Main Menu

The Political Thread

Started by The Legendary Shark, 09 April, 2010, 03:59:03 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

The Legendary Shark

Like I said, it's a primitive system but government intervention just makes it worse.

The minimum wage, for example, sounds good but really isn't. In poor areas it keeps prices for goods and services artificially high and employment levels low because businesses have to charge more and/or claim more public funds to afford to pay it and in rich areas it encourages an underpaid class who cannot afford to live in the areas where they work because businesses don't have to pay more than the minimum. If the minimum wage was such a great idea, governments would insist that Third World countries took it up so that giving aid would not be necessary. They don't insist on it, of course, because it doesn't work.

It's not idealistic to think companies would suddenly pay decent wages if government intervention ceased, it's basic Austrian economics. Give workers and entrepreneurs and businesses the power to negotiate their own terms and the provision of labour, just like the provision of any other good or service, becomes subject to the basic rules of free market competition, which has been the bedrock of economies forever.
[move]~~~^~~~~~~~[/move]




TordelBack

#12916
Sharky, is there ANYTHING in the history of labour and the world of work that supports your contention that unregulated capitalist economies are anything other than machines for grinding a massive underclass into profitable paste? Can you cite one single example?

The Legendary Shark

Quote from: TordelBack on 23 April, 2017, 11:06:11 PM
Sharky, is there ANYTHING in the history of labour and the world of work that supports your contention that unregulated capitalist economies are anything other than machines for grinding a massive underclass into profitable paste? Can you cite one single example?

I'm not quite sure what you're asking here. If you want me to point to a perfect capitalist system which is completely free of regulation then no, I can't. What do you mean by 'unregulated'? To me, the word means freedom from government interference, not freedom from all laws or traditional constraints. For example, selling jam with splinters of glass in it or pies filled with rotten meat would be just as unacceptable in an unregulated market as a regulated one. There's also the aspect of self-regulation; if you buy jam with glass splinters in it or a pie filled with rotten meat you have recourse to law and the option to purchase from a different source next time. The Glass-Shard Jam Company and The Rotten Pie Shop are extremely unlikely to thrive in a competitive free or regulated market.

Also, what do you mean by "grinding a massive underclass into profitable paste"? If you mean turning a profit from goods and services sold to customers then, again, no I can't point to anything because turning a profit is part of what capitalism is about - the alternatives are running at a loss, which guarantees the failure of any business, or providing goods and services at cost, which cripples expansion and R&D. In my view, it is the government regulated market that grinds a massive underclass into profitable paste through general taxation, levies, license fees and fines which take from everyone in order to facilitate bureaucracy, subsidise unprofitably run services and bail-out irresponsible government backed monopolies.

When you ask me to point to "ANYTHING," do you mean a single, unregulated business or a whole unregulated economy? One unregulated business is the trade in cannabis, which - in my experience - offers goods of varying quality depending on the dealer and doesn't force its non-addictive, relatively safe product on anyone - they don't even advertise and rely on word of mouth and decent quality in order to survive. The only violence comes from authorities trying to stop it and caging people or demanding fines. Compare that with the legal trades in tobacco and alcohol, which are heavily regulated yet cause far more damage as well as being heavily taxed.

Speaking of alcohol, look at the violence, death and expense incurred by the extreme regulation of Prohibition in the U.S. Unregulated alcohol has been sold for centuries and continues to this day. Just because a bottle of moonshine comes from an untaxed and therefore unregulated still does not automatically make it poisonous or exploitative of the poor, downtrodden masses who can't decide for themselves whether drinking antifreeze with olives in it is advisable or not.

So yes, I can point to several unregulated parts of capitalist economies that work perfectly well and are not as exploitative as the regulated parts, as I suspect most people can, but I can't point to a totally unregulated capitalist market because I'm not sure there's ever been one.
[move]~~~^~~~~~~~[/move]




Smith

So there are,if not laws,at least traditions to be followed in this unregulated market system of yours?

Suede1971

#12919
Why is it people seem to forget the conditions of the industrial revolution, when governments in general had less interference, and people worked 18 hours a day.

Living in a place with unregulated capitalism sound just as bad to me as the stalinist dictatorships of of the east.

You need government and you need taxes,  if such things were optional why would people even pay, most people i know if they had the choice of buying something for themselves or paying there taxes, they would probably buy something for themselves every time.

