Brexit

[JKDS]

I get your argument for clothing and other things which benefit an individual. But it seems like these arguments fail when applied to community benefits, such as a military.

Regardless of how many "options" there are, you will have some members of the community that refuse to pay for a military. Trying to force them to do so results in the same "tax = theft" argument we've been dancing with. If you've ever lived in a household where some siblings were told to pay for something, while another got a free ride, you'd know that things arnt exactly friendly.

It's like this. I benefit by not paying for a military. My community pays for me, and I abstain. That's a sunk cost for each and every one of my competitors, a cost which I don't have. Therefore, any goods I produce can be made more cheaply, because I'm not hit with paying for a military. Others see that, and they stop paying too...the military goes under. Imagine if Coca-Cola didn't have to increase costs to cover liability for manufacturing defects...but pepsi did have to do so. Its the same thing, the person abstaining has an unfair advantage, that the community is unwilling to support.

So no military, and everyone suffers for it. Maybe the community is even obliterated by a nation which decides to keep government and military power.

Current communities deal with this problem with taxes

[wufwugy]

Regardless of how many "options" there are, you will have some members of the community that refuse to pay for a military.

Absolutely.

Trying to force them to do so results in the same "tax = theft" argument we've been dancing with.

The person in the community signed an agreement voluntarily. If they don't like it, it is reasonable to expect that they will be evicted, like is normal.

The key is that there is voluntary transaction at the root. Governments and taxation are different because there is little voluntary about them.

Imagine how powerful it would be for security to be funded this way. When you're looking at places to move, you would be assessing costs, and maybe you see that one development would charge you $200 for its security while another similar development only charges $50. You don't wanna waste $150/mo, but you also don't want to be insecure, so you investigate what the different charges are for. You discover that both of them cover the gamut of security you want: 24 hour patrol (it's a big development), video surveillance, swift response time for domestic disturbances, SWAT level access (the company is tiered or contracts this service to bigger companies that cover more land), and a global defense system (the company is contracted with a military that is one of the handful that cover the region you're in). But you find out that the $150 extra goes to "foreign intervention," where the company funds anti-terrorism efforts aggressively and tries to kill terrorists in foreign territory. Let's say you believe this is wrong and you don't want to pay for it; you just want the "global defense system" top level security instead. So you move to the neighborhood where that's what you pay for, while people who believe in intervention move to the more expensive one.

People constantly complain about governments blowing people up that they don't want blown up and they wish they didn't have to pay for it. A free market in security is how they could choose to not pay for it.

It's like this. I benefit by not paying for a military. My community pays for me, and I abstain. That's a sunk cost for each and every one of my competitors, a cost which I don't have. Therefore, any goods I produce can be made more cheaply, because I'm not hit with paying for a military. Others see that, and they stop paying too...the military goes under.

This is why the cost would likely be baked into the price of the residency or added fees. Not paying results in eviction.

As for the specific idea that somebody can "game the system" by refusing to pay for one thing, then others follow suit and it crashes the entire system: keep in mind that the cost of "gaming the system" increases as more people do it and the cost of those who follow the system to let it collapse is very high.

If you're breaking the rules and your neighbors are subsidizing you, and you think this allows you to produce good more cheaply, think again. You're going to find that your costs actually increase because of things like the people you're cheating are actually your main market and now they don't buy your stuff, the company whose service you're not paying for provides other things that you like but now you don't have them, or maybe your neighbors just treat you like you're a cunt and not paying for the service becomes a greater cost than paying for it. On the flip side, if you're in a situation where there is a great enough perceived benefit for others to follow suit with your choice to not pay and the company takes on too much cost by providing for you all, it will withdraw and you all now have vastly increased risks than otherwise. If your entire community was made up of dimwits who didn't stop this from happening, housing values start plummeting as people move away and as crime increases. It becomes a lesson for others to not do what you guys did, and it becomes commonplace to install more rigorous eviction protocols for those who refuse to pay contracted fees.

[wufwugy]

[wufwugy]

I think my explanation is inadequate. From the beginning, I didn't think the large-scale anti-war type security would be consumed the way I've laid out. Describing my view probably complicates it even further, so instead I tried explaining a type of thing that could happen. Even so, if I was in your shoes, I would be arguing that the given explanation would still allow for entire multi-city-level non-consumption of anti-war security. For example, if you're Colorado, you really would not need to buy defense against invasion since you'd be surrounded by friendlies that already do.

I'm not saying that my argument doesn't hold up; I think it does. Even in a situation where California people buy protection but Colorado people don't, it still makes marketable sense. Different people in different regions have different risks. It's not "unfair" for California to have to pay for protection on its western coast while Colorado doesn't have to pay anything; instead it's a reality of differentiation of circumstances. We already have this type of thing in how Europe pays less for military than is "fair" since its countries' ally, the US, pays so much instead.

I'll see if I can type up something that reflects more of what I think a free market of security at the defense level would look like. Or maybe I'll find that I can't think of anything better; which is fine since I do think my previous example would work.

