Total Posts:50|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Like the free-market? Not after this!

TheHitchslap
Posts: 1,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2013 10:32:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
This is disgusting, and outrageous!

http://www.addictinginfo.org...

The bank stole her stuff! Literally stole her stuff! AND they won't repay her!

Isn't this corporation an individual? Why the hell are they not being charged about it? This is non-sense!
Thank you for voting!
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2013 10:36:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
This literally says nothing about the free market. At all.

Even in a free market society, theft is a crime that should be punished, and this is clearly an example of theft. It should be prosecuted.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
TheHitchslap
Posts: 1,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2013 11:05:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/25/2013 10:36:34 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
This literally says nothing about the free market. At all.

Even in a free market society, theft is a crime that should be punished, and this is clearly an example of theft. It should be prosecuted.

Not really,
in the name of being a "job creator" this bank even managed to side-step being prosecuted within this capitalist system, but has the luxury of being called an individual capable of suing, being sued, making contracts, etc.. without the ability of individual responsibility to the person who executed the order. It was the state not regulating this organization that lead to the systemic confiscation of goods in the first place. The police are (as per article) refusing to charge the bank for theft.

Ideally I agree, free-market is cool and all, and theft would be illegal, pragmatically, it's causing "too big to fail" like businesses capable of outright ignoring laws, and violating humanism principals in the name of generating capital.

This is absurd, and a regulated market is needed IMO.
Thank you for voting!
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2013 11:08:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/25/2013 11:05:13 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 7/25/2013 10:36:34 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
This literally says nothing about the free market. At all.

Even in a free market society, theft is a crime that should be punished, and this is clearly an example of theft. It should be prosecuted.

Not really,
in the name of being a "job creator" this bank even managed to side-step being prosecuted within this capitalist system, but has the luxury of being called an individual capable of suing, being sued, making contracts, etc.. without the ability of individual responsibility to the person who executed the order. It was the state not regulating this organization that lead to the systemic confiscation of goods in the first place. The police are (as per article) refusing to charge the bank for theft.

Ideally I agree, free-market is cool and all, and theft would be illegal, pragmatically, it's causing "too big to fail" like businesses capable of outright ignoring laws, and violating humanism principals in the name of generating capital.

This is absurd, and a regulated market is needed IMO.

For a business to even be considered too big to fail, it requires a government to aid it, not only in sidestepping the law, but in propping it up.

That's market intervention. A free market says "well, tough sh1t" to EVERY failing enterprise.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
TheHitchslap
Posts: 1,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2013 11:29:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/25/2013 11:08:14 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 7/25/2013 11:05:13 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 7/25/2013 10:36:34 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
This literally says nothing about the free market. At all.

Even in a free market society, theft is a crime that should be punished, and this is clearly an example of theft. It should be prosecuted.

Not really,
in the name of being a "job creator" this bank even managed to side-step being prosecuted within this capitalist system, but has the luxury of being called an individual capable of suing, being sued, making contracts, etc.. without the ability of individual responsibility to the person who executed the order. It was the state not regulating this organization that lead to the systemic confiscation of goods in the first place. The police are (as per article) refusing to charge the bank for theft.

Ideally I agree, free-market is cool and all, and theft would be illegal, pragmatically, it's causing "too big to fail" like businesses capable of outright ignoring laws, and violating humanism principals in the name of generating capital.

This is absurd, and a regulated market is needed IMO.

For a business to even be considered too big to fail, it requires a government to aid it, not only in sidestepping the law, but in propping it up.

That's market intervention. A free market says "well, tough sh1t" to EVERY failing enterprise.

I respectfully disagree sir, have you seen the banking system in Canada? Almost every single competing firm is like that only because of state internationalism. When TD decided it was going to take over Canada Trust, it had to get state approval to do so, and only got approved by the state because they wanted to combat an oligopoly, and a monopoly. Same thing here. They weren't propped up because of the state, Wall-street crashed the entire housing system due to their being able to run rampant, when regulation was introduced, it prevented from such a thing from happening (because home owners would have been rejected due to terrible financial situations, but this didn't occur due to no government regulations, and Wall-street naively took it, when they defaulted, Wall-street didn't care because they still make money .. until more started to default...eventually they stated crying really quickly)

Free-market versus regulation. We did have a recession in Canada (due to business cycles) but it wasn't even as close as bad as yours due to the structure of our baking systems. We keep it competitive WITH government intervention.
Thank you for voting!
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2013 12:00:47 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Pointing to the Government's 'partner in crime' the banks, and their ability to take people's personal property by force, isn't a convincing argument for Government power. Banks should face the same consequences for theft as everyone else.

