Is Government Regulation/Intervention Good or Bad?

[badnarik]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Right... but as soon as the 'community' is regulating it, doesn't that become collective regulation? What if I install the razor monkey bars myself because I get off on hurting kids? You can tear them down... but I can put them back up. Unless you, as a community, regulate that I cannot build them, and then back up that regulation with law enforcement regulations that would prevent me from putting them up.

it isnt a collective regulation if i go and tear it down every night or don't let my kid play there, or if my kid is smart enough to stop playing on your monkey bars, although they do sound fun. i'm not talking about setting up a neighborhood watch for monkey bar violators, i'm talking about individuals making common sense decisions.

where would you draw the line of your trusted government's intervention?

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by badnarik

it isnt a collective regulation if i go and tear it down every night or don't let my kid play there, or if my kid is smart enough to stop playing on your monkey bars, although they do sound fun. i'm not talking about setting up a neighborhood watch for monkey bar violators, i'm talking about individuals making common sense decisions.

Right... but couldn't I just put the razor bars back up after you take them down every time? Should we have to rely on the kid being smart to not get hurt? Wouldn't it just be simpler to disallow razored monkey bars? That seems like the easiest, best way to ensure the safety of the children playing... much better, in my opinion, then letting a few of them kill themselves so the rest learn a lesson.

where would you draw the line of your trusted government's intervention?

I'd demand that, at the very least, the legislators who make up the government are directly elected by their constituents. And they are. I shudder to think what our environment would look like in 20-30 years (or now) without any kind of regulation to restrain corporate activities.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

The fact that people would come together to defend themselves against "security firms" killing people left and right and burning their houses. That would be common sense. No?

You mean like paying taxes to set up a non-biased protection force? Sounds familiar... Oh, just like a police force actually like we have right now.

I also wonder, how would such a country defend itself from attack?

Would fortune 500's all chip in and provide money for a standing peacetime army?

[Flame Of Liberty]

Caramon, I think that diferentiating between voluntary cooperation and forced inclusion of individuals into tax paying schemes would be a good start.

Now which one can provide security better? I think we can agree to disagree here.

[RedHot25]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

Seems clear cut to me. If you think your workplace is not safe, then why dont you...hmm...I dont know...quit? I dont see why this should be regulated at all.

[Red Mile Style]

Originally Posted by badnarik

i'm not trying to get rid of the legal system although it could surely be trimmed of things like drug laws.

I disagree with almost everything you have said in this thread but this.

Here's my two cents: When industries are regulated, the priority is to provide that good or service. However when private interests are involved, first and foremost comes profits before anything else. A great example that comes to mind is high-speed internet. You talk to anyone in rural Alberta and they will tell you that they have no access to high speed purely because the amount of money it would cost to provide this service would not be economically beneficial. However, in Sask. where the industry is government regulated, legislation was put into place years ago insuring every single rural community had access to the internet. You could rally everybody in rural Alberta and try to "regulate" it collectively like you are suggesting, but it wouldn't work because the final say comes from the almighty dollar.

I see how competition makes the market more efficient, but for some industries where people need that service I think everything should be done so everyone can afford it. In my mind, when a needed service is being provided without profit margins, that is the most efficient.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

You talk to anyone in rural Alberta and they will tell you that they have no access to high speed purely because the amount of money it would cost to provide this service would not be economically beneficial.

Better check up on that.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

It would be collectivised security, no? Thats not exactly 'individualistic', is it? And whose to say your community is strong enough to deny my security firm from burning down everything the community owns? If my firm is strong enough to overcome your people attempting to defend themselves, can't I just kill them all?

No it wouldnt be collectivist.

What if state army and state police decide they want to kill you and burn down your house? How are your regulations going to protect you? Its silly to make up examples how would private security fight each other killing whomever they want when it were state armies and police forces who killed most people in the history...

[Red Mile Style]

Originally Posted by Azure

Better check up on that.

My uncle lives literally five minutes out of Sherwood Park and complains about it all the time.

I am sure you are familiar with this thread:

http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showthr...speed+internet

It still isn't comparable to that available in urban centres.

[badnarik]

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

I disagree with almost everything you have said in this thread but this.

Here's my two cents: When industries are regulated, the priority is to provide that good or service. However when private interests are involved, first and foremost comes profits before anything else. A great example that comes to mind is high-speed internet. You talk to anyone in rural Alberta and they will tell you that they have no access to high speed purely because the amount of money it would cost to provide this service would not be economically beneficial. However, in Sask. where the industry is government regulated, legislation was put into place years ago insuring every single rural community had access to the internet. You could rally everybody in rural Alberta and try to "regulate" it collectively like you are suggesting, but it wouldn't work because the final say comes from the almighty dollar.

I see how competition makes the market more efficient, but for some industries where people need that service I think everything should be done so everyone can afford it. In my mind, when a needed service is being provided without profit margins, that is the most efficient.

well the whole thing seems very arbitrary to me. high speed internet doesn't strike me as a needed service. i guess maybe it just comes down to people wanting things, and wanting other people to pay for them. isn't that greed as well?