[wufwugy]

In a free market of security, I think individuals would consume some small and medium scale policies, like patrol and SWAT. This would probably come backed into residency costs but wouldn't have to. This would mix with a lot more complex stuff like law and justice companies, which complicates it to the point that I couldn't describe exactly how it would fall out. But the point still stands that the services would be necessary enough for all that only a tiny number of people wouldn't consume them. Those who didn't consume them would be responsible for their own security (guns and dogs) and when in disputes with others who purchase the services of a particular law and order company, they would represent themselves.

At the global security and defense level, I think the incentive for companies to sell to individuals would all but vanish. This would be largely for reasons you guys have mentioned: there would be too many consumers with too high of incentive to not consume yet still would reap the benefits of the service. What I think would happen instead is that defense companies would sell their services to other large multinational corporations. These corporations would have huge incentive for global defense since it would make them big bucks by way of having huge markets in which to sell their products.

This would be far more efficient since there could be something like three different companies with navies and marines. They each would have slightly different policies and some different areas of specialty. Organizations of multinational corporations would pay them to keep North America free from invasion. One of these defense companies would probably be a more aggressive one that believes in intervention in terrorist hubs, and that company's product would be bought by the companies with greater desire to expand into new markets or with CEOs that believe it's the right thing to do. One of these defense companies would be less aggressive and probably specialize in water-based defense shields. Its services would be bought by the organization of multinational corporations that does not believe in intervention. These defense companies would work together in harmony on some things and diverge on other things.

[wufwugy]

A different method could be strictly charity. Given the level of belief and amount of money behind people who highly value military stuff, defense could likely be funded through charity entirely. Costs would fall drastically and people would have all this money that would have otherwise been taxed.

[JKDS]

It sounds like you're saying I can either choose to live in california, and pay a military tax, or another place which doesn't have a military tax...but may have other kinds of taxes.

Isn't this the same as now? By choosing to live in az, I have to pay state taxes for community goods...and national taxes for national goods. Regardless of whether my tax is high or spent correctly, I'm still paying it without consent

[wufwugy]

It sounds like you're saying I can either choose to live in california, and pay a military tax, or another place which doesn't have a military tax...but may have other kinds of taxes.

No, because the consumption would still be voluntary. The defense companies servicing California would still be subject to normal market forces. A meaningful screw up would see a drop in revenue. Contrast this to taxation, where a meaningful screw up does not result in a drop in revenue.

Voluntarism changes everything. Notice how the government has been waging a cost-ineffective war on drugs for decades. Hundreds of billions in total costs has been flushed down the toilet. Do you think this would happen if the government didn't collect revenues by mandate? I don't think it would. Security companies would go bankrupt so quickly if they engaged in such cost-ineffective behavior.

One way of looking at it is that taxation is a form of subsidization of bad policy. It turns the wrong ideas of people into reality because those ideas are given an ability to operate even if they would disintegrate if they were funded voluntarily.

[a500lbgorilla]

The defense companies servicing California would still be subject to normal market forces.

Defense companies predated markets. There were defense companies which mocked and forbade markets.

edit: It's tempting to also recognize that when areas are forcibly relieved of their defense companies but allowed to operate otherwise, they have enormous boom periods - Hong Kong, Carthage, Germany and Japan. Or course, those defense companies always manage to get the upper hand eventually.

Trying to subject a defense company to market forces is like trying to make water float on oil.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Do you mean predated as in pre-dated - they were there first

OR

do you mean predated like predator - they ate the markets - i.e. they utilized free market ideas to displace the markets?

[wufwugy]

Defense companies predated markets. There were defense companies which mocked and forbade markets.

edit: It's tempting to also recognize that when areas are forcibly relieved of their defense companies but allowed to operate otherwise, they have enormous boom periods - Hong Kong, Carthage, Germany and Japan. Or course, those defense companies always manage to get the upper hand eventually.

Trying to subject a defense company to market forces is like trying to make water float on oil.

I get the sentiment.

I do not think defense can be a marketable commodity from a clean slate. If you're an agrarian society, you probably need a violence monopoly. At some point, that probably changes. I think the West is past that point, at least in the regard of its advanced economy. People in Colorado are simply not going to legitimize a defense company's attempt to invade California.

Another concern is legitimacy. If the US were to go fully free market overnight, it is likely we would just create another state with the violence monopoly, because this is what people believe is needed. However, if the state did not have this legitimacy in peoples' minds and instead free markets did, I think a defense market would work.

[wufwugy]

Imagine how quickly ISIS would get obliterated in a free market of security. There would be so many billions in donations to organizations trying to eradicate ISIS. But now, all people can do is ask the government to do something. And the government does very little.

ISIS is not that big of a threat to the state, so the state does little. Many people complain about intervention against ISIS to the state, and regardless of how wrong or bad that may be, the state has to listen. Contrast this to if people had to put up or shut up. How many billions of dollars would Americans give to companies to fight to defend ISIS? None. But they love talking about some abstract ideal that they don't even understand. Their bad ideas are subsidized by their governments controlling the market.

[OngBonga]

Imagine how quickly ISIS would get obliterated in a free market of security. There would be so many billions in donations to organizations trying to eradicate ISIS.

Really? You guys spend over half a trillion dollars a year on military, and you think billions of dollars would wipe out ISIS?