Stealing property is hardly an example of free market in action.

At 7/25/2013 11:05:13 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
Not really,
in the name of being a "job creator" this bank even managed to side-step being prosecuted within this capitalist system,

We're not in a true capitalist system. They managed to side step being prosecuted in a system of gigantic state power, and it's because of the problems of that system. How can you use an example of a bank forcefully taking property, as a condemnation of the belief that nobody should forcefully take property? (Which is the implication of a 'free market' - the degree to which a market is free is the degree to which it's free from force between humans.)

but has the luxury of being called an individual capable of suing, being sued, making contracts, etc.. without the ability of individual responsibility to the person who executed the order. It was the state not regulating this organization that lead to the systemic confiscation of goods in the first place.

So, it was a lack of systematic confiscation of goods which led to systematic confiscation of goods?

The police are (as per article) refusing to charge the bank for theft.

Ideally I agree, free-market is cool and all, and theft would be illegal, pragmatically, it's causing "too big to fail" like businesses capable of outright ignoring laws, and violating humanism principals in the name of generating capital.

This description sounds a lot like the Government.

This is absurd, and a regulated market is needed IMO.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2013 12:01:40 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/25/2013 10:32:31 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
This is disgusting, and outrageous!

http://www.addictinginfo.org...

The bank stole her stuff! Literally stole her stuff! AND they won't repay her!

That has nothing to do with the free market. A free market is when the government does not intervene in the market. Theft is still illegal.
Isn't this corporation an individual? Why the hell are they not being charged about it? This is non-sense!
Yes a corporation is a legal person, but again this has nothing to do with the free market. A corporation is a legal entity, that can only exist by government charter.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
ClassicRobert
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2013 12:02:00 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/25/2013 11:29:16 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 7/25/2013 11:08:14 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 7/25/2013 11:05:13 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 7/25/2013 10:36:34 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
This literally says nothing about the free market. At all.

Even in a free market society, theft is a crime that should be punished, and this is clearly an example of theft. It should be prosecuted.

Not really,
in the name of being a "job creator" this bank even managed to side-step being prosecuted within this capitalist system, but has the luxury of being called an individual capable of suing, being sued, making contracts, etc.. without the ability of individual responsibility to the person who executed the order. It was the state not regulating this organization that lead to the systemic confiscation of goods in the first place. The police are (as per article) refusing to charge the bank for theft.

Ideally I agree, free-market is cool and all, and theft would be illegal, pragmatically, it's causing "too big to fail" like businesses capable of outright ignoring laws, and violating humanism principals in the name of generating capital.

This is absurd, and a regulated market is needed IMO.

For a business to even be considered too big to fail, it requires a government to aid it, not only in sidestepping the law, but in propping it up.

That's market intervention. A free market says "well, tough sh1t" to EVERY failing enterprise.

I respectfully disagree sir, have you seen the banking system in Canada? Almost every single competing firm is like that only because of state internationalism. When TD decided it was going to take over Canada Trust, it had to get state approval to do so, and only got approved by the state because they wanted to combat an oligopoly, and a monopoly. Same thing here. They weren't propped up because of the state, Wall-street crashed the entire housing system due to their being able to run rampant, when regulation was introduced, it prevented from such a thing from happening (because home owners would have been rejected due to terrible financial situations, but this didn't occur due to no government regulations, and Wall-street naively took it, when they defaulted, Wall-street didn't care because they still make money .. until more started to default...eventually they stated crying really quickly)

Free-market versus regulation. We did have a recession in Canada (due to business cycles) but it wasn't even as close as bad as yours due to the structure of our baking systems. We keep it competitive WITH government intervention.

Like DN said, it wouldn't be a free market if the government intervened with bailouts, etc. on business that were deemed too big to fail. The notion of "too big to fail" only comes from state intervention. A free market would, by definition, be free from such state intervention.
Debate me: Economic decision theory should be adjusted to include higher-order preferences for non-normative purposes http://www.debate.org...

Do you really believe that? Or not? If you believe it, you should man up and defend it in a debate. -RoyLatham

My Pet Fish is such a Douche- NiamC

It's an app to meet friends and stuff, sort of like an adult club penguin- Thett3, describing Tinder
jimtimmy2
Posts: 403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2013 12:11:28 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
That's horrible.

The USA federal government steals billions of dollars from Americans on a daily basis.