Supreme Pizza Of The DPRK

Quote from: The Legendary Shark on 24 April, 2017, 12:21:28 AM
One unregulated business is the trade in cannabis, which - in my experience - offers goods of varying quality

This i can confirm.

TordelBack

#12921
Thanks for your answer Sharky, the cannabis trade is a good one, although I wonder what that would be like without the inflated prices that nonsensical illegality imposes. I'm also not sure the argument stands up when extended to cover harmful substances.

However, what I was getting at is that elected governments make and enforce coercive laws regarding employment, and that (in my opinion) is the sole reason we have paid leave, HS&W (such as it is) and there aren't still children up chimneys and down mines chewing on phosphorus and radium in the western/First world. In the absence of state regulation, I believe the world of work would be every bit as horrid as it was before accountable governments got involved in the welfare of the citizens that elect them. I accept that laws are the basis of regulation, but governments are very much the institagtors  and implementers of laws.

It is the difference in governments worldwide that results in difference of conditions: although I fully accept the argument that our own governments collude to export misery in the workplace rather than have it at home. That needs to change. Happily a mechanism exists to mandate change. We are the drivers of the vehicle that is government, the issue of getting to our desired distant destination isn't solved by getting out and walking, it's by paying attention to the map and driving in the right direction.


IndigoPrime

Quote from: The Legendary Shark on 23 April, 2017, 07:41:46 PMIt's not idealistic to think companies would suddenly pay decent wages if government intervention ceased, it's basic Austrian economics.
The key here would be to look at what companies do now – how many go beyond the absolute minimum they have to? John Lewis is one, given that it's a co-op and therefore the bulk of employees share in the success of the company in real percentage terms (versus getting a 50 quid 'Christmas bonus' or whatever, when your company makes a ton of cash). But that system is very rare.

A recent Infinite Monkey Cage touched on the idea of democracy and systems. The show was about science's epic fails, and arguing that failure within itself is critical not only to science but also life itself. Cox at one point argues that democracy itself could be considered an innate understanding that individuals are not equipped to run a society and so cede that control to a number of people who can and do. As has been noted here in the past, several times, having to take on responsibilities for all kinds of things government does would be onerous on the individual. And I say that as someone who right now has deep and unshakable concerns about the British government.

NapalmKev

Quote from: Supreme Pizza Of The DPRK on 24 April, 2017, 08:42:57 AM
Quote from: The Legendary Shark on 24 April, 2017, 12:21:28 AM
One unregulated business is the trade in cannabis, which - in my experience - offers goods of varying quality

This i can confirm.

Cannabis is not an 'unregulated business' it's an illegal activity (I don't think it should be illegal, but that's another story).

I know a lot of people who are involved with one form of Drug or another, the majority aren't selling these products out of the goodness of their hearts, they're doing it to make money. I've purchased Weed of varying quality ranging from mind-blowing to downright shit. Sometimes Weed comes covered in small bits of glass or other crap designed to give the illusion of Weed crystals!

This is an example (from personal experience) of how people can be epic Twats when it comes to lining their pockets with money!

And these aren't the mega-rich, who would probably (IMO) be far worse if given the opportunity!

Yeah, what the World really needs is less regulations because people are great!

Cheers

"Where once you fought to stop the trap from closing...Now you lay the bait!"

The Legendary Shark

Quote from: Suede1971 on 24 April, 2017, 08:16:46 AM
Why is it people seem to forget the conditions of the industrial revolution, when governments in general had less interference, and people worked 18 hours a day.

Living in a place with unregulated capitalism sound just as bad to me as the stalinist dictatorships of of the east.

You need government and you need taxes,  if such things were optional why would people even pay, most people i know if they had the choice of buying something for themselves or paying there taxes, they would probably buy something for themselves every time.

Who imposed the 18 hour working days? The ruling classes of the day. Who brought an end to it? Benevolent government? Nope, the people had to fight for emancipation themselves.

Unregulated capitalism sounds bad and scary because people associate the word "unregulated" with unfettered or uncontrolled and the word "capitalism" with rape or greed. The Austrian economic model simply describes a capitalist economy, one where capital is used to fund innovation and free market competition, free of government meddling and exploitation - a pure free market.

Government, meaning a small group of people who assume the right to force others to bend to their will irrespective of personal beliefs or morality, is not needed. Organisation is needed, of course, but organisation and government are not the same thing.

