Alberta Government 2005 Budget Released

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally posted by Flame Of Liberty@Apr 21 2005, 12:17 PM

That would be an attack against property (body). Therefore it would be illegal. Don’t you think people would defend themselves against weirdos sticking needles into them?

Alright fair enough. But cigarettes are not an attack against property. They are a delivery mechanism for an addictive and harmful substance. I have no doubt that similar delivery mechanisms would be developed for equally as addictive drugs (or more addictive) that could have even worse effects. Such as putting these drugs into common good items. Even more scary, would be drugs that would allow mass brainwashing or things like that.

Advertising is currently regulated. Do you want to see subliminal advertising re-introduced?

I'll address some of your other points later when I get the chance.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally posted by Flame Of Liberty@Apr 21 2005, 12:17 PM
I never said they have. In fact, I don’t care. But as long as they want my money, they have to give me what I want.

What YOU want can be manipulated by advertising, by addiction, by coercion.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally posted by Flame Of Liberty@Apr 21 2005, 12:17 PM

Which is a good thing, no? Better than wasting them away? Besides, only owners of particular resources can use (not exploit) it. So people concerned about preserving particular resources (say rainforests) are free to buy them and keep them preserved.

Well I don't see how polluting and squandering our freshwater resources would be a good thing but I haven't checked out your PDF link yet...

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally posted by Flames Draft Watcher@Apr 21 2005, 04:33 PM
Alright fair enough. But cigarettes are not an attack against property. They are a delivery mechanism for an addictive and harmful substance.

Actually I think this is an interesting point. IMO under certain circumstances, cigarette smoke can be classified as an attack against property (non smoker, his health, clothes that now smell etc.), but you have to prove damages incurred.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Not surprising to find you descending to basic name-calling.

Not surprising, because it just riles me up when you repeat over and over that “FOL wants a lawless society where the guy with biggest gun takes everything.” No matter how many times I say that I do NOT advocate a lawless society, you will come back with same childish claims. How would YOU react if I kept repeating in every topic that Agamemnon wants to club seal pups?

Interestingly enough, the author of the article makes the same plain error that you made (most likely because you're simply repeating the article), stating that Standard Oil held only 11% of the market in 1911. I find it odd that such a reputable scholar would a) not footnote his work (making it a pure opinion peice)

As for the article, yes, it is an opinion piece. Author wrote several books on the topic, in case you become interested in the stuff he writes about in his article, you may check out his books/works (these are referenced). That’s why the article is not referenced (how often are daily opinion columns referenced?) but it does not mean it’s unfounded.

Lastly, if Microsoft had 100 percent market share, would that mean it’s a monopoly? No, it would mean that at this moment, it is the only seller on the OS market. However, because there are no legal entry barriers to the industry, Microsoft does not have a monopoly; it is simple one player on the market. That does not equal to monopoly.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally posted by Flame Of Liberty@Apr 21 2005, 12:17 PM

What detriment? Also, who is to say that pure focus on the bottom line is the only way to go? There are companies/people who do not measure success purely in terms of money. But even if they do, it’s their money and they are (should be) free to focus on whatever they want (as long as they don’t aggress against other persons property). I don’t see that as a problem, maybe you should clarify why you see that as a problem.

I've found that when money is the bottom line (which capitalism promotes IMO) that things like artistic creativity, variety, beauty, regard for the welfare of others, regard for the environment, regard for workers tend to be de-emphasized. Efficiency, taking shortcuts, cutting costs are emphasized. Obviously not in all cases but I think it's an easily notable trend.

One can easily see this when I look out my window in downtown Calgary. I'm confronted with boring architecture, small and cramped working environments (cubicles), offices with no sunlight, polluting machines on every street. I deal with people who work ridiculous hours in order to maintain a lifestyle that advertising and society (by providing examples of what success is and giving these examples in the form of idols like movie stars, athletes, etc) has brainwashed them into thinking they need. Cookie cutter homes are another example of the lack of variety and beauty because it costs more to make something unique.

I'm sure you'll argue that some of these effects are not a by-product of capitalism but to me a lot of them go hand in hand.

I'm not sure what your theories say about the exploitation of workers in the 3rd world currently but I'd be interested to hear it. That's another example of exploitation in a capitalist system.

Companies are set up to indulge/exploit the worst in humanity. Why do I pay for parking? Because I'm too lazy to walk to work. Do I want to pay for parking? No.