[a500lbgorilla]

An ISIS leader was killed in March and then another in May. I remember reading an article where they were massively culling their own behind fears of spies and traitors. They're being handled quite well. It may be slow and boring, but one side is going to win in the end.

ISIS isn't just an violent movement. It's also an aspect of the religion of Islam - a people seeking to become a caliphate. You'll never defeat the will for the creation of an islamic state.

[a500lbgorilla]

Do you mean predated as in pre-dated - they were there first

OR

do you mean predated like predator - they ate the markets

Whichever you prefer. I think both work.

[a500lbgorilla]

[wufwugy]

Really? You guys spend over half a trillion dollars a year on military, and you think billions of dollars would wipe out ISIS?

If one were to guess that the US military costs are bloated by 20x, they would probably be underestimating it. Among the bloated costs, little of it goes to eradicating ISIS.

[OngBonga]

If one were to guess that the US military costs are bloated by 20x, they would probably be underestimating it. Among the bloated costs, little of it goes to eradicating ISIS.

ISIS seem to be the only credible threat to America. If little goes to eradicating them, then maybe you should be asking why that is.

[wufwugy]

I've been running that marathon for a while.

[a500lbgorilla]

ISIS is not a credible threat to America

Seriously, there are no credible threats to America.

[OngBonga]

ISIS is not a credible threat to America

Seriously, there are no credible threats to America.

By credible threat, I mean outside influence that is capable of committing atrocities on US soil. Recent news suggests ISIS are what I'd call a credible threat.

[JKDS]

Were pretty restricted in how we handle them. Easy answer? Bomb the sandbox. But then treaties, ethics, and public opinion get in the way. So if we can't do that, what do?

13yr old is known to support isis. We have Intel that he's supported them for at least 5 days. What's the response?

28yr old, same facts.

30yr old, we don't know if he supports isis, but we've seen him speak to a few people that are higher ups.

It's the same reason why gangs still exist everywhere.

[a500lbgorilla]

It's the same reason why gangs still exist everywhere.

Yeah

[CoccoBill]

Indeed. They exist because there's a social demand for them. Every terrorist (you can replace that with "martyr", "freedom fighter", or "relative", since they're all equally accurate) killed creates a number of new ones. You can't just get rid of gangs or terrorists, you need to get rid of the social problems that drive people into them.

[OngBonga]

You can't just get rid of gangs or terrorists, you need to get rid of the social problems that drive people into them.

So destory religion, and destroy ISIS.

Let's go! I'll start by burning down a few churches.

[CoccoBill]

So destory religion, and destroy ISIS.

Let's go! I'll start by burning down a few churches.

Few people with cable tv and summer vacations want to blow themselves up. Religion is just an excuse.

[OngBonga]

So if I really, really believe in the tooth fairy, and decided that the tooth fairy wants me to kill anyone who doesn't acknowledge its godliness, and I went on a rampage, the problem isn't my deluded belief in the tooth fairy? I'm just using it as an excuse?

Religion is an excuse for delusion.

[wufwugy]

Religion gets an undeserved bad rap. It is probable that the ideal of freedom would not have arisen as a populist movement if not for American Protestants widely advocating for religious freedom.

What your religion says is what matters, not the espousing of religion in the first place.

[OngBonga]

Religion gets an undeserved bad rap.

Yeah I kind of agree. It's not the delusion itself that's the problem, it's the manipulation of deluded people.

[CoccoBill]

So if I really, really believe in the tooth fairy, and decided that the tooth fairy wants me to kill anyone who doesn't acknowledge its godliness, and I went on a rampage, the problem isn't my deluded belief in the tooth fairy? I'm just using it as an excuse?

Religion is an excuse for delusion.

I think the interesting question is what makes even seemingly intelligent people believe in tooth fairies. Yes, I'm sure some people are just batshit or have a mental illness, but I would wager that only accounts for a tiny fraction of people being radicalized. If you and your loved ones have even the bottom two levels of Maslow's hierarchy covered, there's probably very little appeal in radicalization. Then again if you're poor, live in an oppressed regime with bombs going off on a regular basis, with no real hope for a better life or even things starting to get better, finding some solace from a wacky story promising you things might become an option. If you lose all hope you're ready to do pretty much anything. The better things are going socially and economically, the less need there is for religion.

[wufwugy]

Religion provides "answers" for things that don't have answers and it provides justification for desired moral framework. It is only in the last couple centuries that people have begun questioning religion on account of answers provided by science. Pushback from religion on these new answers emerges from fears of how they threaten morals. For example, pushback on evolution isn't about a desire to not acknowledge reality, but because if evolution is true, it implies that humans are beasts, not central to the world, and that sacred texts are not fundamental truths. These throw some serious monkey wrenches into established social norms that, frankly, humans may be worse off by no longer espousing.

[OngBonga]

I think the interesting question is what makes even seemingly intelligent people believe in tooth fairies.

Delusion is not exclusive to dumb people.

[OngBonga]

When I was a kid, I really, really thought I'd be a footballer, even though I was average. I was the best chess player in my year though. Deluded yet smart.

