Can we continue that discussion from Will's derailed thread?

[Alpo]

O_o

I said "universally" not "where financially responsible" or "where good public relations".

I want you to do me a favor. Think how much money the United States, and other, governments waste on financially irresponsible endeavors. Image just how much private entities could do with that? You got that? Billions of dollars to solve problems however you like, right? Are you imaging those funds for me? Good. Now add hungry investors to your visions. Still with me, yeah? Now, do you repair and repave a four mile stretch of road which is only used by four families? No. You don't. That isn't in any conceivably way a sound investment. The potential for toll is trivial. The implied workforce and income is just too small. You'd be dismissed for such a ridiculous waste of money without a plan for expansion/recouping already active. The support of the extremely diminished, the fringe, with such complex and expensive machinery is financial suicide.

Look, I don't care about your politics. I don't care about your "beliefs". I don't care about your religion, race, sex, sexuality, or gender identity. I also don't care for paying taxes, but you'll always find me on the side of taxes as much as I personally find them painful. You'll always have cynical bastards like me around causing "Tax Protesters"--as Will1 names--problems because I know good and well that people are not going support the fringe even as well as done by governments out of the goodness of mankind. I don't like taxation, but I am for taxation all the same. Forcing a lot of people to give a little is wrong in so many ways, but forcing a lot of people to give a little is at least an interim solution which has that if otherwise for nothing.

(Also, I don't care if you don't want to support the fringe. Again, I'm cynical by default; someone not wanting to support the fringe is nothing I don't assume so anyone offering that isn't telling me anything I don't already assume.)

[Edit]
I poorly worded "You talk about liberals claiming to have answers?".

That would have better been "You talk about the argument that liberals claim to have answers?" or similar.
[/Edit]

With all of that out of the way, let me tell you the real problem. You talk about liberals claiming to have answers? I don't have but one, and it is do extremely simple as to be self-evident. People are so afraid of change, holding to the current, that we take decades to move beyond crappy ideas. Look at your political promises from all directions: most are some flavor of "We will keep things the same." or "We will return to the good old days.". Nonsense. Idiocy. As far as I'm concerned, there isn't a dimes worth of difference between liberals and conservatives, republicans and democrats, or jeffersonians and whigs. To me, all a bunch of nuts too afraid to try an idea on and admit it was wrong when it goes pear.

Soma

If the families have such a vested interest in preserving the road, it seems like they would take the steps to do so.

But yeah, most of the stuff you said was undeniable. No political philosophy is science, and the people who promote those positions have a vested interested in never appearing wrong, in addition to the normal confirmation bias.

[Alpo]

Or cover it up with sand and pretend for a few months that it never existed until someone notices, like the Playstation Network hack of 2011.

EDIT: I also noticed you dodged the problem of private investment in low population areas,

Mario, how can you be so dogged about him answering this when you have completely ignored what I asked? A conversation has both give and take. It isn't simply moving from one point to another until you've found a perceived weak spot.

[Mario F.]

I honestly didn't understand your post. That's why I didn't answer it. You seem to be talking of illegal activities,, when the whole point of the article is to discuss the effects to the economy and labor conditions that the mexican informal markets is having on the country and its people.

EDIT: If you can read spanish, you can hit the original source link at the bottom of the article. The original piece goes into more detail.

[Mario F.]

[Edit]Already silly emails; I'm out.[/Edit]

I have your original post in my mail box and see no problem with the comparison you drew. Sensitive minds are what they are though. *shrug*

I'll try from a different perspective.

Real freedom is the state in which all interactions between persons is voluntary.

No. That's your freedom. Not real freedom. My "real" freedom is different than yours. As whiteflags said before, freedom is what you make of it. Your "freedom" cannot be imposed on me, or I'll feel I'm not free anymore. Especially because your concept of freedom scares the living hell of me. You may not feel free, as you say you don't. But don't think your freedom is the real freedom. It's just yours.

