CapeXit 2

[Grant]

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

Oh dear.

No, tired.
I was indeed in hospital all day yesterday, being slid in and out of machines and being connected to one after the other.
It is both tiresome and irritating.

 

[Cray]

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

How about you tell us how a market without state regulation relating to health, safety, hygeine regulations is better for the consumer? Or is this more of your "a free market will magically make businesses not engage in dodgy practises"?

 

[Brian_G]

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So, ofc, you have to look at the unpublished list.....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.

To try come up with an example of another side of that I'm now considering - the potato crisps market has become quite flooded in recent years in SA (in Gauteng at least, not sure nationally). How do you ensure the new entrants get a chance?

Your answer I think would be to leave it to the concept of survival of the fittest, via quality.
But is that really fair? We can't assume business capability, for anyone - few in our society are talented enough in the business choice of involvement they end up making. Yet they may end up with the better quality product to offer anyway, given half a chance.

Is there an easy answer to my argument? Doubtful. So... what this point is actually about is the lack of control we have anyway, many will always be "unfairly" handicapped, and we'll be the final (somewhat) losers in that outcome.
I'm not sure a truly free market is therefore possible.

 

[Brian_G]

No, tired.
I was indeed in hospital all day yesterday, being slid in and out of machines and being connected to one after the other.
It is both tiresome and irritating.

Hopefully the (earlier) irregular heartbeat factor is as such under control again.

 

[Cray]

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.

What specific state regulation would prevent the production of "Gold Nectar" lager in your example?

 

[lexity]

The whole medical training aspect is out of a previous century.

So are the lessons learned through State's intrusion into religion.

Would you prefer Western society to lapse back into coercive religion i.e. the union between Church and State?

The only alternative is to cherish the lessons from the 20th century and earlier. Especially where it represents a conflict of interest for the State to adjudicate on its own effect on society i.e. State education.

 

[Brian_G]

What specific state regulation would prevent the production of "Gold Nectar" lager in your example?

Lex is only focused on Grant for now, go away riff-raff

 

[Cray]

Lex is only focused on Grant for now, go away riff-raff

 

[vigras rojara]

Lex will be back in a bit. He consumed a few of these and is currently having a libertarian power nap.

 

[ToxicBunny]

Lex will be back in a bit. He consumed a few of these and is currently having a libertarian power nap.

View attachment 1894164

TBH that liquid looks a bit cloudy, as if the lack of health and safety regulations is somehow being taken advantage of by the brewer to cut costs and increase profit margins.

 

[vigras rojara]

TBH that liquid looks a bit cloudy, as if the lack of health and safety regulations is somehow being taken advantage of by the brewer to cut costs and increase profit margins.

A very good point. It may even have been made out of pineapples in someone's garage.

I which case, Lex might be gone for a while...

 

[lexity]

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

No offense taken, Snek. You are the only person arguing in good faith on this thread, at the moment.

I don't think I'm well-informed enough as to Mybb's funding, so can't comment on that. Although I can speak in general terms about how I categorize 'private' vs 'public,' and what constitutes actual violence, and the actual purpose of the State etc.

Mybb is State-regulated. This is not all that contentious as a claim. Most businesses require effective permission from a State regulatory agency of some kind or another to serve their community.

The first tell-tale sign is how they describe their business: 'ICT News Publication'.

That acronym - I'd have to double-check - but it sounds very much to me, right off the bat, like a State-invented acronym. It stands for "Information and Communications Technology".

Part of the State's regulatory infrastructure is the Department of Communications and Digital Technologies (DCDT), which oversees among other things 'ICT policy'.

So immediately, there are strong signals of licensing this online communications/publication organization.

You see at the bottom of the page it subs to an ISP agency. Which on the face of it looks like a standards body tasked with 'receiving notices'.

So. Let's dig a bit more to see if there is any more worth taking special note of.

At some point soon I expect to see the acronym ICASA, appear.

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

Well, that it is interesting to me. Whenever someone refers to an entity as 'private,' in this mixed-economy, my ears prick up.

I'm interested in comparing mybb's regulatory requirements to those who only operate a forum business.

Are your other forums paid-for, member services? Or are they just free-to-join online clubs that have no formal communication with any State agency?

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

When I refer to 3rd-parties, without the qualifier 'uninvited' then it is the abstract form. So I'm usually heading towards making the distinction between an invited 3rd-party to any human interaction between 2 willing parties, and one that is uninvited i.e. one that compels your association with them.

A simple example would be a shooting range business, who's proprietors will face the full, violent force of the State unless they associate with it by complying - and continuing to comply - with its edicts.

The gun-rights community are a problem for the State because they generally advocate for individuals to take responsibility for their own physical safety and self-defense.

This is already treading on the State's toes. The State's most fervent operators do not like self-defense training that is not under their control. They consider you a threat to their existence.

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

A 3rd-party is anyone that interacts with two existing parties to a transaction or just some human interaction in everyday human life that occurs between 2 or more consenting adults.