[JKDS]

The hardest decision this orlando terrorist faced was not whether to kill some gays. It was whether or not he should commit an act that would likely result in his death. Another way to phrase it, would be his decision to commit suicide.

This isn't a rant about mitigating circumstances, nor is this a "poor terrorist" pity post. It's about what goes on in someone's head. I'm sure we've all thought at one point, "fuck that guy, I'm gonna kill him". But we dont. What would it take for you to cross the line and actually carry it out though? What kind of shit would you have to experience beforehand? What kind of loss? How do you, like this man, extinguish one life...and then continue on to extinguish many more? He'd have had to be completely dead inside. He'd have had to feel nothing.

Can you even imagine?

When I was 12, I had been in catholic school. I said "fuck this" and rebelled pretty quickly. That was because they wanted me to go study every Sunday or I'd go to hell or whatever. If thats enough to make me say screw it, whats going in where others commit to suicide for these causes? Lack of information (internet)? Threats to family? Idk.

I guess I'm saying that I don't think it's simply a "deluded religious nuts" thing.

[Savy]

When I was a kid, I really, really thought I'd be a footballer, even though I was average. I was the best chess player in my year though. Deluded yet smart.

https://en.lichess.org/fLhCGJYp/white#0

[OngBonga]

https://en.lichess.org/fLhCGJYp/white#0

Post the other two games.

In particular the one where I didn't take your rook because it was too easy.

[wufwugy]

Yesterday's Islamic terrorism in Orlando gonna put "leave" over the top.

[Savy]

Post the other two games.

In particular the one where I didn't take your rook because it was too easy.

That's like weak GMs who have + scores against some of the elite players because they played them when they were 12.

[spoonitnow]

The hardest decision this orlando terrorist faced was not whether to kill some gays. It was whether or not he should commit an act that would likely result in his death. Another way to phrase it, would be his decision to commit suicide.

This isn't a rant about mitigating circumstances, nor is this a "poor terrorist" pity post. It's about what goes on in someone's head. I'm sure we've all thought at one point, "fuck that guy, I'm gonna kill him". But we dont. What would it take for you to cross the line and actually carry it out though? What kind of shit would you have to experience beforehand? What kind of loss? How do you, like this man, extinguish one life...and then continue on to extinguish many more? He'd have had to be completely dead inside. He'd have had to feel nothing.

Can you even imagine?

When I was 12, I had been in catholic school. I said "fuck this" and rebelled pretty quickly. That was because they wanted me to go study every Sunday or I'd go to hell or whatever. If thats enough to make me say screw it, whats going in where others commit to suicide for these causes? Lack of information (internet)? Threats to family? Idk.

I guess I'm saying that I don't think it's simply a "deluded religious nuts" thing.

They brainwash these fuckers from the time they are born. It's not a religious nut thing like the Christian right. Look into who this guy's dad was (supporter of Taliban in Afghanistan, ran for president of Afghanistan). This guy was under FBI investigation for a reason. The fuckers came out days before the attack and said they were going to be attacking in Florida. Why did he sell his house to his Muslim brother-in-law for $100 two weeks before the attack?

It's pretty simply a religious nuts thing, but it's not just that they're deluded.

CNN reporting that over 50 percent of Muslims in the United Kingdom think that homosexuality should be a crime. The number is over 45 percent in the United States. Guess what the punishment for the crime is? Fucking death.

These people believe that they're supposed to throw me off of a fucking building because of my sexual orientation. We're not talking "extremists," we're talking basic fundamentals of the ideology. This isn't rocket science here.

[OngBonga]

That's like weak GMs who have + scores against some of the elite players because they played them when they were 12.

Say that to me when you outrank me.

[Savy]

Say that to me when you outrank me.

End of the year I'll be close!

[MadMojoMonkey]

from CNN:
Mateen's parents, who are from Afghanistan, said he'd expressed outrage after seeing two men kiss in Miami, but they didn't consider him particularly religious and didn't know of any connection he had to ISIS.

He was married in 2009 to a woman originally from Uzbekistan, according to the marriage license, but he filed documents to end the marriage in 2011.

Sitora Yusufiy, interviewed by CNN in Boulder, Colorado, said she and Mateen were together about four months, though it took a long time to complete the divorce because they lived in different parts of the country after separating.

Mateen was a normal husband at the beginning of their marriage but started abusing her after a few months, she said. She said Mateen was bipolar, although he was not formally diagnosed. She also said Mateen had a history with steroids. He was religious but she said she doesn't think his religion played in to the attack.


Later:
A message posted in Arabic on a dark web site associated with the ISIS news agency Amaq said "the armed attack that targeted a gay night club in the city of Orlando in the American state of Florida and that bore more than a 100 killed and wounded was carried out by an Islamic state fighter."

But CNN's Salma Abdelaziz, who translated the message and closely monitors ISIS messaging, cautioned about taking the message at face value.

She said the language is inconsistent with previous ISIS announcements and that the Arabic word for gay was used rather than an epithet normally used by ISIS. Also, there was no claim that the attack was directed, just an after-the-fact claim the gunman was an ISIS fighter, she said.

