Public vs. Private Business

[Andiferous]

And in addition, there is a difference between left and right.

I made that comment after being a bit stunned by this silly but interesting thread and realising very few here went above political north. I don't believe you are authoritarian - are you sure you disagree? To be honest, I am getting a bit tired of what is sometimes a sort of flippant right wing assumptions that left means authoritarianism (AKA communism). So I ask honestly.

 

[Ilikemustard]

To be honest, I am getting a bit tired of what is sometimes a sort of flippant right wing assumptions that left means authoritarianism

I don't conflate left-wing with authoritarianism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-libertarianism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivist_anarchism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomism

Most users on this board however, despite being left-wing, do not hold these views, even if some internet test tells them they do.
They may be centrists, but that is still too authoritarian for my liking.

Democratic based societies, indeed even in Communistic, theocratic, feudal, dictatorships and fascistic style governments, the state is regulated by the people - the methods are different in each, but they all require at least permissions of their populous to continue to exist.

Mmm, I knew the response would be something like this.

First, the democratic system is exceptionally flawed in basically every modern nation. Egyptians were forced to revolt just to get a new president, so clearly democracy is not working for them. A presidential candidate can lie through his teeth about his policies just to get elected, and then never see them through. And you have to put up with him for the next 4 years. I'm sure many of the people that voted for Bush did not want him to terrorize Iraq. Too bad, they don't have the control that they think they do. Elections are a false sense of security.

I'm just going to post these videos to save me rehashing their arguments.







Second, why not save a step and conclude that businesses are regulated by the people? Why not conclude that private enterprise is democracy and you vote with your money? There's no need to tack on this entity known as a state.

"If we conclude that God always existed, why not save a step and conclude that the universe always existed? There's no need for a creator, it was always here"

 

[Ilikemustard]

ok, heres my issue with that. private businesses competing require a free market- free meaning not only free from regulations and government interventions, but also meaning free from the intrusion of force and fraud. in order for private courts or police to compete then, they would have to be able to approach their customers and potential in an arena without the use of force/fraud. the minute one protective agency becomes more powerful than the others in an area, that goes out the window, because theres nothing stopping them from forcing people to do their will at gunpoint. alternately (probably more likely that one agency out and out gaining monopoly power) all the agencies operating in an area could band together and agree not to prosecute one another for committing violence against customers or issuing corrupt rulings. there would be no way for people to challenge this; they would be forced to obey or be killed.

Ok, so you're suggesting that police will form a cartel?

What do they gain from forming this cartel? As soon as they band together and create this monopoly on violence, people are no longer going to be willing to give them their money. So they have to forcibly take it from them. I posit that it would take more resources to steal money from the people than acting legitimately and being paid by people that are willing to give you their money. That is the only reason why the government even exists today, because people see it as a legitimate entity, and they think that the money it takes from them is being used responsibly. A police cartel would not be seen as legitimate. It simply could not function.

Added to this is the fact that one police firm has to convince the rest to join it in this cartel. Any intelligent businessman would know extortion would not be profitable for the reasons given above. So you're given the choice between joining this other firm (that you are in competition with) and expending a lot of resources in an attempt to set up an extortion racket that will very likely fail, or continuing to act legitimately and receiving people's money through fair trade. Which do you choose?

Also to be taken into account is the fact that this cartel must fight off the opposing police firms that did not wish to join it. This too would take many resources - The cartel would have no source of income throughout this 'war', while the legitimate police firms would still be receiving income from their willing customers. Who is going to run out of funds faster?

I cannot see a police cartel ever forming.

its much easier to limit the power of a government than it is to limit the power of a private agency competing against other private agencies

I don't see why. A government already has its monopoly on force, and can use it as it wishes without facing opposition (besides a revolt). A private agency must expend an incredibly large amount of resources in order to assert itself as a monopoly on force, it is just unachievable.

finally, and i think most importantly, all of this requires the concept of inviolable human rights to do a lot of work- the entire framework of anarchy/libertarianism is dependent on them

I'm not arguing that there is some magical force known as "human rights" that must be followed by everyone. Obviously this is unachievable without an equally magical entity to enforce those rights at all times. It's like walking up to a lion and reciting your rights in the hopes that it won't eat you, it's a matter of reality.

I *attest* that people desire protection and law, and through the laws of supply and demand, services providing protection and law will be supplied.

 

[AdmiralPeacock]

And in addition, there is a difference between left and right.