So, if you hate theft so much, you should join me in hating the federal government.
TheHitchslap
Posts: 1,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2013 1:03:13 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
What is it with everyone's notions of the free-market being completely free from any influence?

If the free market is the structure of distribution of goods and services, taking into consideration of hierarchy of goods and capital, we have some major flaws with the answers I've been given.

Those organizations are often dictatorial in nature, and fascist by structure. For example: they operate outside the law, and can pretty much get away with anything, along with orders being pushed from the top all the way down, no democracy is in place in the work place (See Chomsky), it's the exact same thing. How can a free-market exist when it's within the organizations rational-self interest to eliminate the competition? It has done so, which is why monopolies exist in the first place. It's then the states issue which must intervene to keep up the competition. If the free-market ideas of yours is true what holds back a corporation from buying another one out? Nothing? Exactly! Hardly free when you see to it, it's logical conclusion. Ergo state intervention.

And this is why I have a problem with this issue, the free-market (because this bank is being unregulated by the state for it's actions) has resulted in this woman losing all her possessions! This is insane! If the state actually prosecuted this for the woman, then all would be well! But are they? No!

And it cannot be free when this bank is outright dictating what this woman may or may not have (her possessions!) Why isn't this woman's needs being place high on the hierarchy of needs for the economy instead of the banks?
Thank you for voting!
TheHitchslap
Posts: 1,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2013 1:04:32 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/26/2013 1:03:13 AM, TheHitchslap wrote:
What is it with everyone's notions of the free-market being completely free from any influence?

If the free market is the structure of distribution of goods and services, taking into consideration of hierarchy of goods and capital, we have some major flaws with the answers I've been given.

Those organizations are often dictatorial in nature, and fascist by structure. For example: they operate outside the law, and can pretty much get away with anything, along with orders being pushed from the top all the way down, no democracy is in place in the work place (See Chomsky), it's the exact same thing. How can a free-market exist when it's within the organizations rational-self interest to eliminate the competition? It has done so, which is why monopolies exist in the first place. It's then the states issue which must intervene to keep up the competition. If the free-market ideas of yours is true what holds back a corporation from buying another one out? Nothing? Exactly! Hardly free when you see to it, it's logical conclusion. Ergo state intervention.

And this is why I have a problem with this issue, the free-market (because this bank is being unregulated by the state for it's actions) has resulted in this woman losing all her possessions! This is insane! If the state actually prosecuted this for the woman, then all would be well! But are they? No!

And it cannot be free when this bank is outright dictating what this woman may or may not have (her possessions!) Why isn't this woman's needs being place high on the hierarchy of needs for the economy instead of the banks?

Translation: it does have influence, it has influence of the corporations acting like dictatorships
Thank you for voting!
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2013 1:39:35 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/26/2013 1:03:13 AM, TheHitchslap wrote:
What is it with everyone's notions of the free-market being completely free from any influence?

What does 'free from any influence' mean?

If the free market is the structure of distribution of goods and services, taking into consideration of hierarchy of goods and capital, we have some major flaws with the answers I've been given.

Those organizations are often dictatorial in nature, and fascist by structure. For example: they operate outside the law, and can pretty much get away with anything, along with orders being pushed from the top all the way down, no democracy is in place in the work place (See Chomsky),

The democracy is choosing which work place to work for. It is dictatorial only in the sense that any completely voluntarily agreement is dictatorial: if you open a lemonade stand where a cup costs $1, you are a 'dictator' in the sense that people can only get the cup if they pay the price you chose. In the same way, people may only work for a company if they agree to the chosen salary and conditions etc.

The irony is that with this, expanded definition of 'dictatorial,' the only way to stop a dictatorship is through a dictatorship: To stop the 'evil dictator' lemonade stand owner from 'dictating' the price of lemonade, we must 'dictate' the price he must charge. Therefore, using your definition, the word 'dictatorship' is not so much a criticism but rather an almost meaningless term for any contract or social interaction.

If your definition of a dictatorship is this broad then society becomes pretty impossible to manage without becoming a dictatorship: nobody can enter agreements with anyone else lest they become a 'dictator'.

it's the exact same thing. How can a free-market exist when it's within the organizations rational-self interest to eliminate the competition?

How should they eliminate the competition in a free market? The only way is to offer the best deal.

The only exception to this is if the product they are selling is so scarce that it's possible for them to gain a complete monopoly on it. In this event, the market would be extremely high for someone to discover or invent a similar, less scarce alternative.

