Democraps on taxes. Too much will never be enough.
- Thread starter FreedomWorks
- Start date
FreedomWorks
Well-Known Member
more like this
Winter Woman
Well-Known Member
I'm not a Republican. I pick and choose the people I vote for. More times than not they are Republican.
I believe it is a woman choice. I marched in DC for choice more than once. The government should not determine what a woman does or does not do with her body.
thecoolman
New Member
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Not trying to be nit picky, but I think you dodged the question. The problem with using regulation in the same breath as free market is it fails to convey what a real free market actually is. Regulation stifles and skews a real free market. It seems that a real free market involves a consensual and unimpeded interaction of the parties involved, regulation awards "privilege" to those that comply and often involves some level of corruption.
ginwilly
Well-Known Member
Corruption is human nature. That's why laws ( I like that better than regulation) like lemon laws and anti-swindling laws are needed. I'm not in favor of "contractors" milking old ladies out of their life savings for the sake of unfettered free markets.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
The government should not determine what ANYBODY does or does not do with their own body.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
I think we both feel that people should be held responsible for fraud and theft. Lots of laws aren't needed for that though. A simple adherence to an insistence that persons that commit fraud and theft be made to restitute their victims would suffice. Licenses don't necessarily prevent fraud or theft though either do they?
The way a truly free market works is those that achieve a level of customer satisfaction will be rewarded by continued business, those that don't will not. Being anti-regulation doesn't mean I'm in favor of swindling old ladies or an "anything goes" market. All consensual transactions should be honored as long as there is no fraud or theft etc. The parties to the contract should decide the terms, not some coercive third party entity that uses regulation as a form of protectionism.
I'm more in favor of private solutions that protect an old ladies freedom to make choices SHE wants concerning WHO she wants to hire or contract with. Consumer reports and private credit ratings, word of mouth and good reputation are all things that favor transparency.
BTW- Did you buy a license for that giant chipmunk? He's gotta be a 350 pounder.
Like I said, in your absolutist sense. By "free market" I don't mean completely and totally free; I would say "laissez-faire" if I meant that.
I accept that regulation is imperfect, but the social good of it outweighs the social harm.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Okay, I see the distinction you have made. I don't think there is a "social good" that can arise from inhibiting people from interacting on a consensual basis as long as they don't try to make others participate or not participate in those agreements they've entered into. I tend to use the non-initiation of aggression principle as a guideline when making that judgement. Peace.
The problem is in shifting the burden to the aggrieved party. You make it sound like proving theft and fraud is easy--there would have been no push for consumer protection laws if that were true.
It's not a coercive third party but the joint product of all the parties who ultimately hold power over it.
Not everyone has your capacity to contract. Your answer seems to be "Too bad." That's exactly how we ended up with regulation.
Then you must be ignoring all the social harms that can arise from such interaction. Your suggestion seems to be that if it was consensual it could not possibly have been socially harmful, but this is totally wrong.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Consensual interactions that involve two parties interacting in a way that they have determined they would like to AND that does not involve others causes nobody else any harm. It is also subjective whether it causes the two willing participants any harm, it could or it could not, but it is THEIR business, right?
You seem to be advocating for a forced intervention when neither involved party feels it is needed or wanted. Doesn't the intervention itself by an unwanted third party CAUSE a harm?
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
"A free society and particularly an industrialized one IS a contractual society." - Market for Liberty quote
In an ideal situation people that aren't comfortable with reviewing contracts could certainly hire an agent that has a stellar reputation for honesty and good service couldn't they? In a free society, a person of above average or superior intelligence (like many of the fine intellects here) could simply offer that service. Rather than a cartel of lawyers that are granted government privilege to practice doing it, you or I could do it for those incapable of it. In that event, prices for those services would drop and people would have greater choice of service providers. The same thing would happen if resolution dispute services were offered, rather than the ONE coercive monopoly issuing nonsensical edicts we presently "enjoy".
Perhaps what you really mean is, "how could disputes be resolved" absent government? First that assumes that governments primary function is to resolve disputes, which may be the wrong assumption in many cases. Is that what you are asking?
We got "regulation" as an extension of governmental power and privilege granting to themselves and their cronies and financial supporters. The regulations themselves often prevent the actual liability from being addressed. Can you say "corporation" ? Corporations are government created shields to DEFLECT liability from the individuals responsible for the wrongful act aren't they?
My answer isn't "too bad". That is the answer of a limited government controlled license, regulated market. My answer provides the individual with a myriad of choices....none of them forced or coercive.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
I'm not sure what you mean by a social harm. Example?
One man's social harm is another mans pleasure. (he says while lighting up this mornings medicine)
Trying to "Bloomberg" what everyone will do, eat, fuck or dress seems a bit harmful to me.
Antidisestablishmentarian
Well-Known Member
Bernie Madoff.
Consensual interactions. He was a fraud.
Some regulations are necessary.
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
If the people involved have families, someone else could very easily be harmed. If the voluntary interaction involves polluting a river other people drink out of, someone else could very easily be harmed. Continue ad infinitum. If you think a consensual interaction between two people isn't capable of harming anyone else, you haven't thought it through.
Your theoretical construction always makes two presumptions: 1) the parties have equal information, 2) the parties have equal capacity to contract. Neither is typically true. An interaction may be consensual and may not cause harm for years or even decades later; and one party may clearly understand the terms he designed while the other party does not.
The intervention is not unwanted. Like I said, we got legislation--all your rules you're complaining about--because the people demanded them, when consensual interactions failed. People demanded rules recognizing that one party to a bargain tends to have better information than another party, and that not everyone has the same capacity to understand the agreement.
Again, you're making theoretical assumptions that are not empirically true (which is why your philosophy is just as objectionable as communism is, for the record--inaccurate starting assumptions), which you seem to recognize when you say "In an ideal situation..." For example, people tend to overestimate their competence to review and understand things like contracts. A lot of people don't seek legal advice even when they can easily afford it; the price is irrelevant, as is the dispute mechanism (although I point out that private arbitration is currently a thriving means of commercial dispute settlement). Likewise, without restrictions on who can offer legal services, a lot of people would choose terrible, totally unqualified lawyers who could cause substantial harm if the person loses custody of their child, gets convicted of a crime they didn't commit, etc. Your answer seems to be "Too bad, should have made a better choice." A huge portion of humanity is simply incapable of recognizing that.
I wasn't asking anything.
I disagree with your narrative entirely because it's just inaccurate. We'll use corporations as the example. Without a means of limiting personal liability, a lot of people wouldn't go into business, because they would constantly be risking everything they have just to be in business.
How is that? I don't see how you can possibly deny that's your answer. You don't care if people get screwed over because you blame them. You don't care if they have your intellectual capacity or your capacity to reason.
