5 ms·

All of those guarantees and checks can be facilitated by a private third party, and probably more efficiently.

by marknutter 13y ago

Nursie 13y ago
Yay! Libertarian talking points! I don't want to get into this, suffice to say I disagree.
- etherael 13y ago
  I don't want to get into this either, suffice to say you're wrong.
  - Nursie 13y ago
    No, I do actually disagree.
    - etherael 13y ago
      Of course, which is why you are wrong. It is not a matter of opinion or a political talking point, it is a statement of fact; all of those guarantees and checks can be facilitated by a private third party. The "probably better" part is at least up for debate but the simple truth of the statement that private third parties provide facilities as described is simply factual.
      - Nursie 13y ago
        I don't believe that guarantees can be provided in the same way by private third parties, sorry. Not with the same strength as can be provided by statute, not with the same consequences for those that deliberately transgress. Better/more efficient is also up for argument, but the main statement is not simply true. Sorry. Edit- by "not simply true" I mean up for debate and open to argument, not "false"
        marknutter 13y ago
        I can see your point about the teeth government regulation has over 3rd party regulation, but you do have to concede that for many benign products and services (that don't involve danger to life and limb) 3rd party rating services work quite well. The debate should be about whether or not the consumer has any teeth when it comes to rejecting unsafe or inferior products and services, and if those teeth are as sharp as the Government's.
        Nursie 13y ago
        I agree, many things can be done this way. I think that with drugs the dangers from contamination and fraud are serious enough to have some proper regulation. Slip-ups or profit-motivated cuts and substitutions cost lives, many lives. Of course some of this would be mitigated by removing the unnecessary anonymity factor from a legal silk road. I also like the idea of going to a shop and buying recognised brands of chemicals from well known companies. Total normalisation of the drug trade rather than sketchy, rep base forums. "Hullo pharmacist, I'd like a quarter gram of DiPT crystal please" "Certainly sir. Now you're not going to be mixing that with MDMA or other serotonergica are you? Nasty interactions I'm afraid. That'll be £12"
        etherael 13y ago
        Now you're talking about consequences and penalties, which has nothing to do with the original statement relating purely to assurances and validation and authentication of claims. You can argue on top of that a paramilitary organisation must exist so that such findings have any real world impact. Once again though that was not in the content of the original statement, and you might awkwardly find yourself supporting people trying to give teeth to what they believe to be extremely important things in various other ways you may not immediately see the parity with, but nonetheless spring from the exact same premise of implicitly desirable violent deterrence. For example, engaging the services of a professional killer to prevent a large number of customers who have trusted you and your business from being kidnapped and held in rape cages for an extended period of time.
        13y ago
      - atmosx 13y ago
        Sure and no one does it better than Goldman Sachs or the 7 sister companies rating Lehman triple As just minutes before its crash. Private third party is good, especially if you are the one who pays for the assignment. It accidentally delivers what suits you better, who would have thought?
        etherael 13y ago
        There's that "probably better" part of the debate. The fact that what happened, happened, though, is just further evidence of the fact that third party ratings agencies exist. Frankly, I do think they can be better than government alternatives, but I acknowledge it's open for debate, rather than the simple fact that they actually exist and operate. Keep in mind the government alternative in the scenario you're talking about is the SEC, and perhaps Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac who were actually involved in the disaster and several narratives exist in which they directly caused the disaster. The 2008 GFC as evidence of market regulation being essential is no knock-out punch, in fact it makes a pretty good point in a set of arguments as to why the inverse is true. Too big to fail, the government and fed response to the crisis, the government regulations which contributed to the fiasco in the first place, and the half assed regulation that served neither a free market nor a centrally planned economy that has been par for the course both before, during and after the crisis are good cases in point.

All of those guarantees and checks can be facilitated by a private third party, and probably more efficiently.

Nursie 13y ago

Yay! Libertarian talking points! I don't want to get into this, suffice to say I disagree.

etherael 13y ago
I don't want to get into this either, suffice to say you're wrong.
- Nursie 13y ago
  No, I do actually disagree.
  - etherael 13y ago
    Of course, which is why you are wrong. It is not a matter of opinion or a political talking point, it is a statement of fact; all of those guarantees and checks can be facilitated by a private third party. The "probably better" part is at least up for debate but the simple truth of the statement that private third parties provide facilities as described is simply factual.
    - Nursie 13y ago
      I don't believe that guarantees can be provided in the same way by private third parties, sorry. Not with the same strength as can be provided by statute, not with the same consequences for those that deliberately transgress. Better/more efficient is also up for argument, but the main statement is not simply true. Sorry. Edit- by "not simply true" I mean up for debate and open to argument, not "false"
      - marknutter 13y ago
        I can see your point about the teeth government regulation has over 3rd party regulation, but you do have to concede that for many benign products and services (that don't involve danger to life and limb) 3rd party rating services work quite well. The debate should be about whether or not the consumer has any teeth when it comes to rejecting unsafe or inferior products and services, and if those teeth are as sharp as the Government's.
        Nursie 13y ago
        I agree, many things can be done this way. I think that with drugs the dangers from contamination and fraud are serious enough to have some proper regulation. Slip-ups or profit-motivated cuts and substitutions cost lives, many lives. Of course some of this would be mitigated by removing the unnecessary anonymity factor from a legal silk road. I also like the idea of going to a shop and buying recognised brands of chemicals from well known companies. Total normalisation of the drug trade rather than sketchy, rep base forums. "Hullo pharmacist, I'd like a quarter gram of DiPT crystal please" "Certainly sir. Now you're not going to be mixing that with MDMA or other serotonergica are you? Nasty interactions I'm afraid. That'll be £12"
      - etherael 13y ago
        Now you're talking about consequences and penalties, which has nothing to do with the original statement relating purely to assurances and validation and authentication of claims. You can argue on top of that a paramilitary organisation must exist so that such findings have any real world impact. Once again though that was not in the content of the original statement, and you might awkwardly find yourself supporting people trying to give teeth to what they believe to be extremely important things in various other ways you may not immediately see the parity with, but nonetheless spring from the exact same premise of implicitly desirable violent deterrence. For example, engaging the services of a professional killer to prevent a large number of customers who have trusted you and your business from being kidnapped and held in rape cages for an extended period of time.
        13y ago
    - atmosx 13y ago
      Sure and no one does it better than Goldman Sachs or the 7 sister companies rating Lehman triple As just minutes before its crash. Private third party is good, especially if you are the one who pays for the assignment. It accidentally delivers what suits you better, who would have thought?
      - etherael 13y ago
        There's that "probably better" part of the debate. The fact that what happened, happened, though, is just further evidence of the fact that third party ratings agencies exist. Frankly, I do think they can be better than government alternatives, but I acknowledge it's open for debate, rather than the simple fact that they actually exist and operate. Keep in mind the government alternative in the scenario you're talking about is the SEC, and perhaps Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac who were actually involved in the disaster and several narratives exist in which they directly caused the disaster. The 2008 GFC as evidence of market regulation being essential is no knock-out punch, in fact it makes a pretty good point in a set of arguments as to why the inverse is true. Too big to fail, the government and fed response to the crisis, the government regulations which contributed to the fiasco in the first place, and the half assed regulation that served neither a free market nor a centrally planned economy that has been par for the course both before, during and after the crisis are good cases in point.