Buffet Says: Tax the Mega Rich

[Scheavo]

Also, ask yourself, why is the water polluted in the first place? Private Industry. Proper regulation, occurring at the right location and time, would prevent this, or at least mitigate it. Ya, there may still be problems, but they're less than what private industries and the free-market have proven time and time again to cause.

The government is typically the largest polluter, but the reason a Private Company can pollute and destroy the environment is not due to a lack of regulation, but usually directly because of regulation. Pollution is only a problem because of a lack of clearly defined property rights. The government muddies this up since the ones controlling in power are lobbied by private companies to grant them exceptions. Special interests and political favors are what allow environmental destruction to occur from private business with little or no consequences. End regulation and clearly define property rights and tort is all you need to ensure clean environments and well behaved private companies.

LOL. It's not just a lack of clearly defining property rights, it's even being able to notice the effects. If a plant across town starts to use certain chemicals, that will directly affect me - and the only way I will end up finding about this, sans government or some sort of oversight, is when I get sick, and possibly die.

Who exactly does the tort reform? Who ensures the property rights? The government! Why do you want a unilateral, mono centric decisions?

Pollution happens because consumers demand products which require polluting manufacturing processes, because of free-market principles.

I'm not saying you are wrong, just that just because government isn't regulating the industry, doesn't mean it is something to fear. People prefer clean, healthy food and water, so if there is no government to take care of it, there is no reason a private rating service wouldn't be created to fill the void.

The problem is that private companies also do many things for the sake of profit - which does not always mean better quality product. McDonalds does amazingly well, but their food is absolute shit. It's about marketing, creating and imagine, and getting people to believe that as much as it is actually delivering a good product. No, I don't think this applies to most companies, but I do think it applies to a lot of the powerful ones, and I think their effect is greater than their number. Simple, sane, regulations can go a long way - which, by the way, probably doesn't include a lot of things you might be thinking of.

[Scheavo]

I'll have to look more into that again NR, thanks. As what you point to mentions, there were set backs, and it talks about how there are recent improvements. I'll have to get back to you on that.

[Nigerius Rex]

McDonalds does amazingly well, but their food is absolute shit

You are so wrong, is funny to me! Mcdonalds is actually well known for their high quality food and cheap prices. That combined with the transparency of their ingredients and cooking processes, is what brings people to them over and over again in droves for every meal, not aggressive and manipulative marketing.

The complaints I imagine you draw are talking about how the food effects the body and is wrongly blamed on the quality of food or cooking process because of the bastardization of saturated fat and the fast food industry in general instead of insane amounts of carbohydrates in almost every menu item.

I'll have to look more into that again NR, thanks. As what you point to mentions, there were set backs, and it talks about how there are recent improvements. I'll have to get back to you on that.

Please do. It isn't a perfect solution to every problem due to the complexity of most of the systems before reform, but often times when the system has failed, it is due to reasons other than or combined with failure of market forces. It also is responsible for providing areas with previously no water, with water.

Also take note, in instances where the system hasn't failed, prices went up compared to the public option, but quality always did as well in nearly every area.

[Super Dude]

Mcdonalds high quality food

lol

[Nigerius Rex]

Mcdonalds high quality food

lol

Ah yes, good point. Hadn't thought of that.

[jsem]

Oh, and quality doesn't necessarily mean that it's healthy or have good nutritional standards .

[Tanatra]

The complaints I imagine you draw are talking about how the food effects the body and is wrongly blamed on the quality of food or cooking process because of the bastardization of saturated fat and the fast food industry in general instead of insane amounts of carbohydrates in almost every menu item.

McDonalds fries all of their foods in omega-6 and trans-fat laden vegetable oil, so their food is unhealthy regardless of the carbohydrate content.

[Nigerius Rex]

No, they use trans fat free canola and soybean oil. Also, lets not get off topic.

[Scheavo]

McDonalds does amazingly well, but their food is absolute shit

You are so wrong, is funny to me! Mcdonalds is actually well known for their high quality food and cheap prices. That combined with the transparency of their ingredients and cooking processes, is what brings people to them over and over again in droves for every meal, not aggressive and manipulative marketing.

