Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 41 to 50 of 50
  1. #41
    Every system that gives to much power to the state is by nature ineffective and leads to corruption, since states are the only institutions that have monopoly on violence and creating laws.

    Thats why IMO free-market capitalism is generally better system - because it's based on freedom of choice and private ownership.

  2. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by Cichy View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Every system that gives to much power to the state is by nature ineffective and leads to corruption, since states are the only institutions that have monopoly on violence and creating laws.

    Thats why IMO free-market capitalism is generally better system - because it's based on freedom of choice and private ownership.
    how do you define "too much power" every state around the world has the monopoly on violence and creating laws. so there needs to be another qualification factor

    how do you prevent free market capitalism not getting "too much power" as well?

  3. #43
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Canadia
    Posts
    17,101
    Quote Originally Posted by Cichy View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Every system that gives to much power to the state is by nature ineffective and leads to corruption, since states are the only institutions that have monopoly on violence and creating laws.

    Thats why IMO free-market capitalism is generally better system - because it's based on freedom of choice and private ownership.
    Repped.

  4. #44
    Banned Ccrack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    england
    Posts
    2,904
    i think R should start sharing his paycheck with everyone on tmf to prove his ideals are more than just bullshit waffle

  5. #45
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Canadia
    Posts
    17,101
    Quote Originally Posted by Ccrack View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    i think R should start sharing his paycheck with everyone on tmf to prove his ideals are more than just bullshit waffle
    Why do that when you can just steal from whites and give to nonwhites?

  6. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by R View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    how do you define "too much power" every state around the world has the monopoly on violence and creating laws. so there needs to be another qualification factor
    The role of the government became signifacantly wider in XX and XXI century. Currently there's not a single area of life that is not in some way controled or regulated by the state. Education, healthcare, security, internet, production, media, finance and in some cases even stuff like sex life and religion.
    Giving so much authority to one institution is stupid thing to do, because sooner or later that institution will abuse this power (that's basically current situation). Thats why I believe the government should be restricted to only a few of it's original functions like military, diplomacy, police, basic civil law etc. If you look at budgets of most european countries today, those are just small percentage of public expenses anyway.

    Quote Originally Posted by R View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    how do you prevent free market capitalism not getting "too much power" as well?
    Boycott companies that you don't like and be aware of what you're buying? Thats the main difference between private institutions and the state. If the politicians you don't agree with gets elected then you don't have any real way to boycott the state - whether you like it or not you have to pay taxes, otherwise you go to prison.
    In case of companies on the free market it's possible for you to just not buy their products and don't support them if they are doing shady stuff.
    Last edited by Cichy; 02-05-2018 at 04:31 PM.

  7. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by Cichy View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    The role of the government became signifacantly wider in XX and XXI century. Currently there's not a single area of life that is not in some way controled or regulated by the state. Education, healthcare, security, internet, production, media, finance and in some cases even stuff like sex life and religion.
    Giving so much authority to one institution is stupid thing to do, because sooner or later that institution will abuse this power (that's basically current situation). Thats why I believe the government should be restricted to only a few of it's original functions like military, diplomacy, police, basic civil law etc. If you look at budgets of most european countries today, those are just small percentage of public expenses anyway.


    Boycott companies that you don't like and be aware of what you're buying? Thats the main difference between private institutions and the state. If the politicians you don't agree with gets elected then you don't have any real way to boycott the state - whether you like it or not you have to pay taxes, otherwise you go to prison.
    In case of companies on the free market it's possible for you to just not buy their products and don't support them if they are doing shady stuff.
    thanks for your input. i think a very clear difference has to be made between governmental control and governmental regulation. both for the positive as well as for the negativity. and you also have to name how exactly that will cause an undoubted abuse of power to the citizens disadvantage.

    yes, you can name major fields of the society and state that its bad when the government controls or regulates it - but simply stating "because corruption" will not cut it. since corruption is not exclusively related to governments but a major problems within companies as well.