It has done so, which is why monopolies exist in the first place. It's then the states issue which must intervene to keep up the competition. If the free-market ideas of yours is true what holds back a corporation from buying another one out? Nothing? Exactly!

Why would the other corporation agree to be bought out? They are offering a similar product for a cheaper price, meaning they are getting more customers, and therefore it's only a matter of time before they become more successful than the 'buyer.'

Hardly free when you see to it, it's logical conclusion. Ergo state intervention.

And this is why I have a problem with this issue, the free-market (because this bank is being unregulated by the state for it's actions) has resulted in this woman losing all her possessions! This is insane! If the state actually prosecuted this for the woman, then all would be well! But are they? No!

And it cannot be free when this bank is outright dictating what this woman may or may not have (her possessions!) Why isn't this woman's needs being place high on the hierarchy of needs for the economy instead of the banks?

Punishing events like this bank stealing property would be a move toward free market, not away from it. The bank is using force - therefore this action is anti-free market, and most people who advocate free market would advocate theft like this not being allowed, for the same reason they are against taxation.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2013 2:56:09 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/25/2013 10:32:31 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
This is disgusting, and outrageous!

http://www.addictinginfo.org...

The bank stole her stuff! Literally stole her stuff! AND they won't repay her!

I suppose that is what insurance is for, but it is bad form.

Isn't this corporation an individual? Why the hell are they not being charged about it? This is non-sense!

Corporations are persons, yes, but they are not people. Assuming this was a crime, who would go to jail? The CEO? The person who took the stuff (the actual mover)? The clerk who put the wrong address down?

This is not a crime per se. It is a case of mistake of fact. The people contracted (because I doubt the bank employees actually took the stuff) to haul away the stuff acted on good faith that the address was correct. This is not a crime, because there was no intent. It is the equivilant of entering into your neighbor's apartment or getting into a car that looks like yours.

Since there is no intent, it is not a crime. They likely can't give the stuff back because they likely don't have it. But, they sure as hell can be sued for it.

This is of course, assuming the bank is at fault, and the person accross the street didn't swap the numbers.
My work here is, finally, done.
jimtimmy2
Posts: 403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2013 2:59:39 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/26/2013 1:03:13 AM, TheHitchslap wrote:
What is it with everyone's notions of the free-market being completely free from any influence?

Well. Currently, we don't have a free market at all.


If the free market is the structure of distribution of goods and services, taking into consideration of hierarchy of goods and capital, we have some major flaws with the answers I've been given.

This should be interesting.


Those organizations are often dictatorial in nature, and fascist by structure. For example: they operate outside the law, and can pretty much get away with anything, along with orders being pushed from the top all the way down, no democracy is in place in the work place (See Chomsky), it's the exact same thing. How can a free-market exist when it's within the organizations rational-self interest to eliminate the competition? It has done so, which is why monopolies exist in the first place. It's then the states issue which must intervene to keep up the competition. If the free-market ideas of yours is true what holds back a corporation from buying another one out? Nothing? Exactly! Hardly free when you see to it, it's logical conclusion. Ergo state intervention.

Wow. This is your big argument against free markets. How weak.

First, democracy, in its purest form, is just 51% of the population using guns to force their preferences on the other 49%. So, this whole idea that democracy is this wonderful thing needs to be squashed.

Okay, now to the supposedly fascistic and hierarchical natures of certain corporations. First, the state is always fascistic. All modern states are.

In a true free market (which we don't have), the most efficient form of organization wins out. If that is a hierarchical organization, then so be it.

Sure, corporations don't like competition, but monopolies only persist over time with state assistance like subsidies, copyright laws, and anti competitive regulations. In a free market, corporations would be forced to compete with start ups because non state sanctioned anti competitive practices cannot be kept up for long periods.

Also, I realize that I sound unrealistic when talking about a "true free market", but, if we didn't have a state or had a minimum state that only fulfilled night watchman purposes, we would have one. Even without a pure free market, we are still better off closer to one than farther away.


And this is why I have a problem with this issue, the free-market (because this bank is being unregulated by the state for it's actions) has resulted in this woman losing all her possessions! This is insane! If the state actually prosecuted this for the woman, then all would be well! But are they? No!

Well. Do you complain about how many possessions the woman has forcefully confiscated from this woman through taxation?

I do.

And, in a free market, people wouldn't rely on a state to keep banks and other companies honest and thus actions like this would face retaliation for sure.

In other words, the bank would be more likely to face consequences in a free market.


And it cannot be free when this bank is outright dictating what this woman may or may not have (her possessions!) Why isn't this woman's needs being place high on the hierarchy of needs for the economy instead of the banks?

