroting this notion time and time again. Someone argue why a system completely devoid of any reason to produce goods or provide services other than kindness can work for a species which historically is not very kind?
I see what you're saying, but I prefer to use the language I do But you're right, to say a "stateless society" is more accurate than the "state of nature".Anarchist, there really isn't anything humans do that is "unnatural" it's quite fucking retarded to say anything we do is anything but "natural" we're naturally occurring things. Not to mention how do you think anything is formed if not to come together? If anything society is proof of "nature", not the opposite.
I ran a search on "free market healthcare." I see a lot of people talking about healthcare and the so-called "free market," but none that gave me the distinct impression that anyone actually thought that healthcare was a legitimately free market.