A voluntary transaction between two willing participants ceases to be voluntary, however, whenever an uninvited 3rd-party enters the fray by imposing its own terms and conditions on that otherwise voluntary interaction/transaction.

So, a 3rd-party per se it not necessarily a bad or harmful party. But an uninvited 3rd-party imposing terms and conditions(example minimum operating standards) always is.

 

[ToxicBunny]

A very good point. It may even have been made out of pineapples in someone's garage.

I which case, Lex might be gone for a while...

Pity he eschews proper medical and pharmaceutical accreditation, or he could just get some decent medicine that would resolve the problems with little fuss.

Strongs lexy, thoughts and prayers to your speedy recovery.

 

[lexity]

What specific state regulation would prevent the production of "Gold Nectar" lager in your example?

It failed to register.

 

[ToxicBunny]

It failed to register.

Register where and for what?

 

[Cray]

It failed to register.

Are you trying to be incoherent or have you been drinking?

 

[lexity]

To try come up with an example of another side of that I'm now considering - the potato crisps market has become quite flooded in recent years in SA (in Gauteng at least, not sure nationally). How do you ensure the new entrants get a chance?

Your answer I think would be to leave it to the concept of survival of the fittest, via quality.
But is that really fair? We can't assume business capability, for anyone - few in our society are talented enough in the business choice of involvement they end up making. Yet they may end up with the better quality product to offer anyway, given half a chance.

Is there an easy answer to my argument? Doubtful. So... what this point is actually about is the lack of control we have anyway, many will always be "unfairly" handicapped, and we'll be the final (somewhat) losers in that outcome.
I'm not sure a truly free market is therefore possible.

Let the cappy pig-in-chief put it as succinctly as I can for you....

Capitalism is most productive of a flourishing, prosperous society, when members of that economy are free to fail, through their own poor judgement, poor skill levels and lack of preparedness to adjust to constantly shifting demand for a large variety of goods and services.

It assumes participants start from this premise.

It doesn't have a place for job reservation, except in terms of private charity, where the costs are not socialized onto the unwilling.

If a market is flooded, there is no State protector to prop demand when no grass-roots demand actually exists.

Capitalism is actually the best method for achieving what everyone really wants i.e. to be out of work,because all of society's members' needs and wants have already been met at the most satisfactory price/quality combination.

That is the ideal condition, after all.... not having to go to work, and still having all your needs and wants met.

It's ofc debatable we'll ever get there. But you can bet your bottom Golden Nectar that Socialism is going make damn sure you never get anywhere close to it.

 

[Brian_G]

That is the ideal condition, after all.... not having to go to work, and still having all your needs and wants met.

I'm surprised at this concept of yours. Firstly, I'm sure you've seen it's also the dream of current elitists, those who push for AI success.

No, even as a spiritual concept, there's no receiving without giving.
Unless you mean reaching a point where you can then sit back and watch your previous hard work bear fruit.

Either way, a very different concept from each other it seems as far as how markets need to act. I certainly don't believe it's natural to struggle, unless stretching for a super massive goal.

 

[lexity]

I'm surprised at this concept of yours. Firstly, I'm sure you've seen it's also the dream of current elitists,

Ha ha....

You're conflating free marketeers with those who fear open competition.

The goal of free marketeers is to make life more about games, learning and having fun, than arduous, repetitive work.

If you want these goals but believe the only way to get there is by putting others down.... then it's likely you abhor the free market, and that you work constantly to preserve/restore a 2-tier system. Because free implies everyone is free to rise to greater heights, not just a few who have managed to evade market forces so far.

those who push for AI success.

AI, much like money, can be used as a tool to advance the general standard of living in society.

Any tool can be abused and, in the hands of the undeserving, be put to evil use.

And?

No, even as a spiritual concept, there's no receiving without giving.

Capitalism when practiced without a two-tier system/legal-privilege, is all about giving and receiving.

It's the most efficient system ever devised for allocating resources on pure merit.

Unless you mean reaching a point where you can then sit back and watch your previous hard work bear fruit.

Sure.

 

[Brian_G]

Ha ha....

You're conflating free marketeers with those who fear open competition.

No, you just explained the concept poorly.

The goal of free marketeers is to make life more about games, learning and having fun, than arduous, repetitive work.

Well, firstly I can only agree re learning, otherwise your idea of what to do with life leaves me empty and unimpressed.
But also, work is fun when about your interests and being creative. If enough people put their hearts and trust in that into their career choices, things would change. But it looks threatening, I'll give you that.

If you want these goals but believe the only way to get there is by putting others down.... then it's likely you abhor the free market, and that you work constantly to preserve/restore a 2-tier system. Because free implies everyone is free to rise to greater heights, not just a few who have managed to evade market forces so far.

Not really, in your system - "survival of the fittest" as a prime requirement does not accommodate all.
Hopefully none of us will end up handicapped in your world at some future date either.

Capitalism when practiced without a two-tier system/legal-privilege, is all about giving and receiving.

It's the most efficient system ever devised for allocating resources on pure merit.

Ok. In its skeletal form, I accept that much.