I made that comment after being a bit stunned by this silly but interesting thread and realising very few here went above political north. I don't believe you are authoritarian - are you sure you disagree? To be honest, I am getting a bit tired of what is sometimes a sort of flippant right wing assumptions that left means authoritarianism (AKA communism). So I ask honestly.

Communism doesn't necessarily involve authoritarianism - just that most real life examples of communisms were authoritarian. But yeah, it is annoying that right wingers assume I'm "pro-state" simply because I don't by into their hyperbole.

Democratic based societies, indeed even in Communistic, theocratic, feudal, dictatorships and fascistic style governments, the state is regulated by the people - the methods are different in each, but they all require at least permissions of their populous to continue to exist.

Mmm, I knew the response would be something like this.

First, the democratic system is exceptionally flawed in basically every modern nation. Egyptians were forced to revolt just to get a new president, so clearly democracy is not working for them. A presidential candidate can lie through his teeth about his policies just to get elected, and then never see them through. And you have to put up with him for the next 4 years. I'm sure many of the people that voted for Bush did not want him to terrorize Iraq. Too bad, they don't have the control that they think they do. Elections are a false sense of security.

I did say there were different methods - the threat of revolution is a control mechanism against any government; an extreme measure, but a measure never the less. Naturally I'm going to ignore your blatant simplification of the Egyptian situation.

I'm just going to post these videos to save me rehashing their arguments.

And I'm not going to bother watching them as you can't be bother to articulate your own opinion.

Second, why not save a step and conclude that businesses are regulated by the people? Why not conclude that private enterprise is democracy and you vote with your money? There's no need to tack on this entity known as a state.

-snort- we've already covered this earlier - I'm so not interested in repeating myself.

 

[Gnug215]

Take US health care vs. public healthcare in the EU: Is one 100% better than the other in every way?

I want to point out that comparing EU vs US healthcare is not comparing a socialist policy with a free market one: US healthcare is in no way "free market", it is perverted by state intervention.

Well, just as the EU system is perverted by private business.

Incidentally, using "perverted" as a value qualifier in this debate is problematic. I'd say it's a bit like when a theist argues with atheists, calling them "Godless, loveless", and then just letting that sit there, as if nothing happened. (I remember VFX always talking about how he wanted to be friends with atheists, and then in the next breath saying that atheists had no love, and lots of other fun stuff.)

Anyway, my point is that many would argue that state intervention isn't a perversion - especially from the position of regulation.

And with that onto the next point:

The libertarian side seems to be arguing from the position that, first of all, everyone would function to the best of their abilities without regulations. I simply don't think this is the case, but it's hard to provide any conclusive evidence here.

Simple question, if business is being regulated by the state, who's regulating the state?

Kind of like that question... If God created everything, who created God?

Much as one could say that it was actually people that created God...

Seriously, though. I'm sure you know this, and it's already been pointed in a previous post, but it's the people. People ARE the state.

The state is what would regulate a business to avoid, say, harming people with some product, because the people want the state to make sure that task is being done. They want this task done BEFORE market forces would "regulate" such a product off the market.

Anyway, my point is not to champion one side of this, but rather to point out how both need each other, and that going to any extreme very likely would end very badly, because the inefficiencies and dangers of one side seem to be balanced by the other.

I guess the main arguments actually come down to the state being "inefficient if lacking private initiative", and private business being "harmful if unregulated by state".

 

[Andiferous]

Communism doesn't necessarily involve authoritarianism - just that most real life examples of communisms were authoritarian. But yeah, it is annoying that right wingers assume I'm "pro-state" simply because I don't by into their hyperbole.

Perhaps do the test for fun?

I'm curious. And I was not making that assumption about communism myself. I've actually discussed it way too much. - or Marxism in particular.

I suspect the argument on libertarianism is a red herring.

 

[AdmiralPeacock]

Communism doesn't necessarily involve authoritarianism - just that most real life examples of communisms were authoritarian. But yeah, it is annoying that right wingers assume I'm "pro-state" simply because I don't by into their hyperbole.

Perhaps do the test for fun?

I'm curious. And I was not making that assumption about communism myself. I've actually discussed it way too much. - or Marxism in particular.

I suspect the argument on libertarianism is a red herring.

Heh I've done that test many times - the closest I've ever gotten to the Right and Authoritarian was slightly West and South of Center.

 

[Ilikemustard]

Seriously, though. I'm sure you know this, and it's already been pointed in a previous post

I answered that post

People ARE the state.