You don't want to pay taxes presumably (if I'm understanding you right.) But things like parking are essentially a tax to us. No one wants to pay it. It would appear you just want to transfer some of the things we are forced to pay in tax (health care, law enforcement, roads, etc) to a voluntary tax that the majority of us would end up paying for anyway.

Anyways, these are some random and poorly assembled thoughts but hopefully that conveys some of my concerns about out capitalist society and it's current problems. It just scares me that somebody wants to see capitalist principles ruling even more areas of our lives than it already does. I don't see it as the ideal, I'm not sure what is but I'm searching...

[moon]

Originally posted by Flames Draft Watcher@Apr 21 2005, 09:04 AM
I've found that when money is the bottom line (which capitalism promotes IMO) that things like artistic creativity, variety, beauty, regard for the welfare of others, regard for the environment, regard for workers tend to be de-emphasized. Efficiency, taking shortcuts, cutting costs are emphasized. Obviously not in all cases but I think it's an easily notable trend.

Sounds alright to me.

Especially if I am the one making the money.

[Agamemnon]

Not surprising, because it just riles me up when you repeat over and over that “FOL wants a lawless society where the guy with biggest gun takes everything.” No matter how many times I say that I do NOT advocate a lawless society, you will come back with same childish claims. How would YOU react if I kept repeating in every topic that Agamemnon wants to club seal pups?

You see, you keep attacking the 'real' world with your pie-in-the-sky philosophical utopianism solutions. Does the world suck, sure. Do governments steal (tax) money, sure. Is hoping for a reversion to 'Natural Law' an effective stance to take in dealing with these problems? Hell no. It's a leisurely debate in wonderland that is fine and fantastic if we're each talking about our 'dream' states, but what's the point? How would 'Natural Law' ever take the nation-state's position? Armageddon?

I keep saying you advocate a 'lawless society' because you don't address how 'laws' are to be enforced. You suggest that everyone will basically do unto others as they would have done to themselves. That's the golden rule _now_ for a couple billion Christians, and it doesn't seem to work much. You're advocating the lapse of public law and order in favour of... what? You never really say. Which is why I'll keep coming back to these 'realist' points, because you've completely ignored them.

As far as I'm concerned, you're like Plato trying to push the Republic. Fun to think about, but lacking any connection to the 'real world'. This stuff needs to be posted in a philosophy point of view, not political science. It has no place in 'politics', just in debates over beer.

As for the article, yes, it is an opinion piece. Author wrote several books on the topic, in case you become interested in the stuff he writes about in his article, you may check out his books/works (these are referenced). That’s why the article is not referenced (how often are daily opinion columns referenced?) but it does not mean it’s unfounded.

Any time numbers are taken and used as facts, they should probably be backed up. Since I see no source for his statistical claim, and have found other sources that site very different statistics, I'm forced to rule this guy out of order unless he actually divulges where he got the 11% figure from (which, again, is wrong).

Lastly, if Microsoft had 100 percent market share, would that mean it’s a monopoly? No, it would mean that at this moment, it is the only seller on the OS market. However, because there are no legal entry barriers to the industry, Microsoft does not have a monopoly; it is simple one player on the market. That does not equal to monopoly.

This is just hilarious as far as I'm concerned. You've more or less decided to change the definition of monopoly to suit your argument. You're implying that the state _must_ be involved in an enterprise for it to be a monopoly, and if its not, then no one 'monopolizes' the marketplace by definition. Your definition, I'd wager, is pretty narrow and fitted to your argument.

A business that is the sole supplier of a particular good or service. Regulated monopolies, such as electric utilities, are generally restricted as to the returns they are permitted to earn. Other monopolies such as firms with unique products or services derived from patents, copyrights, or geographic location may be able to earn very high returns. Wall Street Words.

Apparently monopolies can exist by virtue of 'patents, copyrights, or geographic location' in addition to government support.

[Flame Of Liberty]

You see, you keep attacking the 'real' world with your pie-in-the-sky philosophical utopianism solutions. Does the world suck, sure. Do governments steal (tax) money, sure. Is hoping for a reversion to 'Natural Law' an effective stance to take in dealing with these problems? Hell no. It's a leisurely debate in wonderland that is fine and fantastic if we're each talking about our 'dream' states, but what's the point? How would 'Natural Law' ever take the nation-state's position? Armageddon?