[spoonitnow]

rofl cnn the clinton news network, let me know when you get a credible source

[MadMojoMonkey]

rofl cnn the clinton news network, let me know when you get a credible source

I just clicked the top link. I don't have regular news sources at this point in my life.

What do you recommend?

EDIT: I checked my int'l news sources and they spent their time highlighting that the FBI was saying that he had pledged allegiance to a half a dozen different organizations, some of whom are at odds with each other. Hezbulah, ISIL, the Tsarnaev bros, etc. Al-Jazeera said, "They are trying to ..." not worth the quote, but the tone seemed suspicious that the FBI was up to some obfuscation.

[spoonitnow]

I just clicked the top link. I don't have regular news sources at this point in my life.

What do you recommend?

http://www.reddit.com/r/uncensorednews

[wufwugy]

i dont even know what the point is supposed to be. did anybody think this was an attack directed by isis? it more clearly looked like an attack in solidarity with isis or with thematic commonality at least.

[MadMojoMonkey]

http://www.reddit.com/r/uncensorednews

Thanks.
This was the first article on the subject. Page 2 of the link you posted.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/florida...ting-1.3631419

"The Islamic State claimed responsibility for the shooting, but U.S. officials say there's no immediate evidence of a link to the terrorist group."

[MadMojoMonkey]

CNN reporting that over 50 percent of Muslims in the United Kingdom think that homosexuality should be a crime. The number is over 45 percent in the United States. Guess what the punishment for the crime is? Fucking death.

rofl cnn the clinton news network, let me know when you get a credible source

Dafuq?

[Savy]

That stat is the most made up bullshit I've seen so backs up his point really.

[wufwugy]

sounds low imo

[CoccoBill]

How many islamic terrorist attacks or terrorist organizations were there before the 1980's? Did they change the quran at that point?

[rong]

No. Just that efficiency level is different.



I lol'd. We're alive and he's not. Sucker!



I love this example, and I think it is something that private companies (and the government) deals with constantly. It's basically an example of something that slips into the margins. The insurance companies couldn't find a way to make them pay and the residents found a way to not pay. The key is that this happens on the margins. This type of thing has a constant arms race which we see in action in industry today.



And the more people who do this, the lower the marginal benefit to you (them) and the higher the marginal benefit to the insurance company to figure out a way to get consumers' money. It's the story of competition and innovation.



If you could then you should. The awesomeness of the free market is that companies don't make money unless the customers thinks they receive greater value from the companies' goods or services. This means that if you live in a free market where a type of insurance is not valued that highly by consumers, it will either disappear or it will improve to the point that it provides enough value for profitable consumption.

The word think in the bold part is a huge problem imo. And one which I harp on about a lot. The incentive for the firm isn't to provide the best service / Product, it's to convince the consumer that they have.

So with more complex goods and services, ie warfare, Healthcare, etc the aim of the company is at odds with what is best for society.

[OngBonga]

The incentive for the firm isn't to provide the best service / Product, it's to convince the consumer that they have.

Yup. Carlsberg is shit, there's no "probably" about it.

[rong]

How many islamic terrorist attacks or terrorist organizations were there before the 1980's? Did they change the quran at that point?

And what has been the biggest change since then, with the biggest impact? The interwebs!!!!!

[spoonitnow]

How many islamic terrorist attacks or terrorist organizations were there before the 1980's? Did they change the quran at that point?

tons

[wufwugy]

The word think in the bold part is a huge problem imo. And one which I harp on about a lot. The incentive for the firm isn't to provide the best service / Product, it's to convince the consumer that they have.

So with more complex goods and services, ie warfare, Healthcare, etc the aim of the company is at odds with what is best for society.

The one company is not the only agent. You are an agent as well. Other consumers are and other producers are too.

If one company sells lies, consumers have the power to not buy their lies, and other companies have the power to sell not-lies and make a lot of money because of it. The more competitive a market is, the more the self-interest of producers is in selling not-lies.

In some industries, it's easier to sell lies than others, but that doesn't change the reality that greater competition leads to greater societal benefit. Some industries naturally take more capital to scale and others are more heavily regulated by government. Both of those make it easier to sell lies.

[JKDS]

Tobacco and sugar companies have been successfully selling lies for decades.

[wufwugy]

Tobacco and sugar companies have been successfully selling lies for decades.

They've been successfully selling sweet flavor that people want and the calming feeling people want.

The types of lies I was referencing is a different type of thing. It's where people are sold one thing yet it is actually something else and yet the people return to buy that same thing even though they know they got something different than what they wanted.

[MadMojoMonkey]

No they haven't. They've been successfully selling sweet flavor that people want and the calming feeling people want

The types of lies I was referencing are people being sold one thing yet it actually being something else and the people returning to buy that same thing.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but...

Cigarettes are (or were) marketed as calming (I don't see too much in the way of tobacco adds nowadays), but it is well known that nicotine is a stimulant. The act of walking away from whatever to stand idly smoking for a few minutes is probably calming, though.

Also, I don't think we can ignore that tobacco products are addictive, or the nicotine in them is addictive. There's a quite blurry line in whether or not it's a lie to sell something to someone which is addictive, or whether or not their continued purchases are not based on lies.