If you're a small business and a mafia proposes to you "we will provide you with protection if you give us a percentage of your income, if you don't we will destroy your business", would you claim that you, and the other businesses and people that the mafia 'protects', are the mafia? Of course you are not the mafia. Call this hyperbole if you will, but it's a very valid point. You are not the state. You believe you have a small semblance of control over the state with your vote (which in my other post I showed why this is meaningless anyway), but you are not the state.

The state is what would regulate a business to avoid, say, harming people with some product, because the people want the state to make sure that task is being done. They want this task done BEFORE market forces would "regulate" such a product off the market.

I'm not seeing the necessity of the state in this instance. A business doesn't want to harm its customers, otherwise it will lose those customers. If it does anyway, the people injured can sue the business, giving it more incentive not to harm its customers. A state doing this regulation before market forces do so is arbitrary and pointless. You're giving money to some enterprise to do something that would be done anyway, it's a waste of resources.

 

[Ilikemustard]

But yeah, it is annoying that right wingers assume I'm "pro-state" simply because I don't by into their hyperbole

Well now you're assuming that all right-wingers are anti-state. So you're committing the same mistake you are against.

Regardless, you are arguing in favour of the state. What would you like to be referred to as?

 

[AdmiralPeacock]

But yeah, it is annoying that right wingers assume I'm "pro-state" simply because I don't by into their hyperbole

Well now you're assuming that all right-wingers are anti-state. So you're committing the same mistake you are against.

I said nothing of the sort - I said right wingers assume I'm pro-state, I did not say they were by default anti-state. duh.

Regardless, you are arguing in favour of the state. What would you like to be referred to as?

Think it as more arguing against your position rather than for a position.

 

[Gnug215]

Seriously, though. I'm sure you know this, and it's already been pointed in a previous post

I answered that post

I'll just quote that here:

First, the democratic system is exceptionally flawed in basically every modern nation. Egyptians were forced to revolt just to get a new president, so clearly democracy is not working for them. A presidential candidate can lie through his teeth about his policies just to get elected, and then never see them through. And you have to put up with him for the next 4 years. I'm sure many of the people that voted for Bush did not want him to terrorize Iraq. Too bad, they don't have the control that they think they do. Elections are a false sense of security.

A few points about this:
The Egyptians revolting against the democracy that isn't working for them are asking for...? Democracy. I'm not sure how democratic their democracy has been, but I'm thinking it's not been particularly democratic with the same guy in power for 30 years.

I think going into a discussion about whether or not democracy is flawed or not is a bit of a derailment. It doesn't seem like anyone else in here feels there is a better alternative, even though we are quite aware of the flaws with democracy.

People ARE the state.

If you're a small business and a mafia proposes to you "we will provide you with protection if you give us a percentage of your income, if you don't we will destroy your business", would you claim that you, and the other businesses and people that the mafia 'protects', are the mafia? Of course you are not the mafia. Call this hyperbole if you will, but it's a very valid point. You are not the state. You believe you have a small semblance of control over the state with your vote (which in my other post I showed why this is meaningless anyway), but you are not the state.

Your valid point gets a bit drowned in hyperbole, yes. The state may be a behemoth that you have not wanted to create, but it is a tyranny of the majority, rather than a minority like the mafia, so to speak.
Referring to the state as some kind of impersonal entity is also hyperbole which distorts this debate. I may not have the control over the state that I like, but the state is not totally uneffected by the people, as you make it sound. I really think you're exaggerating with a lot of things here, talking in absolutes, and it invalidates many of the points you want to make which I think would be quite valid if not exaggerated nearly to the point of untruth.

So yes, I think people are the state, and the state will reflect the wishes of the people in some way or other. Considering that not two people are truly alike, it is only to be expected that the state will often behave in a way that is unpopular to many.

The state is what would regulate a business to avoid, say, harming people with some product, because the people want the state to make sure that task is being done. They want this task done BEFORE market forces would "regulate" such a product off the market.

I'm not seeing the necessity of the state in this instance. A business doesn't want to harm its customers, otherwise it will lose those customers. If it does anyway, the people injured can sue the business, giving it more incentive not to harm its customers. A state doing this regulation before market forces do so is arbitrary and pointless. You're giving money to some enterprise to do something that would be done anyway, it's a waste of resources.

I think you have been demonizing the state to the point of untruth, and here I think you're idealizing private business to the point of untruth.