A long time ago, freedom for slaves was considered utopian. Now it is a reality. If those slaves and everyone who felt with them gave up and accepted “reality,” slaves would never be free.

I keep saying you advocate a 'lawless society' because you don't address how 'laws' are to be enforced. You suggest that everyone will basically do unto others as they would have done to themselves. That's the golden rule _now_ for a couple billion Christians, and it doesn't seem to work much. You're advocating the lapse of public law and order in favour of... what? You never really say. Which is why I'll keep coming back to these 'realist' points, because you've completely ignored them.

Defense and law enforcement can be supplied, like all other services, by the free market:

A supply of defense services on the free market would mean maintaining the axiom of the free society, namely, that there be no use of physical force except in defense against those using force to invade person or property. This would imply the complete absence of a State apparatus or government; for the State, unlike all other persons and institutions in society, acquires its revenue, not by exchanges freely contracted, but by a system of unilateral coercion called “taxation.” Defense in the free society (including such defense services to person and property as police protection and judicial findings) would therefore have to be supplied by people or firms who (a) gained their revenue voluntarily rather than by coercion and (b) did not—as the State does—arrogate to themselves a compulsory monopoly of police or judicial protection. Only such libertarian provision of defense service would be consonant with a free market and a free society. Thus, defense firms would have to be as freely competitive and as noncoercive against noninvaders as are all other suppliers of goods and services on the free market.

You don’t like that, that’s fine but it doesn’t mean it cannot be done only because you think it is utopian. I would think sending a probe to Mars it utopian, but it can be done and it was done.

Any time numbers are taken and used as facts, they should probably be backed up. Since I see no source for his statistical claim, and have found other sources that site very different statistics, I'm forced to rule this guy out of order unless he actually divulges where he got the 11% figure from (which, again, is wrong).

What’s wrong with you? His opinion article wasn’t sourced; his works/books going in depth about the same stuff are sourced.

This is just hilarious as far as I'm concerned. You've more or less decided to change the definition of monopoly to suit your argument. You're implying that the state _must_ be involved in an enterprise for it to be a monopoly, and if its not, then no one 'monopolizes' the marketplace by definition. Your definition, I'd wager, is pretty narrow and fitted to your argument.

A business that is the sole supplier of a particular good or service. Regulated monopolies, such as electric utilities, are generally restricted as to the returns they are permitted to earn. Other monopolies such as firms with unique products or services derived from patents, copyrights, or geographic location may be able to earn very high returns. Wall Street Words.

Apparently monopolies can exist by virtue of 'patents, copyrights, or geographic location' in addition to government support.

In that sense, everyone is a monopolist. Baker Jones is the sole supplier of Jones’s bread. Shoemaker Jim is the sole supplier of Jim’s shoes. How do you define homogeneous products/services? Is massage given by a leggy blonde the same service as a massage given by a stinky old fart? I don’t think so. How do you define relevant markets or geographical location? This “mainstream” definition is meaningless. And as for patents and copyrights – guess who grants them and enforces them? Oh yeah, the government does and in fact it is giving a monopolistic privilege to patent/copyright holders. This is the exact definition of monopoly I used.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally posted by Flame Of Liberty@Apr 22 2005, 02:48 PM
Defense and law enforcement can be supplied, like all other services, by the free market:

A supply of defense services on the free market would mean maintaining the axiom of the free society, namely, that there be no use of physical force except in defense against those using force to invade person or property. This would imply the complete absence of a State apparatus or government; for the State, unlike all other persons and institutions in society, acquires its revenue, not by exchanges freely contracted, but by a system of unilateral coercion called “taxation.” Defense in the free society (including such defense services to person and property as police protection and judicial findings) would therefore have to be supplied by people or firms who (a) gained their revenue voluntarily rather than by coercion and (b) did not—as the State does—arrogate to themselves a compulsory monopoly of police or judicial protection. Only such libertarian provision of defense service would be consonant with a free market and a free society. Thus, defense firms would have to be as freely competitive and as noncoercive against noninvaders as are all other suppliers of goods and services on the free market.

You don’t like that, that’s fine but it doesn’t mean it cannot be done only because you think it is utopian. I would think sending a probe to Mars it utopian, but it can be done and it was done.

I really don't see that as a realistic option. At some point the police service would be bought by some of the largest corporations around and then used a personal military while propaganda would be released to make it appear they are still objective and fair. Police would go to the highest bidder by virtue of the values you are suggesting (capitalism, free markets). Certainly your average citizen is not going to be able to pay them as much as a monopolistic corporation could. If there is no accountability to a higher institution (like gov't) then corruption will reign IMO.