I don't see how your freedom from government reach will help you protect from corporate interests. You will just trade one evil by another as you slowly move into a Plutocracy fueled by decades of corporate interests as the source of the majority of your country infrastructures and strong deregulation of your market. And an economy strongly based on large corporations. The only ones that will have the power to build roads and other infrastructures and services. I'd be interested in knowing what kind of competitive market one would have from a libertarian-based economy.

Neither I can understand how you put so much faith in the corporate world to shape your country, when you offer no counter-balance methods and safety checks to regulate business reach and influence in the life of your country. As an example, what makes you think large-scale businesses will offer you as a citizen and as a part of the workforce more and better safety than what an elected government can? When your government budget gets reduced by a lack of funding, how do you plan to maximize supervision and enforcement of work and civil protection laws?

In short, I don't see you doing anything else other than trading one power by another. But this time you are trading one elected power by a power that you cannot elect or influence. Your schools, your hospitals, your roads, your highways and bridges, your airports, will be built by large-scale business and its their internal objectives that will invariably shape your country, not your elective desires. Your freedom will, in the end, be granted to the large corporations, not you. But you will be left with your tax free lemonade stand. Don't you worry.

[Elkvis]

I also noticed you dodged the problem of private investment in low population areas

I didn't dodge it. He hadn't posted the question yet when I entered my reply.

I'll defer to Alpo's post #61 for my answer as well.

[Mario F.]

That question had also been put forth by me. Not just phantomotap. But anyways...

So you say that a bridges, highways, hospitals and bridges should be made by the people, if the companies don't do it. Alright.

... I feel like saying something, but it's probably just a waste of time. Because the mindset necessary to write and support paragraph 1 in Alpo's reply #61 is so out there, it is just not going to listen to reason and eons of experience on how exactly human interactions go as far as cooperative work is concerned. Particularly when it involves large amounts of money.

[Elkvis]

The problem most people have in wrapping their heads around libertarian ideals is that they are too accustomed to the way things work now. They think that corporations would take advantage of people and go back on the decades of perceived progress that has been made in labor relations and environmental protection. I disagree. When the corporations stop receiving funding and protection from a central government, and are forced to compete head-to-head in a purely consumer-driven model, based on their actual merit, they would have no choice but to uphold a high standard. When a small mom and pop store truly stands on the same level ground as a large corporation, the small store has a better chance, because they are unhampered by the regulatory costs that large corporations currently can absorb easily. When small business flourishes, it provides a greater variety of employment options, in which the businesses that treat their employees poorly will find themselves with a diminishing work force. I the modern era, in which people are acutely aware of the effects of pollution, consumers would have more power over environmentally irresponsible businesses, and they would be forced to clean up their act. The reduced or eliminated regulatory costs of hazardous material disposal would make it a more financially reasonable proposition, encouraging businesses to be responsible. All of these things would take time, and there would be a rough road leading up to the new set of stable conditions, but I believe that it is a goal that can be realized. Like Soma said, people are just afraid to discard the things that don't work, and try something new.

[Mario F.]

That fear is legitimate. Fear of change isn't something one should be ashamed of. Change needs to be clearly spoken, particularly when it concerns a whole country economy.

Fears can only be fought, and changes can only be justified, if there's a clear road and the present situation demands change. I see neither. Neither I see any ground movement of significance that indicates that perhaps I am being blind. What exactly justifies your change? And what exactly makes you put so much stock on your untested economic model? Just this indoctrination of "freedom" you got yourself into? Are you really ready to risk so much (an entire country population and perhaps a world-wide economic crisis) for a vague idea of freedom that may as well by just a different type of incarceration?

I will always side with tax reduction. I own two businesses. One in Portugal and another in Angola. I deal with local and foreign customers and suppliers. In both countries I endure around 35% of taxation on my businesses yearly results and around 25% on my salary. I wish for reductions and fairer taxation. And I feel I am a free man. What I cannot conceive is a working economic and social environment without government regulation and intervention. I do not put any stock on myself or any other business person as purveyors of goodwill. Give me complete "freedom", eliminate my taxes, deregulate my businesses and I'll try to eat you alive for my well being and that of my family. In this type of competitive environment, some will win and some will lose. Those that lose will have no protection. And they won't feel so free anymore. And contrary to you, I believe that under a laissez-faire economic model, the small mom and pop store will stand absolutely no chance at all. It won't be able to compete with the cost reduction associated with the big business.