The complaints I imagine you draw are talking about how the food effects the body and is wrongly blamed on the quality of food or cooking process because of the bastardization of saturated fat and the fast food industry in general instead of insane amounts of carbohydrates in almost every menu item.

My complaint is drawn upon trying to eat the fucking shit. It's horrible, disgusting, and tastes like pure shit. They have to ammonia-wash their meat (which is technically poisoning it) to kill the bacteria, then they add flavoring to make it better. I mean, Burger King is bad (and also ammonia-washed their meat), but I'd almost rather re-eat Burger King after I've shat it out than try and eat McDonalds.

If commercials weren't so successful, why would companies put money into them? If they didn't work, companies would have stopped advertising a lot ass time ago, ya?

Though, it's not as if I want to do anything about McDonalds. My point was simply that the market does not always produce quality,

I'll have to look more into that again NR, thanks. As what you point to mentions, there were set backs, and it talks about how there are recent improvements. I'll have to get back to you on that.

Please do. It isn't a perfect solution to every problem due to the complexity of most of the systems before reform, but often times when the system has failed, it is due to reasons other than or combined with failure of market forces. It also is responsible for providing areas with previously no water, with water.

Also take note, in instances where the system hasn't failed, prices went up compared to the public option, but quality always did as well in nearly every area.

Wait, am I understanding this right, that you amid that ere can be failure of market forces? And that privatization of water isn't the best answer everywhere? Because that's the most reasonable thing I've ever heard you say, and something I can agree to.

It really does come down the issue of liberty for me. I think private businesses can take away my liberty just as much as "the government" can, they're social force and effect is much the same. I don't like it when government does it, and I don't like it when private business does it.

[Nigerius Rex]

My complaint is drawn upon trying to eat the fucking shit. It's horrible, disgusting, and tastes like pure shit. They have to ammonia-wash their meat (which is technically poisoning it) to kill the bacteria, then they add flavoring to make it better. I mean, Burger King is bad (and also ammonia-washed their meat), but I'd almost rather re-eat Burger King after I've shat it out than try and eat McDonalds.

That's great, but also anecdotal. People eat the food and enjoy it and keep doing it, I do the same. The ammonia thing came under scrutiny, but fell off because even though you can talk up the method to eating e coli and pink slime, its perfectly safe. So you not preferring Mcdonalds doesn't change the quality or taste of the food, or that millions of people visit one regularly.

From that article:

No illnesses have been linked to Beef Products’ meat.

If commercials weren't so successful, why would companies put money into them? If they didn't work, companies would have stopped advertising a lot ass time ago, ya?

Because companies that invest in marketing before making sure they have a good product, fail. Which is why Mcdonalds spends millions of dollars advertising new products to more people, and not investing in psychological rape messages that get you addicted to their food and drinks.

Though, it's not as if I want to do anything about McDonalds. My point was simply that the market does not always produce quality,

Mcdonalds is a beacon of quality.

It really does come down the issue of liberty for me. I think private businesses can take away my liberty just as much as "the government" can, they're social force and effect is much the same. I don't like it when government does it, and I don't like it when private business does it.

There is no comparable example where a corporation can or has wronged someone on the scale that the federal government can and has in the past. Think of every documented privacy violation, service or product legislated away, regulation into private industry, failed government program, tax and fee, and wrongful arrest and prosecution case. How is it as bad as something a private corporation can do to you? How does that make sense?

Wait, am I understanding this right, that you amid that ere can be failure of market forces? And that privatization of water isn't the best answer everywhere? Because that's the most reasonable thing I've ever heard you say, and something I can agree to.

All I am saying is that if you go to a war torn, under developed nation with no infrastructure and a huge population, I am not surprised radical reform to privatized water doesn't always work.

[Scheavo]

I never said the ammonia-wash was going to kill you, I said it severely harms the taste and the quality of the food. McDonalds is an amazing company, that has found a way to corner a portion of the market, and get a loyal customer base. They have some quality control, but I can easily make you a better tasting meal for the same price by going to the grocery store. It's quick, and it gives customers what they want - but it is not quality food.