Because we have a state monopoly on law that puts the banks needs above the woman's. In a free market, this would not be the case.
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2013 3:17:27 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/26/2013 1:39:35 AM, sdavio wrote:
it's the exact same thing. How can a free-market exist when it's within the organizations rational-self interest to eliminate the competition?

How should they eliminate the competition in a free market? The only way is to offer the best deal.

The only exception to this is if the product they are selling is so scarce that it's possible for them to gain a complete monopoly on it. In this event, the market would be extremely high for someone to discover or invent a similar, less scarce alternative.

This is a great argument for regulation - eventually we hit physical limitations with what we can do, and less scarce alternatives don't exist past that point.

I must also ask: How much damage would a bad company do to consumers before the free market swoops in to save the day? e.g. if a company did a price hike on one of their products, how long would consumers be affected by this before a cheaper alternative comes out as opposed to the time it would take for a regulated market to react?
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2013 3:52:00 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/26/2013 3:17:27 AM, drhead wrote:
At 7/26/2013 1:39:35 AM, sdavio wrote:
it's the exact same thing. How can a free-market exist when it's within the organizations rational-self interest to eliminate the competition?

How should they eliminate the competition in a free market? The only way is to offer the best deal.

The only exception to this is if the product they are selling is so scarce that it's possible for them to gain a complete monopoly on it. In this event, the market would be extremely high for someone to discover or invent a similar, less scarce alternative.

This is a great argument for regulation - eventually we hit physical limitations with what we can do, and less scarce alternatives don't exist past that point.

What is this product which rely on to live, which is incredibly scarce (to the point that one corporation would gain a monopoly on it if not for Government force,) and there are no alternatives to?

What you're basically saying is that humanity is doomed - If such a product exists, what good is distributing it by force going to do? We would be steadily declining into poverty and death no matter what..

I must also ask: How much damage would a bad company do to consumers before the free market swoops in to save the day? e.g. if a company did a price hike on one of their products, how long would consumers be affected by this before a cheaper alternative comes out as opposed to the time it would take for a regulated market to react?

How much do people want money? It is as fast and efficient as the human desire for money.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2013 5:03:53 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/26/2013 1:03:13 AM, TheHitchslap wrote:
What is it with everyone's notions of the free-market being completely free from any influence?

If you'll bear with me in some wild speculation; could it possibly be the "free" part?

If the free market is the structure of distribution of goods and services, taking into consideration of hierarchy of goods and capital, we have some major flaws with the answers I've been given.

Those organizations are often dictatorial in nature, and fascist by structure. For example: they operate outside the law, and can pretty much get away with anything, along with orders being pushed from the top all the way down, no democracy is in place in the work place (See Chomsky), it's the exact same thing. How can a free-market exist when it's within the organizations rational-self interest to eliminate the competition? It has done so, which is why monopolies exist in the first place. It's then the states issue which must intervene to keep up the competition. If the free-market ideas of yours is true what holds back a corporation from buying another one out? Nothing? Exactly! Hardly free when you see to it, it's logical conclusion. Ergo state intervention.

Voluntary trade can not be dictatorial. If a company has put its shares up for sale and thus can be publicly traded, then another company may buy it out (supposing a sufficient number of shares are for sale). But otherwise a corporation cannot buy out another corporation without the express will of the owners.
The vast majority of companies are not publicly traded.

And this is why I have a problem with this issue, the free-market (because this bank is being unregulated by the state for it's actions) has resulted in this woman losing all her possessions! This is insane! If the state actually prosecuted this for the woman, then all would be well! But are they? No!

There is a difference between regulation and criminal law. No supporter of the free-market would claim that industries should not be "regulated" (and I use this term poorly as legally this is not considered regulation) by criminal law.

And it cannot be free when this bank is outright dictating what this woman may or may not have (her possessions!) Why isn't this woman's needs being place high on the hierarchy of needs for the economy instead of the banks?

When a state considers the hierarchy of needs in its actions, it is already acting in a non-free way, whether it is considering the womans needs or banks. Currently it is considering the banks needs, and thus (as per above) is not acting in a manner which can be described by reasonable people as a free market manner.

Your fundamental misunderstanding is that the free market somehow means preferring the industries interests to the individuals in government action.
Instead it means government not intervening in voluntary trade.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2013 11:00:13 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Anarcho-Capitalist Peter Leeson argues that both on an international stage and on most national stages (minor theft), because of the incapability or inexistence of a legitimized monopoly of violence being used to create social order (i.e. a state), there is social anarchy. Where the state does not interfere or cannot interfere or does not exist, in other words, there is no social monopoly and therefore social anarchy. Similarly, we must conclude, that the "free market", which is a lack of a monopoly in place to influence or regulate industry, exists when the state does not step in to interfere.

