Anti-Capitalist Sentiment (with some morality)

[wufwugy]

There are no policies nor policy directors, are there? I on the other hand, as a tobacco tycoon, possess pretty deep pockets to stymie most attempts to campaign against me. I put out my own research and buy off competition.

What happened to tobacco was a class action suit in the 50s after 2 doctors from the UK Medical Research Council, a government agency, published a study about the link between smoking and cancer. It only took 12 years from that for the first health warnings to appear on cigarette packages, and the tobacco companies to acknowledge their products may not in fact be completely harmless.

Good news: you've gone bankrupt. No more need to worry now.

The fundamental difference between private entities and governments are that private entities live and die based on choice of the consumers; whereas governments live and die based on mandatory taxes. This is why private entities go out of business all the time and have very little funds to oppress, and it's also why governments never go out of "business" and have overwhelming funds to oppress anybody.

The cost-benefit analyses governments perform are almost non-existent. The closest governments get to them are politicians trying to keep their jobs and security forces keeping the taxes uninterrupted. If the Kochs acted like governments, we would laugh ourselves into convulsions at how quickly they lost all their capital.


It should be noted that if a private entity were granted a legal and violence monopoly, it would become a government. What we're really talking about here is if it's better to have entities that can't force you to do stuff or entities that can.

[CoccoBill]

Good news: you've gone bankrupt. No more need to worry now.

The fundamental difference between private entities and governments are that private entities live and die based on choice of the consumers; whereas governments live and die based on mandatory taxes. This is why private entities go out of business all the time and have very little funds to oppress, and it's also why governments never go out of "business" and have overwhelming funds to oppress anybody.

The cost-benefit analyses governments perform are almost non-existent. The closest governments get to them are politicians trying to keep their jobs and security forces keeping the taxes uninterrupted. If the Kochs acted like governments, we would laugh ourselves into convulsions at how quickly they lost all their capital.


It should be noted that if a private entity were granted a legal and violence monopoly, it would become a government. What we're really talking about here is if it's better to have entities that can't force you to do stuff or entities that can.

Call me a skeptic, but I haven't seen many tobacco companies go out of business, even with harsh government regulations. So I think I'll just go about my business selling Hello Kitty vanilla-bonbon flavored healtharettes to (private) preschoolers. Actually I might start a couple preschools myself to put my excess liquid assets to good use, free cigs for the first semester for all 3-year contracts!

On a more serious note, governments need popular vote to keep their business running, a government that does not allow this is a flawed one.

[wufwugy]

Call me a skeptic, but I haven't seen many tobacco companies go out of business, even with harsh government regulations.

Because they haven't done what you suggested. Additionally, the "harsh" government regulations are nothing of the sort. The regulations have created a zero competition space. Big Tobacco would be powerless relative to where it is now if the barriers to competition created by regulations were not so incredibly high.

So I think I'll just go about my business selling Hello Kitty vanilla-bonbon flavored healtharettes to (private) preschoolers. Actually I might start a couple preschools myself to put my excess liquid assets to good use, free cigs for the first semester for all 3-year contracts!

This not working aside, what you're suggesting is that an unaccountable entity should do this instead of accountable entities.

On a more serious note, governments need popular vote to keep their business running, a government that does not allow this is a flawed one.

The amount of accountability this engenders is a tiny fraction relative to the accountability the market engenders.

You can vote once biyearly or you can vote lots of times every day. You can vote for something extremely vague or you can vote for specific clear things.

By now, we're back in circles. This topic is hardly even debatable. People adore extolling the virtues of freedom for every aspect of their lives except the ones they've been hammered into believing otherwise.

[CoccoBill]

Because they haven't done what you suggested. Additionally, the "harsh" government regulations are nothing of the sort. The regulations have created a zero competition space. Big Tobacco would be powerless relative to where it is now if the barriers to competition created by regulations were not so incredibly high.

They haven't done what? Marketed tobacco as healthy? Put out their own research belittling the health issues and bought out competition?

This not working aside, what you're suggesting is that an unaccountable entity should do this instead of accountable entities.

This would carry a lot more weight with some non-anecdotal evidence.

I don't see my tobacco cartel being in any practical sense accountable to anyone.

The amount of accountability this engenders is a tiny fraction relative to the accountability the market engenders.

You can vote once biyearly or you can vote lots of times every day. You can vote for something extremely vague or you can vote for specific clear things.

By now, we're back in circles. This topic is hardly even debatable. People adore extolling the virtues of freedom for every aspect of their lives except the ones they've been hammered into believing otherwise.

Yes, we are, and that's largely because you're not so much arguing against the theory of a government but against the current state of affairs in the US using cherry picked examples and anecdotes. Any alternative system will look awesome if that's the benchmark.

We may once again just have to agree to disagree.

[wufwugy]

They haven't done what? Marketed tobacco as healthy? Put out their own research belittling the health issues and bought out competition?

You said they would use their deep pockets to stymie competition. The answer to that is a resounding "lolnope". Private entities don't have remotely close to the finances or legitimacy it takes to stymie competition. Governments have vastly greater finances and power, and they can't even fully stymie lots of things.

This would carry a lot more weight with some non-anecdotal evidence.

I don't see my tobacco cartel being in any practical sense accountable to anyone.

Market actors are accountable to other market actors and consumers. The only examples of cartels like you describe are when government backs them. Every example you can find where government does not much intervene in markets is highly competitive and develops nothing close to centralized control.

Yes, we are, and that's largely because you're not so much arguing against the theory of a government but against the current state of affairs in the US using cherry picked examples and anecdotes. Any alternative system will look awesome if that's the benchmark.

We may once again just have to agree to disagree.

We've been over this. It has nothing to do with US government. I dislike your government far more than mine. My anti-government position is entirely because of my pro-economics position.