Ya know, the last McDonalds commercial I saw didn't even mention their food, at all? IT was all about the guy coming up with some shit nickname for his girlfriend, and about how he's so smart because he buys off the value meal. Go look up the history of marketing, go look up what techniques they use, what kind of knowledge they use, then come back to me. Commercials often work on a basic level, beyond direction consciousness - they can trick your body into being hungry, thinking about food, or wanting something, which people then react to. It's a purpose of their tools, and it's successful for the very same reasons you always use to show how great companies are.

I'm sorry, but private companies are taking away my freedom and my privacy at a far greater rate right now than the federal government. If the government put a tracking device on you at all times, you'd be up in harms. Yet, you probably carry a cell phone around with you that is just that (A friend of mine has an iPhone app, he typed in my phone number, and pinpointed my exact position on Google maps. If the government released a face-recognition program like Facebook, people would have been in the streets (actually, maybe American's are too stupid to care anymore). Private companies amass data on people to figure out how to sell to them, how to market to them, and they sell that data to whoever wants it. Guess who that can be? The government - who, in our case, is so highly corrupted, that it's sorta hard to distinguish them at times.

And once again, you fail to miss the point. Government does shitty things, but it's better than the alternative. The trick is to have a democracy, pay attention, and have control over what your government is and does, so that you can limit it. You ignore what private corporations could do to me if there wasn't the government protecting me. I'm sure there's someone out there who loves the idea of enslaving people (slavery DOES exist in America still, just so ya know); so in a theoretical world where I don't have the government protecting me in any way, what recourse do I have if someone comes to my house, kidnaps me, and forces me into slavery? I just gotta hope that someone out there knows about it, and that they'll come risk their own life to ensure my own rights? Ya, highly theoretical, but it highlights my huge contention with the kind of libertarianism I see around here, because the ideology doesn't accept that humans are assholes, and that humans want things that aren't theirs. That's why we come together, that's why there's society, and that's why we accept losing some of our rights and our freedoms in order to gain that access. If you don't like it, leave society or find one where they don't agree to give up their right to all the money they make in exchange for protection and mutual benefit.

*edit*

To just expand a little:

Quality is more than "safe for human consumption." I'm not saying McDonalds kills you, or that eating it is going to kill you, only that it tastes bad, and isn't of high quality - it's cheap. It's the best cheap food, which is quality of a sort. But it's like saying someone is the nicest asshole. They're still an asshole.

To make a much better, and more defensible, example of how non-government defense can end up being just as bad or worse, and leaving you with no recourse. Business can become entrenched, thanks to it's efficiency and money making ability. This allows them to force out competitors, and if the kind of business we're talking about is defense related, this means a private army. Now, power does a funny thing to people, and I don't think for a second that a CEO/owner/executive board of a militia company wouldn't think about establishing himself /themselves as a monarch / plutocracy, especially once they get powerful enough. Since this wouldn't be primarily obvious by anyone, I don't see how there could be market-forces to force them out. Plus, if they tried, then who's going to protect them from said company? What you end up with is something far worse than the situation we're in right now. Look up Blackwater / Xi, and think about how easy it would be for a company like this to start a war, and the CEO is crazy fucking enough to do that. Government can easily turn into the same thing, and in many ways, our government is guilty of this. Pragmatically, it's probably not much different than there being a huge company. Companies and Governments both last too long, outlive their meaningful existence, and die far too late. The same is true of people.

[Orthogonal]

Quality is more than "safe for human consumption." I'm not saying McDonalds kills you, or that eating it is going to kill you, only that it tastes bad, and isn't of high quality - it's cheap. It's the best cheap food, which is quality of a sort. But it's like saying someone is the nicest asshole. They're still an asshole.

It sure beats a subsistence living. The division of labor and capital acquisition necessary to provide cheap food came in spite of any government involvement. You know what happens when the government has total control of food production and distribution? Mass starvation. There are numerous historical examples.

Look up Blackwater / Xi, and think about how easy it would be for a company like this to start a war, and the CEO is crazy fucking enough to do that. Government can easily turn into the same thing, and in many ways, our government is guilty of this.