[wufwugy]

The word think in the bold part is a huge problem imo. And one which I harp on about a lot. The incentive for the firm isn't to provide the best service / Product, it's to convince the consumer that they have.

So with more complex goods and services, ie warfare, Healthcare, etc the aim of the company is at odds with what is best for society.

I should make it doubly clear that what a company wants is at odds with what is "best for society." Lucky for us, the economic theory for why free markets benefit society is not based on the desires of a company, but based on the competition between multiple companies and the agency of consumers.

Economists are not pro-this-business or pro-that-business. They're pro-free-markets, places where businesses compete. The reason bureaucratic regulations are so often looked down upon are because they are pro-this-business or pro-that-business. Government regulation is billed as enforcing fairness, yet that is the opposite of what it does because of what you correctly point out is a problem: it gives greater power to individual companies, which makes for their pursuit of self-interest to take precedence over the benefit of society.

Arguably the first idea in economics (back before it was called economics) -- which is still held today -- was Adam Smith's hypothesis regarding how the competition of self-interests acts as a metaphorical invisible hand that creates societal benefit even though each individual agent does not intend such.

[wufwugy]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but...

Cigarettes are (or were) marketed as calming (I don't see too much in the way of tobacco adds nowadays), but it is well known that nicotine is a stimulant. The act of walking away from whatever to stand idly smoking for a few minutes is probably calming, though.

Also, I don't think we can ignore that tobacco products are addictive, or the nicotine in them is addictive. There's a quite blurry line in whether or not it's a lie to sell something to someone which is addictive, or whether or not their continued purchases are not based on lies.

Rong made the distinction between consumers getting a particular service and consumers being convinced they're getting that service when they're really not. The "lies" I'm referring to are only in this straightforward and immediate context. The type of contrast I was making is that tobacco companies sell the tobacco feeling and tobacco consumers consume tobacco for that tobacco feeling. There isn't a lie at the heart of this relationship, and if there was, people would stop buying tobacco since they wouldn't be getting the tobacco feeling.

[wufwugy]

The "lies" you guys are referring to are maybe better likened to negative externalities, and I'm not saying they're not lies or that they don't matter. They're really hard things to price and hard to assess in the first place. If we can definitively say that tobacco companies "lied," it's really that they misrepresented a probability. The funny thing is that this is super duper common in every industry yet nobody thinks it's a problem then. Example, isn't it just a bunch of lie-like misdirection when the automobile industry bills its products as anything other than death machines? But really, nobody has a problem with this.

It's common for risk to not be adequately accounted for in consumer choices. Regardless, consumers still choose what they think makes them better off. The same goes for producers producing what they think makes them better off.

On a side note, I think tobacco companies should be able to claim just one puff cures cancer and grows your dick too. There's an irony in that policies that protect humans from having to think for themselves are what enables the blind consumerism that so many people dislike.

[spoonitnow]

Economists are not pro-this-business or pro-that-business. They're pro-free-markets, places where businesses compete. The reason bureaucratic regulations are so often looked down upon are because they are pro-this-business or pro-that-business. Government regulation is billed as enforcing fairness, yet that is the opposite of what it does because of what you correctly point out is a problem: it gives greater power to individual companies, which makes for their pursuit of self-interest to take precedence over the benefit of society.

I can think of at least a dozen people who I'd like to have this tattooed on their fucking foreheads.

[rong]

I don't have time to do this in any detail, so this will be quick.

But the nature of capitalism leads businesses to manufacture need via advertising and marketing, meaning false needs are satisfied in the consumer. We know this happens and see it every day.

In the capitalism model, businesses should be competing to provide producs or services that satisfy a need, and that competition should increase effiiciency and therefore reduce cost to consumer. It's this reduced cost that is effectively the benefit to society.

But when we allow needs to be manufactured via advertising and marketing, the efficiency that capitalism should be creating is wasted on things we don't need or want until we are manipulated into doing so. So the benefit to society that this competition should bring is reduced through wasted consumption via the manipulation of consumers by businesses. I wouldn't and didn't call it lies.

[CoccoBill]

Government regulation is billed as enforcing fairness, yet that is the opposite of what it does because of what you correctly point out is a problem: it gives greater power to individual companies, which makes for their pursuit of self-interest to take precedence over the benefit of society.

So for example a regulation on the maximum amount of cyanide in whole milk is pro-lower-cyanide-milk-businesses. I can see how that would be a bad thing. A far better option would be to let a big enough number of consumers die for the general public to notice, and drive the more-cyanide businesses out of business, maybe as quickly as in just a couple of years.

[MadMojoMonkey]

So for example a regulation on the maximum amount of cyanide in whole milk is pro-lower-cyanide-milk-businesses. I can see how that would be a bad thing. A far better option would be to let a big enough number of consumers die for the general public to notice, and drive the more-cyanide businesses out of business, maybe as quickly as in just a couple of years.

I wasn't thinking of milk, but this captures a concern I had when I read the quoted quote's quote.

[wufwugy]

So for example a regulation on the maximum amount of cyanide in whole milk is pro-lower-cyanide-milk-businesses. I can see how that would be a bad thing. A far better option would be to let a big enough number of consumers die for the general public to notice, and drive the more-cyanide businesses out of business, maybe as quickly as in just a couple of years.