Just like the state, private business consists of people, and is thus imperfect. You seem to be idealizing private business as some kind of entity that has the sole goal of creating a perfect product for everyone, with the only minor drawback of having to make a profit as well. (In that case, I could just as well idealize the state with a claim that the state only wants to protect everyone and make the world a better place, with the minor drawback of you having to accept the state and pay taxes.)

Some questions to point out what I think are problems with this:
Has regulation and laws never made sure that safety was prioritized by private business?

Has private business ever made a dangerous product that has been, or might have been, stopped by regulation?

Would private business, if unregulated, not be tempted to make a quick buck by slacking with quality?

Since private business consists of people, could a person not exploit the system to make money through a business, and then jump out of that business again without any further repercussion?

While you mention suing as a solution to this, is that not "just" a kind of regulation-after-the-fact? After the damage has been done? Would it not be feasible to have some regulation before the fact, as we have now?

Since it sounds like you're saying that the system of law would be intact in "your society" with a much smaller state, how can you be so sure of this when it is the state that enforces these laws? If the state were cut down severely, would its power to enforce laws not diminish significantly?
(Note, I'm not fully aware of your position on this, so if this is a total strawmen, I apologize and hope you can clarify. To me, the ramifications of this are not really transparent at all, since it's all so integrated and, well, entangled, for better or worse.)

We see a lot of dishonest businesses today, in greater and lesser form, would this not just increase if regulation was diminished?

Since something like sugar in great quantities is harmful, and that many people are demonstrably too stupid/ignorant to realize this and do something about it, how do you sugges that a societal tragedy like mass obesity be solved?
(If the state is the regulatory tyrrany that you seem to suggest, why do Coca Cola and McDonalds even exist today? And if we live in such a capitalist society, why hasn't that managed to solve the problem either - assuming that is "supposed" to solve the problem? Or is it the fact that the two are in bed together exactly the reason why they still exist?)

Before answering these, if you're bothered, be sure to keep in mind that you and I are arguing from different positions, where I, as I've mentioned earlier, DO in fact think that people have some power over the state. If you feel that people have NO power over the state, then I'm sure you can see that the argumentation will be skewed, and I probably won't be able to accept any of your arguments if they take that, in my mind, extreme position as their basis.

 

[Gnug215]

Regardless, you are arguing in favour of the state. What would you like to be referred to as?

Think it as more arguing against your position rather than for a position.

So.... anti-anti-state?

Agnostic-state?

Seriously, though, it does seem like some kind of term is needed here.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

So.... anti-anti-state?

Agnostic-state?

Seriously, though, it does seem like some kind of term is needed here.

"Conservative" is already taken, but is otherwise accurate.

 

[AdmiralPeacock]

So.... anti-anti-state?

Agnostic-state?

Seriously, though, it does seem like some kind of term is needed here.

How about counter-anti-state?

Heh - it's not really reflective of my actual political position - just the position I'm arguing from in this discussion; it's more of position in opposition to another; I do not necessarily support what they view as their opposition, merely that I oppose their argument.

Example: Person A asserts that Windows operating Systems are the best and Mac operating Systems suck; I can oppose the idea of Windows being the best without necessarily supporting the idea that Mac doesn't suck.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Here's where I stand on the whole anti-government, "anti-state" position: it is not only childish and immature, it also displays a deep ignorance of history. The immaturity comes from the reflexive 'governments are evil, regulations are bad, taxes are theft' nonsense, that is really 'WAAAAAAAAHHH! Why do i have to follow rules or pay for things?!?!" crybaby BS. We know that it is all just an excuse for selfishness and abusive behavior without rules to get in the way.

The ignorance of history is really worse, because we know that people can be emotionally and ethically stunted and still educate themselves... and this ignorance is willful, because understanding history destroys these sort of anti-social 'libertarian' positions. It is an outgrowth of the immaturity, and the two go hand-in-hand. Government regulations, taxation, and all the rest weren't enacted out of capriciousness or to suppress freedom or attack capitalism. They were generally created to address specific issues in society that created such strongly negative outcomes that solutions were necessary. Those issues were NOT being addressed by 'God', 'Santa', 'free markets' or any other mythical non-existent entities. Since no one else was creating solutions, government stepped in for the benefit of society as a whole. If you look at history, workplace safety regulations were enacted because companies were willing to injure or kill their employees to make a buck. Regulations on product safety were created because companies were willing to injure or kill their customers to make a buck. America's golden years of a strong middle class and general prosperity, the ones that everyone is so nostalgic for, were the result of high taxation and strong government regulation of businesses. We've seen over the past few decades that weakening regulation and lower taxation has been disastrous for the vast majority of people.