War is super expensive, how is a private company going to fund it without a civilian population to fleece for taxes like the State? The truth is, a company like Blackwater isn't really a private company at all. When it's revenue stream comes directly from the government, it is NOT a private company, but more like a subsidiary of the State.
Large scale War is only feasible for a State.

[Nigerius Rex]

They have some quality control, but I can easily make you a better tasting meal for the same price by going to the grocery store. It's quick, and it gives customers what they want - but it is not quality food.

That doesn't lend itself to any argument. The food is good, safe to eat, and cheap, end of story.

Commercials often work on a basic level, beyond direction consciousness - they can trick your body into being hungry, thinking about food, or wanting something, which people then react to. It's a purpose of their tools, and it's successful for the very same reasons you always use to show how great companies are.

Again, that doesnt mean anything to your philosophy. There's nothing wrong with the information they use nor is there anything mysterious or manipulative about it.

Yet, you probably carry a cell phone around with you that is just that (A friend of mine has an iPhone app, he typed in my phone number, and pinpointed my exact position on Google maps.

Every example you have cited is entirely voluntary on the part of the user. When you sign up for service with any cell phone provider, you usually sign a contract or agree to their terms of service or both. When you open a Facebook account, you agree to their terms of service. If you do not like a service or product or how it functions, you can voluntarily opt out without any negative consequences. Unfortunately due to the way cell phones function, trilateration enables non gps devices to be located by the provider as long as they are within a service area. What you mention on the iphone however requires your device to be running the same app and enabled with a unique device code.

You ignore what private corporations could do to me if there wasn't the government protecting me.

You get mad at me when I do this to you, so dont do it to me. I am ot arguing that, and neither is mainstream libertarianism. Even in my dream world, the federal government still has a police force and an army to assist with matters of force.

because the ideology doesn't accept that humans are assholes, and that humans want things that aren't theirs

Its funny you bring that up because I think the same thing about your ideology. You expect people to be given unlimited power, and only use a little bit of it when logically appropriate.

If you don't like it, leave society or find one where they don't agree to give up their right to all the money they make in exchange for protection and mutual benefit.

That's the Scheavo version of "if you dont like America, get out". Because the current status quo is not do everything you agree with and tell everyone else to bite the bullet and give up their rights.

By the way, you still have not elaborated on that concept. How do you give up liberty and somehow get more back at the end of the day? If you lose it you lose it and it only gets worse. Benjamin Franklin had a good quote that applies here: "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

[Scheavo]

Quality is more than "safe for human consumption." I'm not saying McDonalds kills you, or that eating it is going to kill you, only that it tastes bad, and isn't of high quality - it's cheap. It's the best cheap food, which is quality of a sort. But it's like saying someone is the nicest asshole. They're still an asshole.

It sure beats a subsistence living. The division of labor and capital acquisition necessary to provide cheap food came in spite of any government involvement. You know what happens when the government has total control of food production and distribution? Mass starvation. There are numerous historical examples.

I never said I endorse the government controlling food, that's not even close to what I'm arguing. Where have I said anything to favor that? :strawman

Look up Blackwater / Xi, and think about how easy it would be for a company like this to start a war, and the CEO is crazy fucking enough to do that. Government can easily turn into the same thing, and in many ways, our government is guilty of this.

War is super expensive, how is a private company going to fund it without a civilian population to fleece for taxes like the State? The truth is, a company like Blackwater isn't really a private company at all. When it's revenue stream comes directly from the government, it is NOT a private company, but more like a subsidiary of the State.
Large scale War is only feasible for a State.

Quite easy, a rich business owner who wants something, as well as the population which wants protection from an enemy. War is not only feasible for a state, especially not in the world being proposed by free-marketers.

[Scheavo]

They have some quality control, but I can easily make you a better tasting meal for the same price by going to the grocery store. It's quick, and it gives customers what they want - but it is not quality food.

That doesn't lend itself to any argument. The food is good, safe to eat, and cheap, end of story.

