CapeXit 2

[Brian_G]

Whut?

Recently discussed, those Libert. governing-free values are outpaced by the build up of chance takers in anything other than a rather small community.


But these are old tired subjects here now, and since frowned on in here by "some" you seem almost self destructive in clinging to them.
I'll be standing back now, so no reply needed.

 

[lexity]

Recently discussed, those Libert. governing-free values are outpaced by the build up of chance takers in anything other than a rather small community.

Oh. Okay..... yes you have brought that up before.

You claim liberty and free markets can only be experienced in a small community.

Not sure where you are deriving this conclusion from, Brian_G.

Do you have a reference? Or is it just a hunch?

After all, the first 80 years after the secession of the American colonies from Britain, was largely free market/libertarian. That was experienced by millions of people

But these are old tired subjects here now,

For you perhaps. But are you reverting again to speaking for others?

and since frowned on in here by "some"

Enemies of individual liberty, living rent-free in your head?

you seem almost self destructive in clinging to them.

Ha ha. I don't see myself being self-destructive,dude. I'm having great fun pigeon-shooting.

I'll be standing back now, so no reply needed.

Rather don't gaslight me as to when it's appropriate to reply to you, dude. That's a bit control-freakish.

Stand back if you wish, tho', Brian_G.

That's totally fine.

 

[lexity]

probably nothing - its very rare for me to carry cash (as in a wallet / pocket etc)

giving consent under duress - well, there is no such thing as consent under those circumstances

i doubt many would say anything in defence of someone who had a gun to their head

ok, you are fond of trotting this line out - lets dissect it:

govt agent - we all know what that typically is
threat of force - what type of force are you alluding to ?
his choice of supplier - provide a little clarity
state's use of violence - what violence does the state employ in terms of suppliers ?

The point of the thought experiment was to contrast granting permission sans aggression with granting it under duress.

You perfectly restated this at some point in your reply.

That was the point, so the rest.... about crime rate, and how much cash you carry etc. is not relevant.

It's a hypothetical example to highlight the difference, that's all.

So we agree..... one cannot consent under duress.

Now... how does this apply to consumers in a State-regulated market?

The State's regulatory apparatus is the gun. And the criminal is the open-competition averse corporate crony that has this gun pointed at the head of anyone wishing to serve consumers at their(the crony's)expense i.e. 'stealing' 'their' customers.

This aggression may sound metaphorical but it is quite literal. Even though the violence may not always materialize as a gun.... it could be a baton, in some countries, or a tazer, or even a loaded syringe or a rubber bullet to the face, or a boot to the head.

This is real violence, in the real world we live in, on the part of an uninvited 3rd party.

They are not coming to the defense of a victim of real crime, tho' e.g. murder, robbery or rape. There is no victim. Just someone trying to serve his community without the permission of an uninvited 3rd-party. They are in fact coming to the defense of the open competition averse !!!

And what makes it a supercharged mafia is the fact it is legalized violence.

The wet dream of every mafia boss.

The consumer, therefore, through this act of violence, is being deprived of freedom to choose his associates in that market.

p.s. Think about what this enables, in terms of the price and quality of the good/service. Just like the article I linked to, for you the other day, describes this exact effect in the healthcare/pharmaceutical sector. Price/quality combination is to the detriment of the consumer due to this violent cornering of the market.

Here's the article, again:

How Medical Licensing Serves Big Pharma at the Expense of Public Health | Mises Institute

The purpose of medical licensing is not to protect consumers but the financial interests of privileged trade organizations allied with Big Pharma.

mises.org

 

[Grant]

The point of the thought experiment was to contrast granting permission sans aggression with granting it under duress.

You perfectly restated this at some point in your reply.

That was the point, so the rest.... about crime rate, and how much cash you carry etc. is not relevant.

It's a hypothetical example to highlight the difference, that's all.

So we agree..... one cannot consent under duress.

Now... how does this apply to consumers in a State-regulated market?

this whole "state controlled market" is very drama queen - esque.
every state encourages new business operations and endeavours - which in turn become a critical revenue stream for that state.

The State's regulatory apparatus is the gun. And the criminal is the open-competition averse corporate crony that has this gun pointed at the head of anyone wishing to serve consumers at their(the crony's)expense i.e. 'stealing' 'their' customers.

This aggression may sound metaphorical but it is quite literal. Even though the violence may not always materialize as a gun.... it could be a baton, in some countries, or a tazer, or even a loaded syringe or a rubber bullet to the face, or a boot to the head.