The state has not interfered (yet) in this case. Therefore, it is a disagreement between one party and another party - the seller and the buyer. This is a Free Market. Now, one person decides not to fulfil their end of the bargain. To simply say there is no longer a Free Market is ludicrous - there will otherwise no longer be a free market at any time except in a utopian situation where everyone always fulfills their end of the contract.

Now, what we ought to state if we are being proper about this is that a lawyer or company shall intervene - or the state if we are being statists - and correct the system.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2013 12:50:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/26/2013 3:52:00 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 7/26/2013 3:17:27 AM, drhead wrote:
At 7/26/2013 1:39:35 AM, sdavio wrote:
it's the exact same thing. How can a free-market exist when it's within the organizations rational-self interest to eliminate the competition?

How should they eliminate the competition in a free market? The only way is to offer the best deal.

The only exception to this is if the product they are selling is so scarce that it's possible for them to gain a complete monopoly on it. In this event, the market would be extremely high for someone to discover or invent a similar, less scarce alternative.

This is a great argument for regulation - eventually we hit physical limitations with what we can do, and less scarce alternatives don't exist past that point.

What is this product which rely on to live, which is incredibly scarce (to the point that one corporation would gain a monopoly on it if not for Government force,) and there are no alternatives to?

My favorite example is Internet access. It naturally forms a monopoly in most rural areas due to high initial costs coupled with a relatively low rate of return on investment. The traditional (and best) method of setting up Internet infrastructure is by laying copper or fiber-optic cables. However, in a rural area, it is very expensive to do this, and, as I said, it takes a while to pay off your initial investment. The monopoly in this case is not due to government force (or at least minimally due to it), and more due to the fact that the choice a new ISP has is to serve a new area to collect your money since you are the only ISP, or to serve an area already served by an ISP, where you will be forced to compete, and will regain your investment very slowly.

Now, there are two alternatives to this. One is satellite Internet, which can cover an entire country with one satellite. However, due to limitations of the speed of light, it will always have a response time of over 500ms (which is incredibly huge in network terms). This is not even mentioning the horribly low speeds and the fact that it hardly ever works during a storm, and it sometimes will refuse to work if it is windy.

The other alternative would be mobile broadband. This could be seen as better in several cases since it can be accessed anywhere, however, it still has problems with inconsistent coverage and packet loss (meaning that out of every piece of information your computer sends out, some aren't received, this is a more or less direct reduction in effective bandwidth). However, this still has problems with high initial costs. I'm also less than optimistic about the fact that nobody really offers a data package that you can use more than 5GB on per month on anything that isn't a smartphone.

What you're basically saying is that humanity is doomed - If such a product exists, what good is distributing it by force going to do? We would be steadily declining into poverty and death no matter what..

With the Internet acting as a gateway to many business opportunities, it makes more sense to put it in the hands of a relatively neutral entity such as the government rather than to put it in the hands of corporations that might have their own conflicts of interest. Have you noticed how many ISPs in the US have recently adopted broadband data caps? With the price of sending data over networks being a very small cost of running an ISP, it is unlikely that customers who use high amounts of data are costing these ISPs anything extra. However, since most ISPs also sell television service in some way, shape, or form, it has been deemed more likely that these ISPs are trying to prevent people from using video-on-demand services like Netflix, which could threaten their television services by *gasp* forcing them to compete. This isn't helped by the fact that some ISPs make their data caps not apply to their own video-on-demand services. Knowing this, can you honestly tell me that corporations have the consumers' best interests in mind?

I must also ask: How much damage would a bad company do to consumers before the free market swoops in to save the day? e.g. if a company did a price hike on one of their products, how long would consumers be affected by this before a cheaper alternative comes out as opposed to the time it would take for a regulated market to react?

How much do people want money? It is as fast and efficient as the human desire for money.

It doesn't matter what motivation is being used if it is being channeled in the wrong way. A market has the purpose of facilitating the exchange of goods and services. It has to exist since it allows people to specialize in certain roles, as opposed to doing something more similar to subsistence farming - this increases potential production. Now, money is a good motivator - you put in goods and services, you get money which you can use to get goods and services. However, it is important that these steps aren't skipped. Without regulation, consumers would constantly get screwed over, companies doing this would profit from this. No regulations would mean that if they were to, say, "accidentally" put a toxic substance in one of their products, they would not be held liable unless intent were proven (good luck with that!). They would be able to keep whatever profits they earned. This essentially means that they are getting rewarded for screwing people over - this is antithetical to what the market seeks to do. It may also take years for a new product to enter the market. What about when companies engage in anti-competitive practices, such as the Netflix example I cited? What does your free market do to fix this?
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2013 1:19:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
It is dictatorial to be able to form a contract then feign on completing your end of the bargain? Arguably so. Disagreeing about whether it is dictatorship or not though is just attempting to sidestep the issue: it is wrong to be able to feign the completion of a contract, or dodge fulfilling a contract which you sign up to for the sole reason of gratuitous economic gain. To justify this in a market is ridiculous, and not worth discussing, specificically for this case.

So if we agree that this is wrong, the question was: is it a result of a free market? Well, if we accept Peter Leeson's analysis of anarchy/free trade, then it would be so if the government does not step in at any stage in the contract (or an agency of a similar nature, e.g. a mob or gang). So the question "was this a case of the free market" is answered by "has the government intervened". As it has not, then it is fair to say this is a free market in practice. The question, however, is whether the free market will correct it or call in the state. I bet on the latter.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
TheHitchslap
Posts: 1,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2013 1:43:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
GAHHH! -.-

sorry guys I think I'm having one of those days where what I'm thinking in my head is not translating properly onto this forum! LOL. It can be frustrating sometimes. Oh well ..
so .. banks taking your sh!t... what should happen?
Thank you for voting!
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2013 1:54:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/26/2013 1:43:51 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
GAHHH! -.-

sorry guys I think I'm having one of those days where what I'm thinking in my head is not translating properly onto this forum! LOL. It can be frustrating sometimes. Oh well ..
so .. banks taking your sh!t... what should happen?

We all have them mate.
As for the other question; the banks should have the sh1t prosecuted out of them. However, as theft is not a strict liability crime, the individual at fault probably wouldn't get convicted as there may not be enough evidence for gross negligence (I don't know the repo industry well enough to comment), but there is a still strong case for total remuneration for the bank(up to retail value, or insurance value)
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2013 1:59:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/26/2013 1:54:26 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 7/26/2013 1:43:51 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
GAHHH! -.-

sorry guys I think I'm having one of those days where what I'm thinking in my head is not translating properly onto this forum! LOL. It can be frustrating sometimes. Oh well ..
so .. banks taking your sh!t... what should happen?

We all have them mate.
As for the other question; the banks should have the sh1t prosecuted out of them. However, as theft is not a strict liability crime, the individual at fault probably wouldn't get convicted as there may not be enough evidence for gross negligence (I don't know the repo industry well enough to comment), but there is a still strong case for total remuneration for the bank(up to retail value, or insurance value)

BTW this includes all costs incurred as a result; so if she had to stay somewhere whilst replacing furniture, if she had to take time off to sort her stuff out, if anything is now more expensive to replace than it was - though she probably wasn't hoarding any natural resources XD
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2013 8:11:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/26/2013 1:19:47 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
It is dictatorial to be able to form a contract then feign on completing your end of the bargain? Arguably so. Disagreeing about whether it is dictatorship or not though is just attempting to sidestep the issue: it is wrong to be able to feign the completion of a contract, or dodge fulfilling a contract which you sign up to for the sole reason of gratuitous economic gain. To justify this in a market is ridiculous, and not worth discussing, specificically for this case.

So if we agree that this is wrong, the question was: is it a result of a free market? Well, if we accept Peter Leeson's analysis of anarchy/free trade, then it would be so if the government does not step in at any stage in the contract (or an agency of a similar nature, e.g. a mob or gang). So the question "was this a case of the free market" is answered by "has the government intervened". As it has not, then it is fair to say this is a free market in practice. The question, however, is whether the free market will correct it or call in the state. I bet on the latter.

Theft not being punished or dealt with is irrelevant to the free market. By your standard of causality, any crime which the Government does not prosecute is a result of the free market. This is non sequitur - a free market system does not necessitate or imply a lack of punishment for crimes. Free trade is a term relating to economics - prices being determined by supply and demand.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2013 8:41:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/26/2013 12:50:41 PM, drhead wrote:
At 7/26/2013 3:52:00 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 7/26/2013 3:17:27 AM, drhead wrote:
At 7/26/2013 1:39:35 AM, sdavio wrote:
it's the exact same thing. How can a free-market exist when it's within the organizations rational-self interest to eliminate the competition?