If I call something cheap, I'm saying it's not of very high quality. So thanks for agreeing with me, that McDonalds is not quality food, but cheap food. Ther's nothing wrong with that, but it does highlight the fact that the market will not always go towards producing quality.

Commercials often work on a basic level, beyond direction consciousness - they can trick your body into being hungry, thinking about food, or wanting something, which people then react to. It's a purpose of their tools, and it's successful for the very same reasons you always use to show how great companies are.

Again, that doesnt mean anything to your philosophy. There's nothing wrong with the information they use nor is there anything mysterious or manipulative about it.

How does this mean nothing to my philosophy? I very much believe in market forces, and that companies have incentive to improve their product. The difference is, I don't think this is the only incentive they have, nor the only factor in the room.

I mean, seriously, why do companies spend millions of dollars on advertising that has nothing to do with their product, if it doesn't work? And I never said mysterious, and what they do is very much manipulative. They're very scientific about it, and the information is out there that it's done. Selling a product can be (depends upon the product) as much about image, if not more so, than about the actual product.

Yet, you probably carry a cell phone around with you that is just that (A friend of mine has an iPhone app, he typed in my phone number, and pinpointed my exact position on Google maps.

Every example you have cited is entirely voluntary on the part of the user. When you sign up for service with any cell phone provider, you usually sign a contract or agree to their terms of service or both. When you open a Facebook account, you agree to their terms of service. If you do not like a service or product or how it functions, you can voluntarily opt out without any negative consequences. Unfortunately due to the way cell phones function, trilateration enables non gps devices to be located by the provider as long as they are within a service area. What you mention on the iphone however requires your device to be running the same app and enabled with a unique device code.

No, my phone wasn't capable of running an app, and he very much did pinpoint my position.

And you're argument just doesn't add up. When people buy a cell phone, they aren't aware that it tracks them. It may be in the contract, somewhere, but people aren't going to understand the jargon, or quite honestly, probably read it. They're in on the act, but that doesn't mean that private corporations aren't collecting massive amounts of data on the American people, data which can be used by someone with the money, data which can be used to breach your privacy.

You ignore what private corporations could do to me if there wasn't the government protecting me.

You get mad at me when I do this to you, so dont do it to me. I am ot arguing that, and neither is mainstream libertarianism. Even in my dream world, the federal government still has a police force and an army to assist with matters of force.

Mainstream libertarianism makes a hooey about taxes being theft and evil, but if you want to have an army and a federal government, you're going to have taxes. The army is the force behind taxation, so if libertarians want to have the army, they have to swallow the bullet about taxing being theft, so that we can move on with the discussion.

because the ideology doesn't accept that humans are assholes, and that humans want things that aren't theirs

Its funny you bring that up because I think the same thing about your ideology. You expect people to be given unlimited power, and only use a little bit of it when logically appropriate.

Lol, I don't expect people to be given unlimited powers at all. I'm a supporter of democracy, specifically constitutional ones, where power is limited, not only in terms of what can actually be done, but how long that power is held. You know, it's funny, when Jobe was around I remember everyone taking a political compass test, and I came up as more libertarian than Jobe. I don't really like the idea of anyone, whether it's a bureaucrat or a businessman, having power over me. Unfortunately, in order to do so, I have to give up some of my liberties, and accept a higher power over me.

If you don't like it, leave society or find one where they don't agree to give up their right to all the money they make in exchange for protection and mutual benefit.

That's the Scheavo version of "if you dont like America, get out". Because the current status quo is not do everything you agree with and tell everyone else to bite the bullet and give up their rights.

By the way, you still have not elaborated on that concept. How do you give up liberty and somehow get more back at the end of the day? If you lose it you lose it and it only gets worse. Benjamin Franklin had a good quote that applies here: "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Lol, you're quoting that is rather funny and misplaced. The issue isn't "temporary safety," it's social safety, and it's something Benjamin Franklin clearly supported.

And to answer the question, because what I'm at liberty to do is effected by the social environment I find myself in. I am born and thrown into this world, I do not choose when and where to enter, what kind of education is available to me, what kind of economic opportunities are available to me, etc. In the real world, being without government does not lead to maximum liberty.