This is real violence, in the real world we live in, on the part of an uninvited 3rd party.

They are not coming to the defense of a victim of real crime, tho' e.g. murder, robbery or rape. There is no victim. Just someone trying to serve his community without the permission of an uninvited 3rd-party. They are in fact coming to the defense of the open competition averse !!!

And what makes it a supercharged mafia is the fact it is legalized violence.

The wet dream of every mafia boss.

The consumer, therefore, through this act of violence, is being deprived of freedom to choose his associates in that market.

how is a customer deprived ?
lets assume beer or lounge suites or pots and pans - the customer is free to pick and choose products from the manufacturers in those sectors.
how are you being deprived of choice between castle, hansa, black label etc ?

p.s. Think about what this enables, in terms of the price and quality of the good/service. Just like the article I linked to, for you the other day, describes this exact effect in the healthcare/pharmaceutical sector. Price/quality combination is to the detriment of the consumer due to this violent cornering of the market.

that article - a load or horse schite written to promote a failed agenda.
you can go make your own amitriptyline if you wish, or if you are feeling particularly ambitious and adventurous - cardioplegia, in case you ever find yourself needing secondary life support by way of a cardiopulmonary bypass pump, or ecmo circuit.

as to medical training, standards and accepted protocols are key to training.
i have seen students unable to identify the correct location of various organs spread thru the 9 segments of the human abdomen.
then there are others who think the human heart sits to the left of the sternum, simply because they are able to use their fingers to feel the beat of the heart - when in fact what they are feeling is the left ventricle - the strongest of the 4 chambers given it is tasked to pump oxygenated blood thru the entire body.
good luck with your doctor out of a medical school that lacks the appropriate accreditation.
going down that route, one may as well appoint a conveyancer to handle the litigation aspect of your criminal trial - or perhaps a florist to set out engineering specifications for the suspended cantilevers for your new residence in lexyland (ps - insurance wont pay out when your palace collapses).

above all - - - dont use a pea shooter to try ward off the black bears that invade your garden looking for any tasty snacks
and hors d'oeuvres that may be lurking about.

 

[lexity]

how is a customer deprived ?

The licensing is a combintion of basic sensible quality control + uncalled-for-by-consumers red-tape which prohibits the entry of competitor beer.

lets assume beer or lounge suites or pots and pans - the customer is free to pick and choose products from the manufacturers in those sectors.
how are you being deprived of choice between castle, hansa, black label etc ?

State regulation prohibits the beer manufacturer who produces 'Golden Nectar' lager.

You, as the consumer, never see 'Golden Nectar', so there is no proof this manufacturer even existed.

You are in effect asking: "How could this manufacturer have been a victim if he is not in the market?"

Do you see how silly your question is?

You are being deprived of the choice from the full range of beers(beers that were available to the consumer BEFORE the uninvited 3rd-party filtered the provider list).

You as the consumer don't see the original range of available beers.

You are only looking at the post-filtered list, of providers/beers, and assuming you are being offered all the available options.

So, ofc, you have to look at the unpublished list..... to see that you were deprived of choice.

 

[Grant]

political compass

could be interesting in this thread

The Political Compass

self-test of your position on 2 political dimensions

www.politicalcompass.org

 

[Grant]

here is where i am

 

[lexity]

[Moved Iran war post to that thread.]

 

[ToxicBunny]

here is where i am

View attachment 1894070

My result is roughly similar, which isn't a huge surprise.

Would be interesting to see where lexy lands up on such a chart though.

 

[Brian_G]

Oh. Okay..... yes you have brought that up before.
You claim liberty and free markets can only be experienced in a small community.
Not sure where you are deriving this conclusion from, Brian_G.

Do you have a reference? Or is it just a hunch?
After all, the first 80 years after the secession of the American colonies from Britain, was largely free market/libertarian. That was experienced by millions of people

Really, a reference to an ancient event period again?
Modern life is far more sophisticated and far off from that in its nature in many respects.

What we have today though is far worse than the last few decades, a clear disintegration in quite large part of moral considerations and standards. It's become normal even for politicians or corporates to be caught robbing, with little public reaction, almost a kind of "oh that's normal now" attitude.

For you perhaps. But are you reverting again to speaking for others?

That is in your head alone.
What you don't like is that I focus on the general thought pattern posted on these threads. And I'm the one who has some Libert. interest, unlike most of them... you really do invent things sometimes. (We all do, but you tend to take the cake.)

Enemies of individual liberty, living rent-free in your head?