    can you name why specifically you think governmental regulation is bad for education, healthcare, security, internet, production, media, finance?

    for example

    imagine what would happen if education is without governmental regulations. would parents be able to decide where and what their kids are learning? unregulated education system would make it possible for everyone to open schools and teach whatever they deem correct. even if it would go against universal accepted standards (math, biology, language).

    i can see what you mean, seeing how we have countries, such as turkey, who recently plan to reform the school system, introducing religious teachings as superior to other, previously important teachings (such as mathematics for example). however that is not a fault of the government as a system per se, but of the people who make such decisions. and regardless the political system we are in - people who finally control the military and secret police will always have the last say when it comes to the crunch.

    or what about internet? i think some time ago the US canceled the net neutrality law, allowing the companies who provide such services to prioritize the speed of services, influencing exactly how you are experiencing the internet.

    again, i can see where you are coming from - however we are not discussing hypothetical models here but actual political systems where we have to take a look at all sides. nitpicking to create an utopian society is just too easy.

    -

    regarding your statement how to prevent power abuse on companies: this does work in an actual polypolic market. many providers have to fight for an equal amount of potential buyers or customers. corruption (there it is again) in the form of price rigging etc. is not or only to a limited extent possible.

    things are looking vastly different in the market we are in currently - a small amount of providers satisfy the entire market of customers. in such an oligopol price rigging and other forms of arrangements will and have proven to be made between the providers - all to the customers disadvantage.

    the best example would be for example the car industry in the high and premium sector. manufacteurs such as audi, mercedes, bmw and porsche have rigger their prices for decades. due to their importance in their respective sector they however will not be face any punishment. if you were to "boykoot" the bad, rigging companies - according to your statement - suddenly the entire market of premium luxury cars is no longer available to you, since they already have "too much power".

    and i refer to the net neutrality again, cable internet providers, especially in the US, now have the unregulated power to do how they please. be it charging more for secured speed or limiting your speed when frequenting certain sites.

    does this mean they definetly will do so? no, maybe not. but it is the same argument you made earlier - the possibility of corruption and market abuse is present.

    when taking a look at the food and nonfood area, which covers most of all of our basic needs, things are looking similar. for example - you may think you can boycott that one candy because the company had just now aired a racial tv ad. chances are, you end up at the same parent company when buying apparent competitor candy. for reference i leave this here



    -

    again, i understand your stance on the matter. however in the times we live right now it is simply not accurate anymore to pretend that things like boycotting something will have an actual affect on the market. reason being, the polygopol has evolved into an oligopol. and instead of discussing hypothetical, role model political and economic systems, should it not be better to find a solution how to deal with the actual situation at hand?

    and what has lead to the multi-provider-market turning into a few-provider-market? it has been the globalisation and a lack of regulations on the free market.

    and going by the current development with amazon, apple and google - the way to actual single-provider markets are not that far ahead.

    does this mean capitalism is bad and free market is the devil?

    no.

    but it means that to prevent the abuse of power being the only providers in an equally large or even larger (due to globalization) market than decades or centuries ago regulations are necessary.

  8. #48
    Banned Ccrack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    england
    Posts
    2,904
    that wall of text is all well and good (probably, i dout anyone's actually read it) but when are you going to start handing over the gibs?

  9. #49
    Quote Originally Posted by R View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    can you name why specifically you think governmental regulation is bad for education, healthcare, security, internet, production, media, finance?
    A lot of reasons. Mainly more corruption, less efectiveness, less freedom, less choice.
    Quote Originally Posted by R View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    imagine what would happen if education is without governmental regulations. would parents be able to decide where and what their kids are learning? unregulated education system would make it possible for everyone to open schools and teach whatever they deem correct. even if it would go against universal accepted standards (math, biology, language).
    Imagine that education was not under governmental regulations for most of the human history and yet somehow we managed to advance and it was never a problem. Public education system is far less flexible and follows slower new discoveries in teaching. Looking at the data says everything - private schools not only have far better results then public schools, but also waste less money.