I theoretically have the liberty to kill anyone I want, but I give up this liberty to gain cooperation, which brings up things which mean I actually can employ my of my liberties.

Giving up my liberty to all of my income leads to things like infrastructure, which actually allows me greater liberty of movement. It also leads to public educatnoi, which opens up my career opportunities, and lets me be who I want to be.

It's the social contract, and it's something libertarians are supposed to believe in.

[Orthogonal]

Quite easy, a rich business owner who wants something, as well as the population which wants protection from an enemy. War is not only feasible for a state, especially not in the world being proposed by free-marketers.

A rich person doesn't get to where they are in a free-market with those kind of tendencies. They have money, why do they need to start a war for something that they could buy?!?!

As for a population wanting protection? Nothing wrong with paying for it, but if you don't want it, no reason you should have to pay for it.

Quote:
"If I call something cheap (Subjective), I'm saying it's not of very high quality (Subjective). So thanks for agreeing with me, that McDonalds is not quality food (subjective) , but cheap food (subjective). Ther's nothing wrong with that (Nope), but it does highlight the fact that the market will not always go towards producing quality (Baseless assertion). "

I think you get the point. People choose to buy it by the billions which means it is of high enough quality to be worth more to them than the money in their pocket or anything else for that matter. Even though you and I both think it's crap food.

[Scheavo]

Quite easy, a rich business owner who wants something, as well as the population which wants protection from an enemy. War is not only feasible for a state, especially not in the world being proposed by free-marketers.

A rich person doesn't get to where they are in a free-market with those kind of tendencies. They have money, why do they need to start a war for something that they could buy?!?!

Because people suck, and there's something's you can't buy, like a religious state. The founder of Xi is highly religious ; what if he wanted to purge the world of heretics? How are you going to buy that? *edit* maybe he likes a certain lakeside property for it's view, and he wants it, and it's not for sale. Maybe he just wants people to be subjugated to himself, to bow before him, to call him a lord. Money can only buy things which are for sale. They can very easily get to this position, if they're a shrewd businessman. It's not they're goin to go around telling people, "hey, once I have enough money I want to start taking things over." The free-market is not some err-free filter, it's a very good filter which allows for some very bad things to get through, and it's those bad things I want to protect myself from.

Psychopaths are more commonly found as CEO's of companies than the general population.

As for a population wanting protection? Nothing wrong with paying for it, but if you don't want it, no reason you should have to pay for it.

No, there really isn't a reason. But ever heard of protection money?

Quote:
"If I call something cheap (Subjective), I'm saying it's not of very high quality (Subjective). So thanks for agreeing with me, that McDonalds is not quality food (subjective) , but cheap food (subjective). Ther's nothing wrong with that (Nope), but it does highlight the fact that the market will not always go towards producing quality (Baseless assertion). "

I think you get the point. People choose to buy it by the billions which means it is of high enough quality to be worth more to them than the money in their pocket or anything else for that matter. Even though you and I both think it's crap food.

Well, I agree with you on the subject, but that's why I don't support regulations in this area. I'm bringing up an example of what motivates companies, and in the area's where I support regulation, there is often no room for subjective thought. Which is again, what my argument lies upon (a healed leg is a healed leg). Clean air and clean water are not a matter of subjectivity, and it's not something where your free choices don't effect myself. You wanting a product, which leads to harmful chemicals in the air or water, means that my air and water is also tainted, and I didn't choose that in anyway.

Profit changes incentives, it changes what is acceptable, etc. Why do mercenaries have an historic reputation for being bad soldiers, for being more cruel, for being less loyal, etc? Profit! Greed is bad, it's called a sin for a reason.

[Super Dude]

Mcdonalds is a beacon of quality.

That would certainly explain all the fat people.

[Orthogonal]

Because people suck, and there's something's you can't buy, like a religious state. The founder of Xi is highly religious ; what if he wanted to purge the world of heretics? How are you going to buy that?

I'm not too familiar with Xi, I'll look it up, but I seriously doubt he obtained his fortune through peaceful/voluntary market means.

As for a population wanting protection? Nothing wrong with paying for it, but if you don't want it, no reason you should have to pay for it.