I have to agree with Agamemnon. Your head is in the clouds. Human nature makes a lot of your philosophies improbable and unrealistic.

[Agamemnon]

A long time ago, freedom for slaves was considered utopian. Now it is a reality. If those slaves and everyone who felt with them gave up and accepted “reality,” slaves would never be free.

Equality on physiological grounds was/is inevitble. Is Natural Law inevtible? No. 'Natural Law', or a state of anarchy, had its heyday with the caveman. It's gone, and it's not coming back. Debating its finer points is, again, useless within the context of 'real life'.

A supply of defense services on the free market would mean maintaining the axiom of the free society, namely, that there be no use of physical force except in defense against those using force to invade person or property. This would imply the complete absence of a State apparatus or government; for the State, unlike all other persons and institutions in society, acquires its revenue, not by exchanges freely contracted, but by a system of unilateral coercion called “taxation.” Defense in the free society (including such defense services to person and property as police protection and judicial findings) would therefore have to be supplied by people or firms who (a) gained their revenue voluntarily rather than by coercion and (b) did not—as the State does—arrogate to themselves a compulsory monopoly of police or judicial protection. Only such libertarian provision of defense service would be consonant with a free market and a free society. Thus, defense firms would have to be as freely competitive and as noncoercive against noninvaders as are all other suppliers of goods and services on the free market.

Nice. Lets replace police and military services with mercenaries. Great plan, how could that ever go wrong. Please. This quote doesn't seem to address what happens when I hire my offensive contractor. Why would a company/entity not be free to provide, oh, say, assasination services? Without state regulation/control mechanisms, I see no reason for a company not to profitably hire itself out as a murder-for-pay enterprise. Apparently the only thing stopping this scenario in your utopia is a) natural good will toward one's fellow man and b) hiring mercenaries to defend yourself. This does not seem like an adequate solution to addressing public safety. I see a _lot_ more guns bought in this utopia.

What’s wrong with you? His opinion article wasn’t sourced; his works/books going in depth about the same stuff are sourced.

You claim, I believe, that you're in university, so you should probably be aware that it is not on the reader to research the source/fact you've cited, but rather on yourself. If you put out a number, with no backing, but insist its real, then find the source. It's not my job to hunt down your research for validity, that's why the author of a paper includes the footnotes, as opposed to the reader trying to hunt them down. That would be stupid. As far as I'm concerned, there is still no source for this other than your word, as I'm surely not going to do your work for you, sheesh. I'll choose to believe that the author actually has cited his work (and, AGAIN, the fact is erroneous, 11% is _wrong_), despite your shortcomings, but I'll point out that its a bad way to debate to simply claim the fact exists and make little effort to provide it.

In that sense, everyone is a monopolist. Baker Jones is the sole supplier of Jones’s bread. Shoemaker Jim is the sole supplier of Jim’s shoes. How do you define homogeneous products/services? Is massage given by a leggy blonde the same service as a massage given by a stinky old fart? I don’t think so. How do you define relevant markets or geographical location? This “mainstream” definition is meaningless.

One does not monopolize a brand, one owns a brand. Surely even you can see the difference between a brand and a product? Ford has a monopoly on Fords, but that's like saying I've got a monopoly on my own blood. It's circular and useless. Ford does _not_ have a monopoly on cars, obviously, and this is the product that would concern a serious economist.

And as for patents and copyrights – guess who grants them and enforces them? Oh yeah, the government does and in fact it is giving a monopolistic privilege to patent/copyright holders. This is the exact definition of monopoly I used.

Again, typically, you have not provided a definition for a monopoly. You're what I like to call a 'can't do' person. Instead of putting out a comprehensive idea on the way things should be, you constantly decry the way they are and whine for utopian change, but focus on the problems instead of the solutions. I'd have a whole lot more respect for your point of view if you'd actually provide concrete, realistic solutions to actual problems. As far as I'm concerned, as I've repeated over and over, your ideology is confined strictly to the realm of the imagination.

Just as Plato's Republic is interesting, but useless, so is your anarcho-capitalism.

I would think sending a probe to Mars it utopian, but it can be done and it was done.

Lol, yeah, and guess how that was accomplished. Through the harnessing of massive resources organized the only way possible; The State. Nice example.