Ha ha. I don't see myself being self-destructive,dude. I'm having great fun pigeon-shooting.

Doesn't matter what you see or consider justification, the fact is this is their territory and you're heading for another fall, by their control concepts.
Seriously, that's worth a "bit of fun" or a few days of supposed focused (but little read, if at all) effort? *sigh*

A lack of patience or self restraint is nothing to be admired, particularly in such circumstances.

Rather don't gaslight me as to when it's appropriate to reply to you, dude. That's a bit control-freakish.

Again, in your head alone. I'm trying to move past being involved in what has been made at least partially taboo in here, you should be too. Yes, of course it's your right to decide to self destruct.

Stand back if you wish, tho', Brian_G.

That's totally fine.

Now you want to issue permission slips?

All I'm seeing is a swollen ego, Lex.
I say that as a friend.

 

[NoStepOnSnek88]

Let's begin with what should be very easy to agree on.

Mybb must comply with certain rules that are imposed on it by an uninvited 3rd-party, or that 3rd-party's appointed allies.

No offence @lexity but how do you know this ? This could be private individuals who operates this forum with private funding.

To take this a step further, I'm on a few forums, and there's two particular forums I actually know of the owner, back story, and have direct contact with a moderator etc... and that's all private, of course waaaaaay different to mybb, but nonetheless it's private, there are rules, there's moderators etc

Ask :

1) Is there a 3rd-party, setting terms and conditions of operation for members of this sector?

What is meant by "3rd-party" in this specific context ?
Are you referring to sponsors or funders?

2) Is that 3rd-party present by uncoerced invitation? i.e. Do they threaten violence for non-compliance?

Again we need to know who are you referring to when you mention 3rd-party?

3) have any members ever incurred such violence, due to them insisting their customers are better served using an alternative system of accreditation i.e. one that does not involve threats of violence?

I'm going to say no...

 

[Brian_G]

You claim liberty and free markets can only be experienced in a small community.

This needs further focus
No, not quite... I claim they can only be effectively experienced with some (jointly decided upon) public control, in larger groups.

I.E.: A system similar to what exists. But with better abuse protection, of course.

But you know that, you just don't want to stop debating it.

 

[Grant]

My result is roughly similar, which isn't a huge surprise.

Would be interesting to see where lexy lands up on such a chart though.

lexy is off the charts

 

[Grant]

The licensing is a combintion of basic sensible quality control + uncalled-for-by-consumers red-tape which prohibits the entry of competitor beer.


State regulation prohibits the beer manufacturer who produces 'Golden Nectar' lager.

You, as the consumer, never see 'Golden Nectar', so there is no proof this manufacturer even existed.

You are in effect asking: "How could this manufacturer have been a victim if he is not in the market?"

Do you see how silly your question is?

no
but i do see how silly your argument is

You are being deprived of the choice from the full range of beers(beers that were available to the consumer BEFORE the uninvited 3rd-party filtered the provider list).

you're inventing things again.

You as the consumer don't see the original range of available beers.

You are only looking at the post-filtered list, of providers/beers, and assuming you are being offered all the available options.

So, ofc, you have to look at the unpublished list..... to see that you were deprived of choice.

says you

 

[Brian_G]

Some of those questions are difficult, especially pg. 4 I think.

Also, did anyone else find that for some answers depends on what angle of your life you're looking from?
What helped with that was some very clear wording, well done to them, but not always.


I'm also similar

 

[Brian_G]

@Grant is more Libertarian than me

 

[Brian_G]

lexy is off the charts

Not with everything, seems almost conservative compared with some Libert. groups. Seen some flexibility too.

Methinks he'd be somewhere around +7.5 Economic and -8.5 Social

 

[lexity]

that article - a load or horse schite written to promote a failed agenda.

How did you reach that conclusion?

 

[lexity]

no
but i do see how silly your argument is

you're inventing things again.


says you

I sense Grant has lost the will to debate the State-regulation has a harmful effect on the consumer debate.

Oh dear.

 

[Grant]

How did you reach that conclusion?

The extent of the cherry picking of certain facts and the blurring of others to promote a very specific agenda.
The whole medical training aspect is out of a previous century.
International collaboration to establish certain protocols and standards is no longer set out on papyrus, written using quills and distributed by a man on horseback - but that lot are clutching at outdated modes in order to promote their agenda.

The pharmaceutical industry is another kettle of fish entirely. It enjoys overreaching protection from the US govt in order for the govt to continually reap rewards out of international currency.