No, there really isn't a reason. But ever heard of protection money?

Protection money, like the Mafia government? Seems to me you are forced to pay for protection from the government through taxes.

You wanting a product, which leads to harmful chemicals in the air or water, means that my air and water is also tainted, and I didn't choose that in anyway.

Due to the existence of the government, air and water insurance is not a viable business model since it is supposedly "public goods", but it would be viable in a true free society. An air/water insurer would have to pay out huge claims to people if it were dirty, so instead they would monitor any and all startup business's looking for property in the area, if it was a business that had a dirty production process, they would then outbid the property from that company and sale it to a business that ensure's a cleaner production process.

Why do mercenaries have an historic reputation for being bad soldiers, for being more cruel, for being less loyal, etc? Profit! Greed is bad, it's called a sin for a reason.

Don't make me laugh, state soldiers are no saints.

[Nigerius Rex]

If I call something cheap, I'm saying it's not of very high quality. So thanks for agreeing with me, that McDonalds is not quality food, but cheap food. Ther's nothing wrong with that, but it does highlight the fact that the market will not always go towards producing quality.

All you are doing is redefining terms to your own point. Making things cheap refers to being made available at a low price. It is in fact, one of the key benefits of capitalism, and the fact that Mcdonalds has made its food so available and cheap for the entirety of this economic roller coaster is an extremely positive thing. Where your original point is, is confusing me as there are no shortage of extremely high quality extremely high cost food available. I also said "good" in that sentence which you seemingly ignored.

I mean, seriously, why do companies spend millions of dollars on advertising that has nothing to do with their product, if it doesn't work? And I never said mysterious, and what they do is very much manipulative. They're very scientific about it, and the information is out there that it's done. Selling a product can be (depends upon the product) as much about image, if not more so, than about the actual product.

There is no evidence that suggests advertising takes it to an extreme. Suggestion and appeal is where it maxes out. And nothing is wrong with that.

No, my phone wasn't capable of running an app, and he very much did pinpoint my position.

I cant find any way to trace a phone using gps or trilateration without some form of consent to a service or application being offered to the phone number registered to that phone. There are apps as I mentioned, but to be legal they need to be consensual, and there are services like google latitude. Try and find the app your friend used. If the government doesnt get involved and demand that your carrier track you, it doesn't usually happen.

When people buy a cell phone, they aren't aware that it tracks them. It may be in the contract, somewhere, but people aren't going to understand the jargon, or quite honestly, probably read it. They're in on the act, but that doesn't mean that private corporations aren't collecting massive amounts of data on the American people, data which can be used by someone with the money, data which can be used to breach your privacy.

Bullshit. You sign contracts when you buy a house, buy a car, rent anything, sell anything and the list goes on. You need to read the fine print and make an effort to understand it because they are such monumental things that affect your entire life so readily. If you don't read it, you are 100% at fault for any behavior that results because its their fault for signing and agreeing to it and any argument to the contrary is a cop out. By the way, if a company collects or sells personal data not stipulated in the terms, they are legally at fault and usually get ripped up and down by consumers interest groups anyway. Your whole line sounds like something out of a conspiracy theory. What precisely is the data they are collecting and how are they doing it, who is going to abuse it, who are they selling it to, and what proof do you have? This whole ominous "They are doing it because they are and they are selling it to everyone because they are" thing holds no weight.

Mainstream libertarianism makes a hooey about taxes being theft and evil, but if you want to have an army and a federal government, you're going to have taxes. The army is the force behind taxation, so if libertarians want to have the army, they have to swallow the bullet about taxing being theft, so that we can move on with the discussion

No, mainstream libertarianism is not anarchy and makes no qualms about taxes at the base. They make qualms about increasing taxes, hidden taxes and fees, and new taxes for things that should not be taxed and the hostile enforcement of those taxes.

Unfortunately, in order to do so, I have to give up some of my liberties, and accept a higher power over me.