Here's a little sci-fi thought experiment for you:

Aliens come in the night and abduct 1,000 families. The families are dropped off on a nice Earth like planet on the other side of the galaxy and then the aliens leave, never to be seen again.

Each family finds a solar-powered home waiting for them, with all mod cons. Each has agricultural equipment, various tools, a vehicle, medical supplies and equipment and rifles for hunting and defence against predators. Each home is set in a large area of fertile land and there are roads connecting all the homes. In short, everything a society needs to thrive exists here.

Then Mrs Windsor stands up and starts talking.

"We need a leader," she says. "Many generations ago, God chose my family as the ruling clan and so your leader is now me. I am going to install a government for you. I will give you a choice of suitable candidates to vote for who will tell you what's allowed and what's not. Once elected, these MPs will swear an oath of loyalty to me, not you, but don't worry about that, it's just a detail as I will become just a figurehead once your Prime Minister is elected.

"You will all give your rifles to the PM and he will decide which of you can use them. You will also give up your medicines and medical equipment, and only those the PM decides are capable will be allowed to dispense or use them. You will not be allowed to use your vehicles until the PM is satisfied that you are qualified and you will not be allowed to live in the homes provided until you have registered them with the PM.

"I will also provide police and courts to enforce the decisions of the PM and his government and to stop you all from hurting and stealing from one another because, as you know, none of you can be trusted. These officers will also swear an oath of loyalty to me and not you but, again, don't worry about this - it's just an unimportant traditional detail. I will provide for you a bank, which will print money and lend it to you at interest so you can trade with each other.

"In order to pay for my figureheadship and all the other wonderful things I give you, a percentage of everything you earn will be taken from you. If you refuse to pay, my officers will take it. If you resist, you will be put into a cage.

"If you don't like this arrangement then that's fine. You are perfectly free to go off and live in the wilderness somewhere but, be warned, as our society evolves and expands we may have to steal your bit of wilderness in order to civilize it, so remember to move very far away."

How many of the 1,000 families do you think would be enthusiastic about Mrs Windsor's plan? A few, certainly - mainly the ones who'd get to be in the government, the bank or the other official posts. I think most of the families would rather choose a different way to organise themselves.
[move]~~~^~~~~~~~[/move]




The Legendary Shark

Quote from: NapalmKev on 24 April, 2017, 09:52:12 AM
Quote from: Supreme Pizza Of The DPRK on 24 April, 2017, 08:42:57 AM
Quote from: The Legendary Shark on 24 April, 2017, 12:21:28 AM
One unregulated business is the trade in cannabis, which - in my experience - offers goods of varying quality

This i can confirm.

Cannabis is not an 'unregulated business' it's an illegal activity (I don't think it should be illegal, but that's another story).

I know a lot of people who are involved with one form of Drug or another, the majority aren't selling these products out of the goodness of their hearts, they're doing it to make money. I've purchased Weed of varying quality ranging from mind-blowing to downright shit. Sometimes Weed comes covered in small bits of glass or other crap designed to give the illusion of Weed crystals!

This is an example (from personal experience) of how people can be epic Twats when it comes to lining their pockets with money!

And these aren't the mega-rich, who would probably (IMO) be far worse if given the opportunity!

Yeah, what the World really needs is less regulations because people are great!

Cheers



Declaring something (in this case a naturally occurring plant) illegal is the ultimate regulation.

By declaring cannabis illegal, it deprives you of all legal recourse, through the state monopolised police and course, against those who would cheat you. Your personal experience in this area is a wonderful real-world example of how government regulation encourages bad behaviour. If cannabis were legal, you'd be able to sue the miscreants but as it is Cannabis has been regulated outside of legislative law.

Further, it has not been legislated out of common or natural law. Your attitude towards cannabis with glass in it proves this - you know it is wrong. I know it is wrong. Yet the state monopolised police and courts, even though they might know it is wrong too, are powerless to help because they are regulated into enforcing legislative law above upholding common or natural law.

That's a great example, Kev, thanks!