    Quote Originally Posted by R View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    or what about internet?
    Currently in some western european coutries you can get troubles with law for so called "hate speach".
    http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017...ents-one-year/
    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/20/w...ial-media.html

    Basically, writing something politically incorrect cen get you arrested in those "free and democrathic" countries. Internet control, by the state in it's prime example.

    It's even worse with the media. In my country (and I don't think it's only here) public tv's are huge source of propaganda and yet it's obligatory to pay media tax for them. Doesn't matter which party is in charge, public media always puts the rulling politicians in the positive light. Again, why people should be forced to pay for this shit, even when they are not watching it?
    The problem is also visible in private media, because they get grants from the government.

    Quote Originally Posted by R View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    again, i can see where you are coming from - however we are not discussing hypothetical models here but actual political systems where we have to take a look at all sides. nitpicking to create an utopian society is just too easy.
    So you acuse me of nitpicking to create an utopian society, but we're in a thread about the best economic system ...basically about utopia.

    Quote Originally Posted by R View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    regarding your statement how to prevent power abuse on companies: this does work in an actual polypolic market. many providers have to fight for an equal amount of potential buyers or customers. corruption (there it is again) in the form of price rigging etc. is not or only to a limited extent possible.
    It depends what form of corruption do you mean, because you haven't made that very clear. If a company deliberatly does something that threatens life or health of it's customers then people responsible for this should be arrested regardless of situation.
    In a free market with many competitors rigging prices can be a bad idea anyway - there's a risk of customers moving to cheaper competitors that do not participate in the rigging.
    Quote Originally Posted by R View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    things are looking vastly different in the market we are in currently - a small amount of providers satisfy the entire market of customers. in such an oligopol price rigging and other forms of arrangements will and have proven to be made between the providers - all to the customers disadvantage.

    the best example would be for example the car industry in the high and premium sector. manufacteurs such as audi, mercedes, bmw and porsche have rigger their prices for decades. due to their importance in their respective sector they however will not be face any punishment. if you were to "boykoot" the bad, rigging companies - according to your statement - suddenly the entire market of premium luxury cars is no longer available to you, since they already have "too much power".

    and i refer to the net neutrality again, cable internet providers, especially in the US, now have the unregulated power to do how they please. be it charging more for secured speed or limiting your speed when frequenting certain sites.

    does this mean they definetly will do so? no, maybe not. but it is the same argument you made earlier - the possibility of corruption and market abuse is present.

    when taking a look at the food and nonfood area, which covers most of all of our basic needs, things are looking similar. for example - you may think you can boycott that one candy because the company had just now aired a racial tv ad. chances are, you end up at the same parent company when buying apparent competitor candy. for reference i leave this here

    again, i understand your stance on the matter. however in the times we live right now it is simply not accurate anymore to pretend that things like boycotting something will have an actual affect on the market. reason being, the polygopol has evolved into an oligopol. and instead of discussing hypothetical, role model political and economic systems, should it not be better to find a solution how to deal with the actual situation at hand?

    and what has lead to the multi-provider-market turning into a few-provider-market? it has been the globalisation and a lack of regulations on the free market.

    and going by the current development with amazon, apple and google - the way to actual single-provider markets are not that far ahead.

    does this mean capitalism is bad and free market is the devil?

    no.

    but it means that to prevent the abuse of power being the only providers in an equally large or even larger (due to globalization) market than decades or centuries ago regulations are necessary.
    Regulations are one of the reasons why the situation looks so bad now. The big players on the market have the power to influence the law makers and lobby the regulations the way to make it harder for their competition. New companies have harder time to enter the market due to high taxation and costs of meeting state requirments. On the actual free market oligopolies and monopolies are very rare in the first place.
    You can apply this to the situation in many branches of economy - banking, medicine, food production, pharmaceutical companies etc. When companies have to watch out all the time, because of competition it's natural for them to keep the high quality of their products.