So, strong regulation and higher taxes produce happier, healthier, more successful societies. Weaker regulation and lower taxes create less happy, less healthy, and less successful societies. How can anyone with an ounce of sense believe that even weaker regulation and even lower taxes will somehow produce better outcomes, when we've seen what that looks like? It is like claiming that since a few beers make you a little drunk, and a few more beers make you more drunk, there is an even greater amount of beer that will make you sober.

 

[Gnug215]

So, strong regulation and higher taxes produce happier, healthier, more successful societies. Weaker regulation and lower taxes create less happy, less healthy, and less successful societies. How can anyone with an ounce of sense believe that even weaker regulation and even lower taxes will somehow produce better outcomes, when we've seen what that looks like? It is like claiming that since a few beers make you a little drunk, and a few more beers make you more drunk, there is an even greater amount of beer that will make you sober.

Well... you'd essentially be sober if you're dead, right?

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Well... you'd essentially be sober if you're dead, right?

Well... if you've turned your country into Somalia, you've got no complaints as long as you're the warlord, right? And if you're not the warlord, you get shot if you complain so pretty soon there are no complains at all.

:facepalm:

Nature abhors a vacuum. If you take out the power of the government to balance the power of corporations and billionaires, the society doesn't find some sort of magical balance because the 'free market' fairy waves its magic wand and makes everything wonderful. The rich and powerful simply set up a virtual monarchy.

 

[Ilikemustard]

Similarly, a private court would probably favor repeat customers, which would almost invariably be businesses and people who make profit off lawsuits. The court would act simply as a method of extortion.

Please critique my proposed method of dealing with corrupt courts. I already acknowledged that many will argue that courts will favour repeat customers, and I devised a solution to this.

So people who can't afford to hire police are free to be enslaved or eaten? Homeless buffet?

No... There are many ways poor people can attain protection. Let's put this into another context, though. If you were arguing with someone who lived in a nation where food was socialised, they could use the same argument you have used. "What about the poor that cannot afford food, they will starve to death!". We know from history that socialising food in fact causes famine, and starves more people than free trade of food ever could. I'm pretty sure the USA is the first nation in history where the lower-class could achieve obesity. We know poor people won't starve to death, because not all food costs the same amount, and extremely cheap food exists. The same would be true of protection firms, some would be a lot cheaper than others, and would target the 'poor' area of the market. It's also a given that protection, along with every other resource, will be more readily available in a system of free trade than a socialised one.

If you are honestly so poor that you cannot afford even the cheapest police service, then you could form neighbourhood watch groups. This is already done in areas where crime is high and availability of (socialised) police service is low. I also already mentioned charity.

So I pose to you this question: Why are you in favour of socialised police but not socialised food, when food is many times more important for survival?

I don't see police here, I see gangs. Someone with more money (though how money will even mean anything in your system I can't fathom) than you hires better police than yours and tells them you took his shit. His police get in a conflict with yours and open fire. His police win. Your shit belongs to him now. What's the difference between private police and hit men? Your whole system is begging to be ruled by a mob boss.

Except that would be extortion and extortion isn't profitable. If a police force goes around stealing people's shit illegitimately like this, they're going to face opposition. Opposition from courts, other police forces, and people/activists. They have to expend resources in order to overcome this opposition. The resources required to do this would be immense, the investment would not be worth the return. Added to this they will acquire a terrible reputation, and a poor reputation means lost customers.

Your argument can be applied to state police anyway. I bribe a few cops, they plant evidence and have you arrested, and I get your shit.

So yes, I think people are the state, and the state will reflect the wishes of the people in some way or other. Considering that not two people are truly alike, it is only to be expected that the state will often behave in a way that is unpopular to many.

Except the state doesn't exactly follow the majority's opinion. A majority of americans oppose the healthcare reform. In fact a judge declared the healthcare reform unconstitutional, basically meaning it is illegal. But it was done anyway. A state will try to get away with as much as it can without inciting a revolution.
And once again, voting is an illusory feeling of security and control over your government. Changing presidents changes very little. I hope you watched those two videos.

Just like the state, private business consists of people, and is thus imperfect

Unlike a state, a private business relies on reputation and the willingness of its customers to give it money rather than its competitors. It has incentive to make a good product, and incentive to make it efficiently without wasting resources. A state receives revenue through tax, and as such is not in economic competition, does not need to be efficient in order to make a profit, nor does it need to keep its 'customers' happy. (to the point of revolt of course)

Has regulation and laws never made sure that safety was prioritized by private business?

