3 ms·

For me to have 100% freedom of my property, it must be legal for me to bribe government officials, foreign and domestic, in order to gain an advantage. That's c

by cmurf 7y ago

For me to have 100% freedom of my property, it must be legal for me to bribe government officials, foreign and domestic, in order to gain an advantage. That's certainly anti-competitive behavior. Competition law, consumer protection law, absolutely limits freedom of property. You don't get to say anything you want about the merits of your product. You don't get to artificially create scarcity in order to drive up prices. To have 100% freedom using my property however I want, I can commit fraud. Clearly anti-fraud laws are in conflict with that. The world and the US had monopolies well before there were strong regulatory regimes. Businesses variably ask for regulation to give them more legitimacy when they've betrayed trust, and they ask for regulation to create barriers to market entry by competitors, and so on. I disagree all of the problems are new or that they exist only because of government regulation. The pure free market nonsense is exactly that, nonsense.

ernst_klim 7y ago
>For me to have 100% freedom of my property, it must be legal for me to bribe government officials, foreign and domestic, in order to gain an advantage. So for you to have 100% freedom of your property mean to let the government to do whatever it wants with your property if somebody bribed it? >well before there were strong regulatory regimes. When, exactly, were times before there were strong regulatory regimes? You know that monarchies of the past were significantly more invasive than the contemporary liberal democracies, right?
- cmurf 7y ago
  No, I mean to say the notion of having 100% freedom of one's property is delusional. It's socially unworkable. You don't even have to go into the distant past to find an example of an unregulated industry. Payday lenders. https://www.responsiblelending.org/research-publication/map-us-payday-interest-rates https://www.responsiblelending.org/research-publication/map-...
- sandworm101 7y ago
  >> You know that monarchies of the past were significantly more invasive than the contemporary liberal democracies, right? "By 1775, the British government was consuming one-fifth of its citizens’ GDP, while New Englanders were only paying between 1 and 2 percent of their income in taxes." https://foreignpolicy.com/2012/07/03/tea-taxes-and-the-revolution/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2012/07/03/tea-taxes-and-the-revol... The level of invasion is hard to equate given the centuries, but safe to say that pre-revolution Americans paid far far less in tax. And there weren't police officers like today. I'd say, for the common man in america, the pre-revolution monarchy was much less invasive than our government today.
  - ernst_klim 7y ago
    >pre-revolution Americans paid far far less in tax. If you are estimating the invasiveness of government in taxes, you are wrong. We are talking about regulations. Back in the days, much of the big biz couldn't simply exist without a patronizing king and monopoly rights. Since you are talking about the US colony, let's take a look at the East India Company as an example. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_India_Company https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_India_Company It was allowed by the Queen, since none busyness could be started without it. It was frequently intervened by the crown, despite the crown had no share. Back in the days the king had almost ultimate rule over any busyness, and could establish monopolies like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_copyright_law#Early_privileges_and_monopolies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_copyright_law#Early... >Early copyright privileges were called "monopolies," particularly during the reign of Queen Elizabeth, who frequently gave grants of monopolies in articles of common use, such as salt, leather, coal, soap, cards, beer, and wine. The practice was continued until the Statute of Monopolies was enacted in 1623, ending most monopolies, with certain exceptions, such as patents; after 1623, grants of Letters patent to publishers became common.

by cmurf 7y ago

ernst_klim 7y ago

>For me to have 100% freedom of my property, it must be legal for me to bribe government officials, foreign and domestic, in order to gain an advantage. So for you to have 100% freedom of your property mean to let the government to do whatever it wants with your property if somebody bribed it? >well before there were strong regulatory regimes. When, exactly, were times before there were strong regulatory regimes? You know that monarchies of the past were significantly more invasive than the contemporary liberal democracies, right?

cmurf 7y ago
No, I mean to say the notion of having 100% freedom of one's property is delusional. It's socially unworkable. You don't even have to go into the distant past to find an example of an unregulated industry. Payday lenders. https://www.responsiblelending.org/research-publication/map-us-payday-interest-rates https://www.responsiblelending.org/research-publication/map-...
sandworm101 7y ago
>> You know that monarchies of the past were significantly more invasive than the contemporary liberal democracies, right? "By 1775, the British government was consuming one-fifth of its citizens’ GDP, while New Englanders were only paying between 1 and 2 percent of their income in taxes." https://foreignpolicy.com/2012/07/03/tea-taxes-and-the-revolution/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2012/07/03/tea-taxes-and-the-revol... The level of invasion is hard to equate given the centuries, but safe to say that pre-revolution Americans paid far far less in tax. And there weren't police officers like today. I'd say, for the common man in america, the pre-revolution monarchy was much less invasive than our government today.
- ernst_klim 7y ago
  >pre-revolution Americans paid far far less in tax. If you are estimating the invasiveness of government in taxes, you are wrong. We are talking about regulations. Back in the days, much of the big biz couldn't simply exist without a patronizing king and monopoly rights. Since you are talking about the US colony, let's take a look at the East India Company as an example. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_India_Company https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_India_Company It was allowed by the Queen, since none busyness could be started without it. It was frequently intervened by the crown, despite the crown had no share. Back in the days the king had almost ultimate rule over any busyness, and could establish monopolies like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_copyright_law#Early_privileges_and_monopolies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_copyright_law#Early... >Early copyright privileges were called "monopolies," particularly during the reign of Queen Elizabeth, who frequently gave grants of monopolies in articles of common use, such as salt, leather, coal, soap, cards, beer, and wine. The practice was continued until the Statute of Monopolies was enacted in 1623, ending most monopolies, with certain exceptions, such as patents; after 1623, grants of Letters patent to publishers became common.