    For example in India you have cheap street dentists that are popular among poor population. Looking at them from our perspective, they would probably not be able to cope with western regulations and yet they don't lack customers and patients geting infectious deseases are rare. At the same time people can go to more expensive, but more prestigious dentist clinic if they wan't.
    Are their servises worse then that of prestigious dentist clinics? Probably. But does this mean they should be stopped by the state from doing their work? I don't think so.

    You just wan't to get rid of private monopolists with public monopolist (government) and don't realize it's not gonna work.
    Last edited by Cichy; 02-06-2018 at 10:02 PM.

  10. #50
    Quote Originally Posted by Cichy View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    A lot of reasons. Mainly more corruption, less efectiveness, less freedom, less choice.
    in the current day and age we have the most freedom we ever had. you are allowed to travel across the whole world. productivity is incomparable more advanced than anything we had in previous generations. the same goes with choice (what exactly makes you think nowadays we have less choice than the generations before us?)


    Quote Originally Posted by Cichy View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Imagine that education was not under governmental regulations for most of the human history and yet somehow we managed to advance and it was never a problem. Public education system is far less flexible and follows slower new discoveries in teaching. Looking at the data says everything - private schools not only have far better results then public schools, but also waste less money.
    be it private or public schools - both are bound to teach in the context of governmental guidelines. they have the freedom to choose how exactly they teach things in this context. they are not allowed to teach what they like, simply because they are private schools.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cichy View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Currently in some western european coutries you can get troubles with law for so called "hate speach".
    http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017...ents-one-year/
    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/20/w...ial-media.html

    Basically, writing something politically incorrect cen get you arrested in those "free and democrathic" countries. Internet control, by the state in it's prime example.
    everyone who threatens people online should be aware that the rules of law also apply on the internet.

    you are not correct when you state threatening or call to violence is covered by free speech (specifically in europe). this has nothing to do with "politically correct" but simply with breaking the law. just because it happens online doesnt mean you do not have to potentially face the consequences.

    in germany there has been a new law passed which forces social networks like facebook and twitter to delete such postings within 24 hours (or a little longer, depending). like this, the decision of what goes "against the law" is basically no longer in the hand of the judicative but in the hands of a private company who wants to safe himself from being fined.

    as such they delete a lot of posts, even when they are not objectively breaking a law.

    it even happened to the justice minister himself - who originally proposed the law.

    the government has by now announced they are open to reworking the law. if it were only about censorship and opression of "politcally incorrect" statements this would not be a topic.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cichy View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    It's even worse with the media. In my country (and I don't think it's only here) public tv's are huge source of propaganda and yet it's obligatory to pay media tax for them. Doesn't matter which party is in charge, public media always puts the rulling politicians in the positive light. Again, why people should be forced to pay for this shit, even when they are not watching it?
    The problem is also visible in private media, because they get grants from the government.
    i do not know where you live but every country has governmental-close private media as well as own media channels. obviously this is bound to reinforce the positive aspects of the government.

    these media however do not resemble the only source of information. the fact that you are able to resort to information sources such as "breitbart" who follow a specific political and social narrativ should already tell you that the government is not controling the entirety of the media. and that its regulations on the matter are limited.

    however this does not mean that whatever media you consume and whatever stance you have on certain things are free of judgement. others have different opinion - maybe even from consuming other form of media. that is a common and normal thing in a society. the judgement on your beliefs however will never be an arrest or other governmental repressions (as long as you follow the law)


    Quote Originally Posted by Cichy View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    So you acuse me of nitpicking to create an utopian society, but we're in a thread about the best economic system ...basically about utopia.
    im not accusing you of nitpicking. im making you aware that we should not nitpick, since this is not about an utopian system.

    capitalism, communism, socialisms, all the other systems and subsystems currently being discussed here are all systems which are known and used by countries around the world. under that perspective we try to determine which of these systems offers a maximum of personal scope as well as advancement for us in general.

    an utopian society is just that. utopian. it is not bound to the criteria of all the systems who failed to bring utopia in the first place. it may share some traits with them but thats about it.

    and i dont think you would call a 100% free market capitalism an utopian society. you simply think that it is the best possible system to live in when compared to all the other currently available systems. which i disagree with.