[phantomotap]

Give me complete "freedom", eliminate my taxes, deregulate my businesses and I'll try to eat you alive for my well being and that of my family. In this type of competitive environment, some will win and some will lose.

O_o

Sorry, but you have no chance whatsoever.

As it just happens, I own competing businesses in Portugal and Angola with similar pedigree but far more financial reserves because my stores are slightly more accessible and have been throughout their existence allowing me a more substantial "customer loyalty" income.

My plan to completely eliminate you as competition is simple enough: I'll implement an extreme predatory pricing model at my Portugal store. (I'll undercut any prices you publish by such an extreme that not even your loyal customers can justify coming to your store because doing so would represent an immediate--thus more obvious and unappealing to the common--financial burden.) You are not an idiot so you'll carefully control local inventory hoping I'll burn out my resources before you lose your Portugal store, but I'm not an idiot so I'll just strait up spy on your inventory modulating my prices and inventory to compensate making the Portugal location a war of attrition for which I'm far more prepared. Of course, I have no reason to fight you on multiple fronts, but I can't have you undercutting my Angola location in a similar way. (Which you try because of course you would.) I'm going to "price match" at my Angola store to compensate at that location. (Any price you publish can be brought to my more convenient location.) You can try some clever schemes at Angola, but they will ultimately fail because as soon as I crush your Portugal location I'm going to even my prices. (I'll adjust my prices to match what the market will, without you as competitor, handle.) With that then new revenue stream, I can now focus on the Angola location. Of course, I can now use my success in Portugal to paint you as less savvy allowing me to redirect some of your investors my way. Oddly, I'm not going to bother crushing the Angola location. I'm going to use your fleeing investors to undercut your stock and other interests so I can buy them for myself. I'll have one more convenient location where I can keep prices slightly above yours giving customers the immediate benefit of going your way where possible. That may sound odd at first, but as a major investor I get a portion of your income in any event so allowing your store to continue gives me a surplus revenue stream protected from my other assets. I can now continue to focus on the Portugal location because, let's face it, you weren't my only competition. I can't implement "nosebleed" just yet, but with the added income I can pick off my competition a few stores at a time making my total control of the Portugal location a matter of negotiating with the group who I can easiest supply with the most guns.

*shrug*

I've greatly simplified for the sake of brevity, but you really should just give up now. I can offer you a manager position at either location you like, and would not that be nice? You wouldn't have to worry about the price of fighting me off, and you'd be doing almost the same job. Surely, that isn't a bad thing right? I'll obviously fire you the instant my niece needs a job leaving you with no source of income whatsoever, but you'll be fine with unemployment and social services will take care of your family. Right?

Soma

[Will1]

I found it a bit odd that you said you agree with Reagan, and then quote Madison.

I thought everyone knew that Reagan said that government is not the anwser (the federal) govenrment is the problem and I agree with that. I quoted Madison because the quote says that government power should be mostly in the hands of state (and local) governments, not in the hands of the federal government according to the (proposed at the time) Constitution.

If the federal government would govern according to the Constitution there would be a small federal government with linited power. Our federal governnment has becom a megalith that now eats up our production and has us so far in debt that our grandchildren will be paying the interest on it for their full lives unless, of course, the nation's economy collapses as many are now warning.

Getting back to the individual income tax, anyone who takes a little time to research it will find that it is a fraud. The 16th Amendment was NOT legally ratified except by a few states. For a state to legally ratiy an amendment there must be "CONCURRENCE" of both houses of the state legislature with the exact wording and punctuation of the amendment that Congress submits to them. The federal government has been perpetrating a fraud against the American people for over a century now.

[Alpo]

The problem most people have in wrapping their heads around libertarian ideals is that they are too accustomed to the way things work now.