How should they eliminate the competition in a free market? The only way is to offer the best deal.

The only exception to this is if the product they are selling is so scarce that it's possible for them to gain a complete monopoly on it. In this event, the market would be extremely high for someone to discover or invent a similar, less scarce alternative.

This is a great argument for regulation - eventually we hit physical limitations with what we can do, and less scarce alternatives don't exist past that point.

What is this product which rely on to live, which is incredibly scarce (to the point that one corporation would gain a monopoly on it if not for Government force,) and there are no alternatives to?

My favorite example is Internet access.

This example fits none of the criteria. Therefore it's problems can be solved through free trade.

I must also ask: How much damage would a bad company do to consumers before the free market swoops in to save the day? e.g. if a company did a price hike on one of their products, how long would consumers be affected by this before a cheaper alternative comes out as opposed to the time it would take for a regulated market to react?

How much do people want money? It is as fast and efficient as the human desire for money.

It doesn't matter what motivation is being used if it is being channeled in the wrong way.

It is being channeled through supply and demand.

A market has the purpose of facilitating the exchange of goods and services. It has to exist since it allows people to specialize in certain roles, as opposed to doing something more similar to subsistence farming - this increases potential production. Now, money is a good motivator - you put in goods and services, you get money which you can use to get goods and services. However, it is important that these steps aren't skipped. Without regulation, consumers would constantly get screwed over, companies doing this would profit from this.

In a free market, a company doing this wouldn't last long - they would quickly gain a reputation for it. When this doesn't work is when subsidies & taxes disrupt the dynamic of free trade, and reduce competition.

No regulations would mean that if they were to, say, "accidentally" put a toxic substance in one of their products, they would not be held liable unless intent were proven (good luck with that!).

Would you support / buy from a company that put toxic substances in their products? It is in their best interest to create a non-toxic product, because that is what consumers want.

They would be able to keep whatever profits they earned. This essentially means that they are getting rewarded for screwing people over - this is antithetical to what the market seeks to do. It may also take years for a new product to enter the market.

The higher the market for a new product, the higher the reward for creating it. The only product on the market being a toxic one would create an extremely high demand for an alternative.

What about when companies engage in anti-competitive practices, such as the Netflix example I cited? What does your free market do to fix this?

There were competitive practices - they were trying to beat the competition. I believe that this is an example of free market, and that it can fix this. In fact in a way it already has - there are many ways of watching shows, legal and illegal, more than any other time in history. Internet access is also always increasing. Neither of these things happened because of Government action - they happened because of financial incentive, supply and demand.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2013 9:06:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
"So the question "was this a case of the free market" is answered by "has the government intervened". "

Well, if the definition of a free market is just "total anarchism" then you'd be right. But it's not. And if it is, then what term shall we use to mean what is generally meant by 'free market'?
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2013 9:28:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
" How can a free-market exist when it's within the organizations rational-self interest to eliminate the competition? It has done so, which is why monopolies exist in the first place. It's then the states issue which must intervene to keep up the competition. If the free-market ideas of yours is true what holds back a corporation from buying another one out? Nothing? Exactly! Hardly free when you see to it, it's logical conclusion. Ergo state intervention."

Eliminate the competition - how? By buying every potential competitor? To what end? Couldn't someone just keep creating businesses (to be sold) or, if the monopoly doesn't have the funds or isn't willing to make the acquisition, just take all their customers by offering lower prices? Monopolies can only be created and kept in place by means of government (I know this bromide won't convince you, but it's true).
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2013 9:34:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Of course the victim, Katie Barnett, can sue the bank, and for a whole lost more than just $18K. Ms. Barnett suffered substantial inconvenience, additional living costs, and the loss of objects with, presumably, emotional value. She can seek punitive damages for the negligence of the bank. Since the case is a slam dunk, a lawyer will file it on contingency. The local news station said the bank better pay up quick or they'll be looking at some big numbers.

what the bank is likely doing is delaying to try to force her to make a settlement for less than she would get by suing them. That's foul play, and an opportunity for lawyers to go after the bank for a hefty payout.

I have no idea what the free market argument is about. What would change under socialism? The bank, or the People's Homeowners financing Agency, would still screw up and get the wrong house, but the only recourse would be to sue the government. Or maybe she wouldn't be allowed to own a house or own any possessions, because the State owns everything. Then she had no loss because she didn't own the property. She could go stand in line somewhere to get on the list for new housing.