If only regulation was so simple.

It also takes people dying for the government to notice. If this is not the case, then your position implies that regulation should be speculative, which is why it's such a problem now. A tiny fraction of regulation is as straight forward as your example. The vast majority of regulations are far more complex and bureaucracies are ill-equipped to handle them.

Cost-effectiveness does not mean something is cheap and less effective. It means it's more effective for the same cost or cheaper for the same effect. Economists teach that bureaucratic regulation is not as cost-effective as free market forces. This means that the results are simply not as good, even in what seems to be straightforward situations. Arguing about the "sensibleness" or whatever of some specific government regulation is not that meaningful since what matters is cost-effectiveness. The solution to the types of problems you pose is that which is the most efficient. It is very hard to make the case for any level of bureaucracy being more efficient than the free market.

[wufwugy]

But the nature of capitalism leads businesses to manufacture need via advertising and marketing, meaning false needs are satisfied in the consumer. We know this happens and see it every day.

Like what?

[wufwugy]

I realized I need to give a more detailed response to this.

So for example a regulation on the maximum amount of cyanide in whole milk is pro-lower-cyanide-milk-businesses. I can see how that would be a bad thing. A far better option would be to let a big enough number of consumers die for the general public to notice, and drive the more-cyanide businesses out of business, maybe as quickly as in just a couple of years.

At first glance, this looks like a reasonable regulation, but after dissecting it, it looks far from reasonable. Let's play this out so we can see why that's the case.

Let's give the government a cyanide-upper-limit regulation in food. How would the government enforce this regulation? Well, it would have to test product regularly. How costly would that be? Well, given all the different food companies in all the different locations, we're looking at many thousands of tests and man hours annually. Rigorous testing and competency of labor at every division is expensive, so this one regulation could cost, what a 100 grand? But what's a 100 grand to save some lives? Okay. But we have to test for arsenic too; that's only reasonable. And lead. And uncountable other compounds. This is getting ridiculously expensive, and this only accounts for a teeny weeny fraction of the amount of regulation it will take to bureaucratically ensure food safety.

Contemporary regulations are intended to work like this, but since this is so expensive, regulators don't test for compounds like this and instead only respond if problems arise. Wasn't the whole point of having these regulations to avoid problems in the first place? The idea that we can have "common sense" regulations that prevent catastrophe is false.

[rong]

Like what?

Simple example is kids toys, marketed directly at kids to put pressure on parents to buy.

Another example is using sex to sell cars, watches, perfume or anything else for that matter.

Or how about Bernays and the cigarette marketing campaign aimed at getting women to smoke?

Not sure they are the best examples, but they do illustrate the point that there are things we don't need or naturally want, but feel we do due to clever marketing campaigns, that lead to consumption that is both against our individual interests and that of society as a whole, but very much in the interest of the business selling the product.

So I'm saying this artificially induced consumption eats up the positive gains that competition should be providing for society.

Now I very much agree that capitalism as a system has led to enormous growth, enhanced productivity and overall wealth, but I'm saying that I think it reaches a point where it is no longer in the best interests of society to continue with it without strong regulation.

I'm starting to think that perhaps capitalism is another stage in the growth of humanity, just like the iron age or industrialisation, that has a place but can be out grown, and that perhaps now is the time to begin exploring a new system to best accommodate existing society and it's goals.

[OngBonga]

Now I very much agree that capitalism as a system has led to enormous growth, enhanced productivity and overall wealth, but I'm saying that I think it reaches a point where it is no longer in the best interests of society to continue with it without strong regulation.

The problem with strong regulation is that it makes companies subject to those regulations less competetive than those who are not. And it harms small business more than big business because big business has the resources to cope with the red tape.

Regulation hurts the economy, it's why Europe is the sick economy of the world, and it's why we need to get the fuck out of the EU.

There's over 12,000 EU regulations that relate to milk alone. Twelve fucking thousand. How is a small dairy supposed to comply with all those regulations? I just took a look at one single regulation relating to descriptions of milk products and it was 25 pages long. I've already come to the conclusion that setting up a dairy is a ridiculously bad idea if I wanted to set up a viable business. It's no wonder the milk industry is on its knees.

I'm no fan of capitalism, but I'm starting to see that regulation is one of the methods corporations use to dominate. Scarcity is another. It's not capitalism that's the problem, it's just certain aspects of it. Regulation seems to be a key factor. Switzerland, one of the least regulated economies in the world, has the highest standard of living in the world. Coincidence? I think not. No wonder their people are overwhelmingly against joining the EU.

[CoccoBill]

It also takes people dying for the government to notice. If this is not the case, then your position implies that regulation should be speculative, which is why it's such a problem now. A tiny fraction of regulation is as straight forward as your example. The vast majority of regulations are far more complex and bureaucracies are ill-equipped to handle them.

So your argument is that because not all current regulation is good, they should all be abolished. To which I say I only endorse good science-based proven-to-work regulations, which get adjusted over time based on metrics of their effects. To which you say no, all regulation is bad by definition, because efficiency. Yes I know, we've been here many times, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, which over the years I've failed to receive.