And yes, buying and selling anything is about making money - that's what the primitive activity of capitalism is all about. I would like nothing better than to live in a Star Trek-like voluntaryist economy (as, I suspect, would most people) but people aren't convinced it's possible because thousands of years of money enslavement and corporatism have skewed their view of what an economy is all about. If we're going to be stuck with this primitive money based economy then we should at least strive to make it free, fair and lawful.
[move]~~~^~~~~~~~[/move]




Theblazeuk

And HOW did the people fight for it themselves and achieve their victory? The Law. Enforced by government. One might even say they *changed* the government position by their action and by doing so were able to say, collectively demand changes to a system of law without which the whole endeavour was meaningless.



Suede1971

Quote from: TordelBack on 24 April, 2017, 09:38:39 AM


However, what I was getting at is that elected governments make and enforce coercive laws regarding employment, and that (in my opinion) is the sole reason we have paid leave, HS&W (such as it is) and there aren't still children up chimneys and down mines chewing on phosphorus and radium in the western/First world. In the absence of state regulation, I believe the world of work would be every bit as horrid as it was before accountable governments got involved in the welfare of the citizens that elect them.

That is what i was trying to get across,thanks, it was groups of working class people forming unions and taking action so the government would implement these laws.

The Legendary Shark

Tordels, IP, good posts, thanks.

I'm not disputing the fact that governments have contributed some good elements to society but I do think that many of these Good Things came about either by accident (a protection designed for the elites trickling down to protect the rest of us as well) or for the wrong reasons (give the people what they want so they don't burn down Westminster).

It's government's assumed and unlawful right to commit violence on whomever it chooses that I'm against. There can be regulations and rules without violence.

For example, when choosing a builder you know that picking a member of the Federation of Master Builders provides you with safeguards not offered by the much cheaper Sammy Slick from behind the gasworks. Similarly, most people would prefer to use an ABTA travel agent.

Companies go to great lengths to be part of such voluntary organisations, membership of which generally demonstrates a desire to provide an at least adequate service. Government is not the only arbiter of professionalism or excellence and, indeed, is often a poor judge of good practice due its remove from the workings and intricacies of businesses and processes it does not understand. Take away government protectionism and favouritism and allow businesses to operate as they see fit. Sure, you'll get some who take the piss but you'll get more who want to be excellent at what they do - and with our modern communications technology we'll all be just a few keystrokes away from finding out who's being naughty and who's being nice and supporting the businesses we believe in with our wallets.

By all means have a body that writes legislation and guidelines to help businesses operate with fairness and efficiency, by all means have this body approve businesses which live up to standards and not approve those which do not - heck, you can even call that body Government 2.0 if you like.

But do not allow that body to enforce its legislation and rules on society and the economy. Remove the police and courts from under the auspices of government monopoly and make them independent. Then, Government 2.0 can put its grievances before an unbiased court like everyone else, it can act as people want it to act; as a tool for the betterment of society and not a buffer between the people and the elites or the Mafia-like protector of large corporations.

It's not the end of civilization or a return to the Dark Ages I advocate but a step forward towards a brighter, fairer and more abundant future. Take away the government's assumed right to commit violence on its people, that's all. Simples. This path began long ago when we disabused ourselves of the right of gods to rule us, then the right of priests to rule us in the name of gods, then the divine right of kings went, then the traditional right of kings, then the popular right of presidents and prime ministers. The last of these illusory rights to rule is that which we have now - the assumed right to rule. This will go the same way as the divine right of kings, one way or another. I'd prefer for it to be brushed aside by reason rather than washed away with blood.

End the violence.
[move]~~~^~~~~~~~[/move]




IndigoPrime

QuoteSure, you'll get some who take the piss but you'll get more who want to be excellent at what they do - and with our modern communications technology we'll all be just a few keystrokes away from finding out who's being naughty and who's being nice and supporting the businesses we believe in with our wallets.
Only the real world doesn't work like that, because of the inherent biases within systems, and also because those with more money can often flood the way in which online systems work, in order to make them come across as decent. You see this in everywhere, including app reviews, car hire, and places to buy products. And it's one thing to have a shitty experience with a car rental (and you have government-backed guarantees to get something back), but expanding that out to everything from worker rights to healthcare and everyone will need to be a lawyer to have a slightest understanding of where they stand at any given point, on any given subject that's currently taken for granted.

I think there's something in having an independence to certain bodies, but even there, you have to be deeply careful. Say the trains were single-entity, how would that be run, and from where? Now you mentioned the courts system. So is that national? Local? If you disagree with a court, where do you turn?