To me it seems like the biggest problem in getting people to understand libertarianism is that it's incompatible with an utilitarian way of thinking.

Someone thinking of consequence only would say that it doesn't matter if you are claiming to be involuntarily forced into something, because the results of this will end in societies favor.

Whereas a libertarian (who tend to be non-consequentialists) would say it doesn't matter what the consequences are, that you can't force a good outcome through the violation of rights.

Who's right? Who knows, personally I think science is humanity's only real hope. It's the only thing that brings more to the table than it eats.

[Will1]

[QUOTE=Mario F.;1209883Sensitive minds are what they are though. *shrug*[/QUOTE]

Yeah, Ayn Rand wrote "Atlas Shrugged" way back in the 1950s. Today it's not concidered PC by the tyrants that rule us.

A tyrant is a tyrant even if elected. People forget that Adolf Hitler was originally elected Chancellor of Germany.

[Mario F.]

Sorry, but you have no chance whatsoever.
[...]

And that's the jist of it.

The influence of power on business relations is what I fear most about libertarian economies. Not that competitive markets aren't desirable. But left to their own devises businesses will willfully and ignorantly ruin people's lives for a chance of a better yearly report and a 0,5% margin of growth. I mean, this is not new to anyone. I's already the deal in our free market economies. The only difference is that further deregulation and a tax free economy will offer no protection to the losing side, including its workforce.

[Yarin]

But you will be left with your tax free lemonade stand. Don't you worry.

You have already been told, The lemonade stand has already been taxed (sales tax). Way to troll.

[Alpo]

O_o

Sorry, but you have no chance whatsoever.

As it just happens, I own competing businesses in Portugal and Angola with similar pedigree but far more financial reserves because my stores are slightly more accessible and have been throughout their existence allowing me a more substantial "customer loyalty" income.

My plan to completely eliminate you as competition is simple enough: I'll implement an extreme predatory pricing model at my Portugal store. (I'll undercut any prices you publish by such an extreme that not even your loyal customers can justify coming to your store because doing so would represent an immediate--thus more obvious and unappealing to the common--financial burden.) You are not an idiot so you'll carefully control local inventory hoping I'll burn out my resources before you lose your Portugal store, but I'm not an idiot so I'll just strait up spy on your inventory modulating my prices and inventory to compensate making the Portugal location a war of attrition for which I'm far more prepared. Of course, I have no reason to fight you on multiple fronts, but I can't have you undercutting my Angola location in a similar way. (Which you try because of course you would.)

Soma

I just thought I would add to this, that there is actually a way to combat this sort of price cutting warfare. It is to buy your competitors stock yourself, and sell it at normal price at a place where your competitor isn't undercutting.

Because you will be taking a loss on every inventory item sold, I should be able to recoup at least some of that money you are giving up (minus transportation, ect).

I remember reading an article where a person did exactly this, but I'm having trouble finding it. From what I remember it was a chemical supplier of some sort, if I find the article I will post it.

This only works if your competitor is taking an actual hit to profits in order to undercut. If they have come up with a cheaper means of production however, you will just be screwed until you can research a similar means.

Edit: Here is the source:

"Dow refused to succumb to German pressure to increase the price of his bromine. Rather, Dow began to sell his bromine for a cheaper price in Europe, hurting the profits of the Germans. The Germans retaliated by selling bromine to American business owners for only fifteen cents per pound. Undaunted, Dow purchased large quantities of the Germans' fifteen cent bromine and then resold it in Europe at twenty-seven cents, undercutting the German price on this continent by twenty-two cents! The Germans did not realize that Dow was behind the cheaper price in Europe. Even worse for the Germans, they repeatedly cut the price of bromine in the United States. Before long, bromine was selling for 10.5 cents in the United States, and Dow was continuing to repackage and sell this bromine in Europe for twenty-seven cents. After four years, Dow and the Germans finally negotiated an agreement. The Germans would no longer sell bromine in the United States, and Dow would not sell his bromine in Germany. The two sides would compete for customers in the rest of the world."

- http://www.ohiohistorycentral.org/w/...emical_Company