4 ms·

I agree. But nobody asks people to do that. I'm just saying that consumer protection agencies could inform people "hey, this is an unreliable business, don't bu

by snitko 13y ago

I agree. But nobody asks people to do that. I'm just saying that consumer protection agencies could inform people "hey, this is an unreliable business, don't buy from it". Then people would be able to choose among various consumer protection agencies they trust. Government is just a giant monopoly on the consumer protection market and the one that also has the power to shut businesses down, leaving even less choice to consumers. Now consumers cannot even make the choice of trusting or not trusting the government on its decision.

dkuntz2 13y ago
And those agencies, they're all working for the consumers best interests and not their own, as is what the system you're advocating for would dictate they do without regulation, something your arguing against? Who's going to create those agencies? In your advocated system the companies being investigated are the ones more likely to make the agencies than outside individuals because their isn't enough incentive to enter that market. Especially because without regulation companies can decide to open their facilities to agencies that are on good terms with the companies in question.
- snitko 13y ago
  You're right, I'm sorry. Having one centralized consumer protection agency with the power to shut businesses down, an agency that people cannot stop paying to (with their tax money) will create less possibilities for corruption and more choice for the consumer.
  - dkuntz2 13y ago
    Have I argued for centralized power? The problem you have is that you can't see a situation where people aren't consumers, and where the acquisition of wealth isn't the only goal of everyone. The problem is that the current system encourages corporations instead of cooperatives. Treating humanity like a collection of profit-maximizing individualists means the only possible solution to you is more competition. Were humanity only a collection of profit-maximizing individualists we'd still be uneducated cavemen. Society moves forwards because it realizes that it needs to work together. Did the Great Depression occur because of too much governmental power? Did the 2008 crash occur because of too much regulation?
    - snitko 13y ago
      > Have I argued for centralized power? Then what are you arguing for? My understanding is that you say free market cannot be better than having some degree of regulation. Regulation assumes government, doesn't it?
      - dkuntz2 13y ago
        You're equating regulation and centralization. You're also equating refutation of your points as taking a position completely opposite your points. If you take even a tiny look at the rest of what I had to say (which you also neglected to respond to) my argument is collectivization, which is not the same thing as centralization.
        snitko 13y ago
        How can you achieve collectivization without any central entity like government enforcing it? And what exactly do you mean by collectivization in the context of the subject being discussed? (I saw your comment and questions above, in the other thread, but I cannot answer them until I understand this one better).
        dkuntz2 13y ago
        You have government, just not centralized. Collectivize on a local level, and form a confederation of localities, giving localities more power. Additionally, and I've said it before, replace corporations with cooperatives. This is the more important part, you need to get rid of the idea that an individual can exist without society and outside of society. If everyone thought that individual wealth and profit-maximizing were the most important things higher education (and most education) along with a host of other institutions and almost every social institution wouldn't exist. And while I understand that a good deal of people are arguing against social institutions, they forget that wouldn't have received the same education they did. If everyone was wealth-maximizing most professors wouldn't be professors because they're able to make more working in private industry. The same is equally true for a large number of public educators, at least in the hard sciences. Education is considered a great equalizer. Society cannot get better if we privatize education, meaning only the rich can afford high quality education (and this is a problem that America is experiencing today). If only the upper classes can pay for high quality education the education gap widens, and it becomes nigh impossible for someone to be upwardly mobile. And that's where my main problem with the American Libertarian movement, privatizing everything can at best keep society stagnant.

by snitko 13y ago

dkuntz2 13y ago

And those agencies, they're all working for the consumers best interests and not their own, as is what the system you're advocating for would dictate they do without regulation, something your arguing against? Who's going to create those agencies? In your advocated system the companies being investigated are the ones more likely to make the agencies than outside individuals because their isn't enough incentive to enter that market. Especially because without regulation companies can decide to open their facilities to agencies that are on good terms with the companies in question.

snitko 13y ago
You're right, I'm sorry. Having one centralized consumer protection agency with the power to shut businesses down, an agency that people cannot stop paying to (with their tax money) will create less possibilities for corruption and more choice for the consumer.
- dkuntz2 13y ago
  Have I argued for centralized power? The problem you have is that you can't see a situation where people aren't consumers, and where the acquisition of wealth isn't the only goal of everyone. The problem is that the current system encourages corporations instead of cooperatives. Treating humanity like a collection of profit-maximizing individualists means the only possible solution to you is more competition. Were humanity only a collection of profit-maximizing individualists we'd still be uneducated cavemen. Society moves forwards because it realizes that it needs to work together. Did the Great Depression occur because of too much governmental power? Did the 2008 crash occur because of too much regulation?
  - snitko 13y ago
    > Have I argued for centralized power? Then what are you arguing for? My understanding is that you say free market cannot be better than having some degree of regulation. Regulation assumes government, doesn't it?
    - dkuntz2 13y ago
      You're equating regulation and centralization. You're also equating refutation of your points as taking a position completely opposite your points. If you take even a tiny look at the rest of what I had to say (which you also neglected to respond to) my argument is collectivization, which is not the same thing as centralization.
      - snitko 13y ago
        How can you achieve collectivization without any central entity like government enforcing it? And what exactly do you mean by collectivization in the context of the subject being discussed? (I saw your comment and questions above, in the other thread, but I cannot answer them until I understand this one better).
        dkuntz2 13y ago
        You have government, just not centralized. Collectivize on a local level, and form a confederation of localities, giving localities more power. Additionally, and I've said it before, replace corporations with cooperatives. This is the more important part, you need to get rid of the idea that an individual can exist without society and outside of society. If everyone thought that individual wealth and profit-maximizing were the most important things higher education (and most education) along with a host of other institutions and almost every social institution wouldn't exist. And while I understand that a good deal of people are arguing against social institutions, they forget that wouldn't have received the same education they did. If everyone was wealth-maximizing most professors wouldn't be professors because they're able to make more working in private industry. The same is equally true for a large number of public educators, at least in the hard sciences. Education is considered a great equalizer. Society cannot get better if we privatize education, meaning only the rich can afford high quality education (and this is a problem that America is experiencing today). If only the upper classes can pay for high quality education the education gap widens, and it becomes nigh impossible for someone to be upwardly mobile. And that's where my main problem with the American Libertarian movement, privatizing everything can at best keep society stagnant.