I never argued this.

What regulation does do, however, is manipulate the market in a way that makes a few obscenely rich while the rest have difficulty even entering the market. This is known as "barriers to entry". An incumbent firm will lobby the state to introduce laws that make it difficult for other firms to compete with them. This is what creates monopolies, and the free market is too often blamed for the damage caused by regulatory barriers to entry.

http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DEC/Resources/Entrepreneurship_KLR.pdf

"To summarize our results, we find that entry regulations hamper entry, especially in
industries that naturally should have high entry. Also, the value added by naturally 'high-entry'
industries grows more slowly in countries with high entry barriers. The effect is primarily seen
for older firms suggesting that entry barriers mute the disciplining effect of competition. Taken
together, all this suggests entry regulations are neither benign nor welfare improving."

Intervention in the market also allows for socialization of losses, through entities such as Fannie Mae.

State regulation is a waste of resources and far too prone to corruption to be of any use.

Has private business ever made a dangerous product that has been, or might have been, stopped by regulation?

Probably. And I bet it ruined them financially. A better question is "has a private business ever made a dangerous product intentionally"?

Would private business, if unregulated, not be tempted to make a quick buck by slacking with quality?

I suspect a few might try it at first. They wouldn't be competitive, however, and they would have to start increasing quality or face financial ruin at the hands of their competitors. As I've said, businesses want customers. Businesses lose customers when they produce poor quality good/services.

Since private business consists of people, could a person not exploit the system to make money through a business, and then jump out of that business again without any further repercussion?

That's a rather vague question, how does one "exploit the system"?

While you mention suing as a solution to this, is that not "just" a kind of regulation-after-the-fact? After the damage has been done? Would it not be feasible to have some regulation before the fact, as we have now?

The prospect of losing customers or being sued is the regulation before the fact. You don't need 'before-the-fact' regulation to stop you from jumping into a meat-grinder, the prospect of being ground up prevents you from doing so.

Since it sounds like you're saying that the system of law would be intact in "your society" with a much smaller state, how can you be so sure of this when it is the state that enforces these laws? If the state were cut down severely, would its power to enforce laws not diminish significantly?

Have you read my comment on page 8? It outlines how I believe law would be enforced in a stateless society.

We see a lot of dishonest businesses today, in greater and lesser form, would this not just increase if regulation was diminished?

This is just weasel words really... Who is 'we', and where do 'we' see these dishonest businesses? What makes a business dishonest? I see a lot of dishonest politicians. Would the number of dishonest politicians not decrease with statelessness?

Since something like sugar in great quantities is harmful, and that many people are demonstrably too stupid/ignorant to realize this and do something about it, how do you sugges that a societal tragedy like mass obesity be solved?

We don't solve it. If people are too stupid to not eat healthily, that's their problem. If they truly want help with their obesity, I'm sure there will be a number of private businesses that specialise in giving advice on weight-loss and healthy diets. In fact they already exist today. Jenny-Craig, etc...

Alcohol is harmful as well. But you can't really force people to stop drinking alcohol, as the USA's 1920 ban has shown. The war on drugs has failed utterly. You simply can't tell people what they're allowed to put in their bodies, that's their own responsibility.

If the state is the regulatory tyrrany that you seem to suggest, why do Coca Cola and McDonalds even exist today? And if we live in such a capitalist society, why hasn't that managed to solve the problem either - assuming that is "supposed" to solve the problem? Or is it the fact that the two are in bed together exactly the reason why they still exist?

I don't know what you mean by this.

 

[Ilikemustard]

The immaturity comes from the reflexive 'governments are evil, regulations are bad, taxes are theft' nonsense, that is really 'WAAAAAAAAHHH! Why do i have to follow rules or pay for things?!?!" crybaby BS. We know that it is all just an excuse for selfishness and abusive behavior without rules to get in the way.

Have you ever wondered why I and others in favour of economic freedom have stopped replying to you?

 

[Andiferous]

Gnug, you do work too hard but feel free to take a break from the economics forum for a little. It'll still be here later. Have a soda and some cake.

At worst we'll charge admission, but let us discuss this later.

That said, I really don't understand exactly what the debate is about at this point -please if you will is there a summary of point in question? I may be dense, but it may also be possible that no one agrees on what the argument is about - and it would help me follow.