Arguing about the "sensibleness" or whatever of some specific government regulation is not that meaningful since what matters is cost-effectiveness.

And as before, this is where I disagree completely. Efficiency is secondary to "sensibleness". Efficient bad < inefficient good.

Contemporary regulations are intended to work like this, but since this is so expensive, regulators don't test for compounds like this and instead only respond if problems arise. Wasn't the whole point of having these regulations to avoid problems in the first place? The idea that we can have "common sense" regulations that prevent catastrophe is false.

http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegu...ucm2007962.htm

It seems like milk has in fact been regulated and tested at least since the 1920's, which is good since raw milk used to kill a lot of people.

"In 1938, milkborne outbreaks constituted twenty-five per cent (25%) of all disease outbreaks due to infected foods and contaminated water. Our most recent information reveals that milk and fluid milk products continue to be associated with less than one percent (<1%) of such reported outbreaks."

[wufwugy]

So your argument is that because not all current regulation is good, they should all be abolished.

My argument is that regulation by a monopoly, especially one that runs on mandated taxes, is worse than that which arises in free markets.

To which I say I only endorse good science-based proven-to-work regulations, which get adjusted over time based on metrics of their effects.

How has that worked out? What you want in regulations is what everybody wants, but it's not what happens when regulations are handed down by a monopoly funded through coercion.

And as before, this is where I disagree completely. Efficiency is secondary to "sensibleness". Efficient bad < inefficient good.

I'm really glad you said this because it's important.

Sensibleness of policy is efficiency of policy. Your morals are only as sensible as they are efficient. Let's say you have two different ideals that save lives: the first costs a billion dollars per head and the other costs one dollar per head. Which one is more sensible? Which one gets enacted and which one doesn't? This works down to the marginal level, where a policy that costs one dollar per life saved is a better policy than one that costs two dollars per life saved. The more cost-effective one is the one with the greatest positive effect in aggregate.

This is why economists never stop talking about efficiency. Economists have simply done a terrible job of explaining to the lay why efficiency is king.

The moral of the story is that it's always about efficiency. Even when it may look like it's not, it still is.

http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegu...ucm2007962.htm

It seems like milk has in fact been regulated and tested at least since the 1920's, which is good since raw milk used to kill a lot of people.

"In 1938, milkborne outbreaks constituted twenty-five per cent (25%) of all disease outbreaks due to infected foods and contaminated water. Our most recent information reveals that milk and fluid milk products continue to be associated with less than one percent (<1%) of such reported outbreaks."

This is a different topic than the hypothetical you introduced. If you would like to stick within that hypothetical, I think we can get somewhere.

[wufwugy]

Simple example is kids toys, marketed directly at kids to put pressure on parents to buy.

Another example is using sex to sell cars, watches, perfume or anything else for that matter.

Or how about Bernays and the cigarette marketing campaign aimed at getting women to smoke?

These examples are more along the lines of persuasion. I was intrigued by your claim that marketing (or economies at large) manufacture desire. Using just the kids/toys example, if it were true that marketing manufactured desire, why can't they manufacture desire in kids to eat their vegetables and do their homework? The amount of capital parents and teachers expend trying to get kids to do their homework is several magnitudes greater than the amount of capital expended by toy companies. The same is true with amount of exposure kids have to these two different options. Yet kids notoriously do not want to do their homework and notoriously want toys toys toys whenever possible. This does not look to me like a manufacturing of desire.


As for the idea of marketing introducing "new" things to our desires, this looks more like logistics than manufacturing of desire. There are many things I want that I would not know I want unless I knew about them. How many people knew they wanted computers until they knew about computers and what they could do?


As for the idea of capitalism and civilization growth stage, we know that things would be better if we went further free market, so I think we should do that first. There is significant room for improvement in the world just by doing that, and it isn't just "significant" but paradigm changing too.

[wufwugy]

The problem with strong regulation is that it makes companies subject to those regulations less competetive than those who are not. And it harms small business more than big business because big business has the resources to cope with the red tape.

I seriously thought you were trolling at first. This is easily the most correct thing on the topic I've seen you say.

There's over 12,000 EU regulations that relate to milk alone. Twelve fucking thousand. How is a small dairy supposed to comply with all those regulations? I just took a look at one single regulation relating to descriptions of milk products and it was 25 pages long. I've already come to the conclusion that setting up a dairy is a ridiculously bad idea if I wanted to set up a viable business. It's no wonder the milk industry is on its knees.

The China miracle, which is arguably the best thing that has ever happened to the world, is pretty much because of mass elimination of this sort of regulation. At the street level, there's virtually no regulation and more lives have improved more significantly than any other time in history.

I'm no fan of capitalism, but I'm starting to see that regulation is one of the methods corporations use to dominate. Scarcity is another. It's not capitalism that's the problem, it's just certain aspects of it. Regulation seems to be a key factor. Switzerland, one of the least regulated economies in the world, has the highest standard of living in the world. Coincidence? I think not. No wonder their people are overwhelmingly against joining the EU.

Given that it is not corporations that are enacting these regulations but government bureaucracy, why are corporations to blame instead of bureaucracy?