jonny5
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2012
- Messages
- 27,581
- Reaction score
- 4,664
- Location
- Republic of Florida
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
So you are against the free markets and competition ... not very libertarian is it?
What does "abuse" mean in your post?
Stuff like local laws written on behalf of car dealerships to prevent competition... like online sales from Telsa or other cars.
Stuff like local laws written on behalf of cable companies that prevent new cable companies from entering the market.
And then there is the direct abuse that happened during the 2000s where former pizza delivery boys were selling mortgages on behalf of major banks and financial institutions to people who never have been able to repay the loan.
Abuses by the private sector happen daily and often and it should the job of government to stop such abuses.. that is why we have regulations. Government should not be there to promote such abuses.. which creating a defacto monopoly on behalf of a private company is.
Cable is only one way to get television or internet. It happens to be the BEST way, which is why it dominates. My speeds have skyrocketed, FYI. That's why Comcast dominates here.
So youre for govt dictatorship? Well, actually that is pretty Danish? of you.
How can it be a government dictatorship if the actions are done to protect the citizens from abuse?
State abuse.
State abuse.
First off, the mentality that the state pushed was everyone has a "right" to own a home. State abuse. The state created entities of Fannie and Freddie, that lowered standards continuously, is state abuse. The companies rightly assuming the state would bail them out is a state abuse problem.
The state is abuse, it does not stop abuse.
So it is the fault of the state when the state acts on behalf of big business to squash competition? Seriously? That the politicians writing the laws and regulations are in the pockets of business and favour them over the common man, is suddenly the fault of the state and not the system that allows it and the entities that are committing the corruption?
The crisis had nothing to do with Fannie and Freddie.. get your facts right.
So if a guy bribes a politician to pass a law that gives him a monopoly to sell water in an area, then it is the fault of the state... not the guy or the politician?
The only thing the state should do is protect the weak against the powerful or do you not agree with that?
How can it be a government dictatorship if the actions are done to protect the citizens from abuse? You have no problem with almost no competition in your cable/ISP market?
That is a very common claim of the dictator.
Yes, seriously. The system is the state, silly goose.
But it did... get your facts right.
Yes. The state is the entity that can do that, the fact that the state uses its power to abuse is a problem of the state, not of some alleged bribery. I am sorry to break it to you, the state is not some perfect entity that would just work if we got the right, non-biased, benevolent lawmakers. The state is a monopoly that has granted itself a legal monopoly on force, and it always filled with very biased people that got elected for ridiculous reasons, like their sex, or race, or how good they look, or if they stutter less than the last jackass in office, or that they think your life isn't faaaaaaair.
No it did not. In 2006 a huge majority of all mortgages was done in the private unregulated sub-prime market.
Never claimed the state was perfect. In fact it is far from perfect depending on which country we are talking about. And yes democracy "sucks" as it can elect idiots, but hey rather have a democracy than not.. dont you agree?
Now you claim that the state is a monopoly granted by itself.. hogwash on so many levels. First off the state did not grant a monopoly by itself.. we elected people to create the state on our behalf. That in the US it has been warped into you elect people to run the state on behalf of big corporations and the wealthy, only shows that the basis rules you base your state on are flawed and corrupted. But do you really think it would be any better if there was no "state" to run things like police and military and other services? Do you really think that the private free market could do that better? And if so.. based on what evidence?
Like it or not, the basis of civilization is a state entity.. it can be the family, tribe, or parliamentary state and everything in between, but it has to exist in some format to even remotely have civilization.
Yes it is, but I damn well expect the government to be on the side of the people, not on the side of the few.. which is VERY different than a dictator.
How can I be against free market competititon? You post rhetoric, I post rhetoric.
You're against free market competition because you are for measures that are anti-competitive. It's not hard.
LOL yea right, in a country where you are lucky if you have more than one ISP available in your area, and the ability for new competition to get into the market is often blocked by local laws?
Regulation is by definition anti freedom. Its not hard.
No, it's not. That's one of several fundamental errors in libertarian thinking.
Don't know about Denmark but just in my area alone there are 5 different providers. :shrug:
LOL yea right, in a country where you are lucky if you have more than one ISP available in your area, and the ability for new competition to get into the market is often blocked by local laws?
No, it's not. That's one of several fundamental errors in libertarian thinking.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?