    Quote Originally Posted by Cichy View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    It depends what form of corruption do you mean, because you haven't made that very clear. If a company deliberatly does something that threatens life or health of it's customers then people responsible for this should be arrested regardless of situation.
    In a free market with many competitors rigging prices can be a bad idea anyway - there's a risk of customers moving to cheaper competitors that do not participate in the rigging.
    again you are arguing under the premise that there exists a poligypolic free market - which is simply not true anymore. every major branch of industry has already turned into an oligopolic provider market. the customers can not simply move to other competitors since the providers who engage in price rigging are incidentially the only providers available to get the goods.

    100% free market was what allowed polygopolic markets to shift into oligyopolic markets in the first place - meaning the problem of price rigging by a selected few without repercussion was only made possible due to too little regulation by the governments in the first place. to prevent this oligopolic market to become even thinner governmental regulations are necessary.


    Quote Originally Posted by Cichy View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Regulations are one of the reasons why the situation looks so bad now. The big players on the market have the power to influence the law makers and lobby the regulations the way to make it harder for their competition. New companies have harder time to enter the market due to high taxation and costs of meeting state requirments. On the actual free market oligopolies and monopolies are very rare in the first place.
    You can apply this to the situation in many branches of economy - banking, medicine, food production, pharmaceutical companies etc. When companies have to watch out all the time, because of competition it's natural for them to keep the high quality of their products.
    you are mixing things up here.

    on the one hand you admit that big players have the power to influence laws due to their lobbywork.

    but at the same time you blame regulations as the reason for this power. while in fact it is the other way round. if there had been more governmental regulations on the free market than the absorption of market candidates by few providers would have been impeded.

    however this has not happened.

    and i have to say i do not understand your general point here: you admit that certain business powerhouses have the power to steer the government in certain ways via their lobbywork yet at the same time you are against regulating them, so that their influence does not spreads further. can you explain the sense behind this?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cichy View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    For example in India you have cheap street dentists that are popular among poor population. Looking at them from our perspective, they would probably not be able to cope with western regulations and yet they don't lack customers and patients geting infectious deseases are rare. At the same time people can go to more expensive, but more prestigious dentist clinic if they wan't.
    Are their servises worse then that of prestigious dentist clinics? Probably. But does this mean they should be stopped by the state from doing their work? I don't think so.
    yeha you basically said it - i look at things from our perspective. which is an industrialized, western point of view. i dont know how a hygienic questionable example from a development country is meant to change the things we have to face, but yes and no. yes, they should be stopped from my point of view applying my standards.

    and no, they should not be stopped since i can not apply my standards in a development country - even if its a member of the BRICS.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cichy View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    You just wan't to get rid of private monopolists with public monopolist (government) and don't realize it's not gonna work.
    this is not correct and i do not know where and how you got that idea from. just because people are against private companies gaining too much power in their respective market to dominate supply, price and law - which is something you are against as well - i do not want that companies to be replaced by the government.

    there is not just two extremes. like i said since my very first and repeated multiple times here already.

    maximizing profits with limiting customers disadvantages due to select governmental regulations to prevent the free market (which you use for your argumentations sake) controlled by the demand of the customer to turn into a market controlled by the providers.

    and since we already live in a market controlled by providers, these regulations would only prevent the creation of "monopolist" with even more power and influence than what you and i both acknowledge

    or do you think a private company being monopolist in its entire market is a healthy form of free market? because it is not. in fact it is the opposite of everything you argue for. no customer choice. no healthy price and supply choice. nothing. it simply is the final result of a free market being unregulated and living completely up to its displacement effect.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •