CapeXit 2

[Cray]

He thinks there shouldn't be any accreditation at all. If someone dies due to incompetence or lack of adequate standards, the dead person will use a different provider next time. Free markets regulating themselves and all that...

A snake oil paradise basically. The Homepathic grifters would be living the high life in Lexistan.

 

[lexity]

According to AI you need the following....



@lexity do you agree/disagree with supermarkets having to comply with food safety and fire regulations?

Yes, but that demand should come from the consumer.

It's a bit like the demand for the USA to take over your country, coming from Greenlanders.

A free society is one that is self-determined.

It's the same for the need for regulation since any excessive/unnecessary standards are going to reflect in the price.

A free market is one in which the level of health and safety is self-determined... by consumers playing their role as responsibility-bearing decision-makers and judges of character, not by producers and their faux/uninvited watchdogs.

 

[lexity]

Yeah I'm aware of certain "licenses" needed, but they're more "proofs" that you aren't trying to kill everyone with shyty business hygiene.

Yes, but you're not making a good argument for the elephant in the room i.e. the uninvited 3rd-party.

Seems you didn't read the article linked:

The scarcely-concealed aim to impose a medical monopoly was thinly veiled in rhetoric about the need to protect consumers from themselves. The argument was that consumers were too ignorant and stupid to make right decisions about their own health, so—for their own good—they had to be denied the right of choice.

An accreditation business doesn't require an uninvited 3rd-party, before it can deliver its service and be of value to its business sector.

 

[Cray]

Yes, but that demand should come from the consumer.

In a way it did, we elected people who put those laws in place. If the public really didn't want those laws there would be demands and petitions that they be removed.

It's the same for the need for regulation since any excessive/unnecessary standards are going to reflect in the price.

A free market is one in which the level of health and safety is self-determined... by consumers playing their role as responsibility-bearing decision-makers and judges of character, not by producers and their faux watchdogs.

You know what, as a consumer I really don't have the time to validate the current state of health and fire safety of every retail place I go to. You talk about regulations reflecting in price, but my time also has value and I have decided that I don't want to waste it by checking the certificates/hygiene standards of every retailer I visit.

I am perfectly happy that we have delegated that regulation to the state, they will check and in most cases ensure that retailers follow the law and it means I am free to visit places all over the country without fear that I might get salmonella or die in a fire. Am happy to pay that extra cost for my goods for that convenience and I wager that 99% of people in this country would agree with me,.

 

[lexity]

A snake oil paradise basically. The Homepathic grifters would be living the high life in Lexistan.

Your argument is ultimately a vote of no-confidence in the judgement of consumers.

If there is one bad actor in a free market, every last consumer is going to suffer and there is not a damn thing you can do about it except appoint a monopoly on accreditation, otherwise it will lead to the end of civilization.... why?

Because as the 'mytheory' post(*) details, the rate at which you learn from your mistakes is on par with evolutionary biology, and you must project that onto everyone else.... otherwise life is just very, very, VERY unfair.

* https://mybroadband.co.za/forum/thr...rted-in-tehran.1333906/page-191#post-34297293

 

[lexity]

And notice.... it's fine to accuse people of being 'grifters' i.e. criminals, but if you call someone a pinko, a knuckle-dragger or a hen-pecker, you are a vile, despicable person that needs cancelling.

A snake oil paradise basically. The Homepathic grifters would be living the high life in Lexistan.

 

[lexity]

Remember that a mixed-economy is the lie that you can mix a little bit of Capitalism with a little bit of Socialism, to get the perfect 'balance'.

Since when is it a good idea to take the formula for a flourishing, prosperous economy, and mix it with a formula that has been proven beyond doubt to induce mass poverty, mountains of corpses and civilizational collapse?

Keep an eye on how slavery was first justified..... the accumulation of too much debt.

Where do the world's mixed-economies stand today, when it comes to sovereign debt?

 

[Cray]

Your argument is ultimately a vote of no-confidence in the judgement of consumers.

Not no confidence, just an acceptance that most consumers aren't in a position to evaluate providers in highly technical fields. Do you think that consumers have perfect access to information and have the ability to evaluate a medical provider that sounds legitimate but might be fraudulent?

Are you really that arrogant that you think you could competently evaluate providers in highly complex fields such as medicine, food health, engineering etc to be able to evaluate their competence in their fields?

 

[Cray]

And notice.... it's fine to accuse people of being 'grifters' i.e. criminals, but if you call someone a pinko, a knuckle-dragger or a hen-pecker, you are a vile, despicable person that needs cancelling.

For someone who makes a show of being intelligent, you seem to struggle with basic concepts. The rule around insulting people applies to Forum users, that is so the discussions remain civil. It doesn't apply to people outside this forum which is why people can call Trump an orange turd or Biden a creepy old bugger.

As for the comment about homeopathy, I take it back, it might not be a grift, it might just be a case of plain old scientific stupidity.

 

[ToxicBunny]

Yes, but you're not making a good argument for the elephant in the room i.e. the uninvited 3rd-party.

Seems you didn't read the article linked:



An accreditation business doesn't require an uninvited 3rd-party, before it can deliver its service and be of value to its business sector.

Ok, so lets play this out. It doesn't require an uninvited 3rd-party as you say. Then how does its service become universal in a sector so that the consumer can know that business X is evaluated in the same fashion as business A/B/N and Y?

 

[lexity]

Not no confidence, just an acceptance that most consumers aren't in a position to evaluate providers in highly technical fields. Do you think that consumers have perfect access to information and have the ability to evaluate a medical provider that sounds legitimate but might be fraudulent?

Of course they don't have perfect access.But you're assuming they need perfect access.

In a free market it would be different in the sense that there would be a strong incentive for all consumers to constantly pay attention to reputation that has been earned voluntarily i.e. not derived from shelter by a monopoly accrediter.

Are you really that arrogant that you think you could competently evaluate providers in highly complex fields such as medicine, food health, engineering etc to be able to evaluate their competence in their fields?

No need to, with that many consumers paying attention to who survives without a sector gate-keeping that you can't opt out of.

You still wouldn't have the technical knowledge to choose a heart surgeon, but you would know that - in that sector - there hasn't been an accrediter-by-decree for years. And you know that, without practitioners being kept out of the market by force, the only possible result is that the most competent rise to the top.

 

[Brian_G]

sometime reality is harsh, unfortunately.

reality is there are no deep-pocket donors to fund a cause that has little prospect in succeeding at this point in time.
were the economy of the w/c a whole lot stronger that it currently is, that may well serve as incentive for a change of mind

Mostly agreed with your post's logic, but we don't actually know there's no (or even few) donors, all it takes is someone very devoted to the cause.

 

[Brian_G]

Come on Cray.

I've been using these softball insults for years. None of you guys took the bitch off-ramp about it.

What gives, now, all of a sudden?

"Cucks" is a really ugly one though...

Anyway, it's just academic now, seems this thread needs special treatment. Maybe we can get somewhere with the debates with that, always look on the positive side I believe :- )

 

[Brian_G]

More like

Nah, I just say I'm leaving, never seldom do

 

[ToxicBunny]

Mostly agreed with your post's logic, but we don't actually know there's no (or even few) donors, all it takes is someone very devoted to the cause.

We can infer there are no deep-pocket donors... if there were then where is the private referendum? Or a big well structured marketing push, or anything else that indicates an organisation has money at its disposal?

 

[Brian_G]

Lex, so you find automation useful? 'Cos that in a sense is all that authority is doing, making much of a society's needs less of a burden.

That's when it works well enough... of course all power can be corrupted. And that doesn't change if it's narrowed down to smaller groups, may just be less noticeable, for longer.

Why reinvent the wheel - but that's your right, sure. And those in the new republic who want their own authority(ies) may well have a better opportunity to suggest that given how more open minded the CIM folk are, if it's not generally dangerous enough.

 

[Cray]

Of course they don't have perfect access.But you're assuming they need perfect access.

In a free market it would be different in the sense that there would be a strong incentive for all consumers to constantly pay attention to reputation that has been earned voluntarily i.e. not derived from shelter by a monopoly accrediter.

This magical reputation of yours is imperfect by it's very nature. Companies have been doing dodgy things for decades in order to make a quick buck and to hell with the consumers or the general public that get in the way. Companies break the law in order to make massive profits, now you are advocating a free for all with no punishment at all for screwing up the environment or endangering consumers with unsafe products. It's not remotely realistic in the real world because your capitalist utopia would rewards execs and leaders who cut corners on health and safety and screw consumers.

Do you think an exec who gets a million dollar payday is going to care that his company may or may not fold as a result of his actions? We at least try to punish execs who do that today (rarely) but you are advocating for every company leader to maximise short term profits for their own personal gain at the cost of society as a whole. It's insane.

No need to, with that many consumers paying attention to who survives without a sector gate-keeping that you can't opt out of.

If there is no gate keeping, how would consumers ever know who survives heart surgery and who doesn't?

You still wouldn't have the technical knowledge to choose a heart surgeon, but you would know that - in that sector - there hasn't been an accrediter-by-decree for years. And you know that, without practitioners being kept out of the market by force, the only possible result is that the most competent rise to the top.

That is incredibly naive. People aren't always the best over time. What happens if a world renowned heart surgeon suddenly develops an addiction or something that would lower his abilities, how many patients does he get to kill because your silly utopia cannot rescind his license to practise medicine?

 

[Brian_G]

We can infer there are no deep-pocket donors... if there were then where is the private referendum? Or a big well structured marketing push, or anything else that indicates an organisation has money at its disposal?

I suspect they're holding back for a number of reasons, think you saw my early post about it but there's other factors too - like the element of surprise, or needed a small issue to develop further first. But I don't know, you may be right instead of course.

Phil tends to get things done and with fair sense (yes, even the false border stunt had some sense to it ), and he did make a firm announcement about doing a referendum, which I doubt he did without first preparing well.
Actually hope I'm wrong here, would prefer the referendum to be delayed (also covered earlier).

 

[lexity]

For someone who makes a show of being intelligent, you seem to struggle with basic concepts. The rule around insulting people applies to Forum users, that is so the discussions remain civil. It doesn't apply to people outside this forum which is why people can call Trump an orange turd or Biden a creepy old bugger.

When someone touts name-calling as uncivil behavior, and then proceeds to make criminal accusations of leaders of the CIM, in public.... that's where the stench of BS becomes overwhelming.

The 'I insist on civil behavior,' is but a waver-thin veneer that covers the need to reserve the aggression of State power to silence people.

If you defend a monopoly accreditor, you are doing exactly that..... retaining the use of violent force, in case you encounter a stronger argument that makes a demand on your ability to adapt to competing ideas. A concession which you cannot - in your own biological reductionist estimation - afford to make.

I think insulting the criminally-minded, wherever they exist, is perfectly acceptable.

It's the least I can do, since they've chosen not to avoid or resolve conflict through dialog/discourse/argumentation alone, but to reserve for themselves the option of aggression, instead.

I would have no need to insult someone I disagreed with who was nevertheless careful not to reserve the right to use aggression to compel compliance to/with his will/view. None whatsoever.

As for the comment about homeopathy, I take it back, it might not be a grift,

it might just be a case of plain old scientific stupidity.

Consumers who are incentivized to avoid the pain involved with poor judgement in selecting associates, would not be overly concerned with stupid market participants.

Stupid would have a very short-life span in a free market, where you could not legally socialize the costs of associating with stupid people.

 

[ToxicBunny]

I suspect they're holding back for a number of reasons, think you saw my early post about it but there's other factors too - like the element of surprise, or needed a small issue to develop further first. But I don't know, you may be right instead of course.

Phil tends to get things done and with fair sense (yes, even the false border stunt had some sense to it ), and he did make a firm announcement about doing a referendum, which I doubt he did without first preparing well.
Actually hope I'm wrong here, would prefer the referendum to be delayed (also covered earlier).

Phil tends to get things done? Really? You're actually going to say that with a straight face and not pee in your broekies?