[badnarik]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Right... but couldn't I just put the razor bars back up after you take them down every time? Should we have to rely on the kid being smart to not get hurt? Wouldn't it just be simpler to disallow razored monkey bars? That seems like the easiest, best way to ensure the safety of the children playing... much better, in my opinion, then letting a few of them kill themselves so the rest learn a lesson.


I'd demand that, at the very least, the legislators who make up the government are directly elected by their constituents. And they are. I shudder to think what our environment would look like in 20-30 years (or now) without any kind of regulation to restrain corporate activities.

i dont remember how we got sidetracked on the monkey bars, which really isn't where i was hoping this thread would go, but obviously you think government should disallow everything that could potentially harm someone, whereas i think (most) people are smart enough to live their own lives. there's nothing wrong with a little natural selection either.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by badnarik

i dont remember how we got sidetracked on the monkey bars, which really isn't where i was hoping this thread would go, but obviously you think government should disallow everything that could potentially harm someone

Obviously I don't think that... cigarettes, sugar and salt are bad for people... I don't recall saying the government should ban those. Do you honestly feel so restricted in your life by government regulations that you don't feel 'free' to do what you want? What regulations are you chafing under?

whereas i think (most) people are smart enough to live their own lives. there's nothing wrong with a little natural selection either.

Right... natural selection probably dictates that people who are sterile, mentally disabled, physically disabled, etc., should basically lay down and die, rather than having government regulations artificially supporting their existence. Sounds like a pretty crappy society to me...

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

No it wouldnt be collectivist.

What if state army and state police decide they want to kill you and burn down your house? How are your regulations going to protect you? Its silly to make up examples how would private security fight each other killing whomever they want when it were state armies and police forces who killed most people in the history...

Because you seem to think in the Anarcho-Capitalist paradise people don't agress upon each other.

I asked a simple question twice in this thread. Who formulates and dictates law in your Utopia? Who enforces law? And don't give me some 'agression is illegitimate' jargon, I get that, what I don't get is how Anarcho-Capitalism deals with agression when it happens. You say you can hire a company to protect yourself, so I say I can hire a company to kill your company and you. What's to stop me? We're in anarchy, right? Why shouldn't I just take everything you have? Because its 'wrong'? People prove all over the world every day that just because something is wrong or right has no bearing on whether or not it happens. Crime and agression on an individual level is prevalent in nearly every society on earth. How does anarcho-capitalism remove that tendancy?

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

What if state army and state police decide they want to kill you and burn down your house? How are your regulations going to protect you?

In this society, if the army or police kill you and burn down your house, the legal system goes into effect. If the incident is found to be 'illegitimate agression', and the responsible individuals are prosecuted. That would be the regulations protecting you. Police/army do not have the ability in liberal-democratic nations to arbitrarily kill people without overwhelming reason (or by mistake), and are beholden to 'regulations' to either act accordingly or be prosecuted.

"Illegitimate agression" is present in both reality and your anarcho-capitalist utopia. Just because everything in your theory is 'voluntary' doesn't mean that somehow removes agression from our species (why would it?).

[Flame Of Liberty]

I am curious why do you think that I expect ancap society to be free of agression?

Agression happens and we have to deal with it. The government simply means that a group of people have a monopoly to use force against other people - how can that NOT be considered agression? Agrerssors protecting me against eventual agression? No thanks.

I will repeat it again - law and law enforcement can be "produced" in a stateless society. I think its pointless to elaborate (you can find more info on mises.org if you are interested) when its obvious you will never agree no matter what I say. I think its sufficient to argue about simplier things where more people will join the discussion.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

I am curious why do you think that I expect ancap society to be free of agression?

I'm curious as to how an ancap society protects against agression. It sounds like through private security firms. I've outlined the concerns I have with that.

Agression happens and we have to deal with it. The government simply means that a group of people have a monopoly to use force against other people - how can that NOT be considered agression? Agrerssors protecting me against eventual agression? No thanks.

So... essentially, the Canadian police forces are Agressors who have a monopoly of force and can violate your independence whenever they want? Thats great and all... but its wrong. They do not have a monopoly of force in the sense that they are inviolable. They can be prosecuted for breaking the regulations set upon them by society/government. Police (Agressors) can only exercise agression under specific circumstances, not whenever they want.

I will repeat it again - law and law enforcement can be "produced" in a stateless society. I think its pointless to elaborate (you can find more info on mises.org if you are interested) when its obvious you will never agree no matter what I say. I think its sufficient to argue about simplier things where more people will join the discussion.

Right... law enforcement can be 'produced' in the same way a private army can. Its not 'obvious that I won't agree no matter what you say'. If you say Anarcho-Capitalism is a utopian philosophy, I'd heartily agree, so lets not pretend like I'm nay-saying because I don't like you. I sincerely disagree with the realistic implications/applications of anarcho-capitalism.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

My uncle lives literally five minutes out of Sherwood Park and complains about it all the time.

I am sure you are familiar with this thread:

http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showthr...speed+internet

It still isn't comparable to that available in urban centres.

Of course its not comparable, unless you want to lay down the big bucks, which would make it comparable in speed alone.

You can still access it though.