Here is where you lose me. The government can and will use brute force to achieve goals to and past the point of abuse. We have modern examples of that. A business, no matter how big or coercive or manipulative, cannot. They can affect general social change, create trends, create culture, influence the market with new products and the list goes on, but they cannot make you do anything like the government can. So how is the reasonable solution to give in to a higher democratic but still highly governmental power? Even in the best conditions, you can wind up with 49% of people opposed to something and in our case a federal government that decides when it has abused the power it gives itself unconditionally.

Mcdonalds is a beacon of quality.

That would certainly explain all the fat people.

Would you stop? You're not contributing anything to the discussion.

[Scheavo]

@Orth

Oh, right, I forgot, the market place could never create a mercenary company... Xi would not have formed, but something like that is guaranteed under the kind of libertarianism you're proposing. You don't think there's enough christian fundamentalists in America to help pay for such an army?

Ya, I agree, you are forced to pay the government for protection. If you got rid of "the government," you'd be left with something which functions just like the government, and which you may not have a say in. I hardly see how this contradicts anything I've ever said, in fact, Ive been saying that this is natural, that this is something you have to deal with, one way or another. Since that's true, the best solution is a liberal democratic government.

Who would force the companies to pay out the fines? Who would do this? Just look at history, and see how much damage companies will knowingly permit for profit.

Also, your degradation of soldiers is rather insulting. I know quite a few, being from Montana, and I can tell you, most of them are amazing fucking people. People become soldiers for a different reason other than profit - the public good. They do it because they want to help their neighbor, because they want to protect our rights. Are they all saints? No, but no population of humans are ever all saints, so what? I'm not sure if you're aware of who Robert Heinlein is, but he's extremely libertarian in his political view point (I believe he coined the term there is no such thing as a free lunch), and even he wrote a whole book extolling the human virtues of soldiers, and those who join up to be a soldier.

[Orthogonal]

Also, your degradation of soldiers is rather insulting. I know quite a few, being from Montana, and I can tell you, most of them are amazing fucking people. People become soldiers for a different reason other than profit - the public good. They do it because they want to help their neighbor, because they want to protect our rights. Are they all saints? No, but no population of humans are ever all saints, so what? I'm not sure if you're aware of who Robert Heinlein is, but he's extremely libertarian in his political view point (I believe he coined the term there is no such thing as a free lunch), and even he wrote a whole book extolling the human virtues of soldiers, and those who join up to be a soldier.

To be fair, it was just a generalized statement about soldier's, much like yours was about merc's. I know a lot of people go into the military with the best of intention's and honestly believe they are doing the right thing, but in the end, they, just like the mercenary soldier, are being paid to kill. Just because they wear a different kind of uniform doesn't change the morality of it.

Self defense is fine, aggression is not. I mean, you've heard about what Nazi soldier's have done, right?

[Scheavo]

If I call something cheap, I'm saying it's not of very high quality. So thanks for agreeing with me, that McDonalds is not quality food, but cheap food. Ther's nothing wrong with that, but it does highlight the fact that the market will not always go towards producing quality.

All you are doing is redefining terms to your own point. Making things cheap refers to being made available at a low price. It is in fact, one of the key benefits of capitalism, and the fact that Mcdonalds has made its food so available and cheap for the entirety of this economic roller coaster is an extremely positive thing. Where your original point is, is confusing me as there are no shortage of extremely high quality extremely high cost food available. I also said "good" in that sentence which you seemingly ignored.

Do you really think that something which is the lowest cost thing is the highest quality? In my experience, the exact opposite holds true. Rarely is the cheap thing high quality.

I think subjective arguing over the quality of McDonalds only highlights the fact that the free-market will not always create something everyone wants, but there are area's where one person deciding to do something effects everyone else. You complain about 49% being against something later, and being unable to do something about it... what about if its 80% of people are against something, yet have to accept it? 20% of the population could want a product which requires a manufacturing process which pollutes the environment, meaning the other 80% of people are shit out of luck. If you say the issue is with property rights, then you get into the same situation which seems to raise problems in the first place, so we're just back at square one, where some central agency (a judiciary) is going to decide what is and is not allowed. It's pragmatically the same.

I mean, seriously, why do companies spend millions of dollars on advertising that has nothing to do with their product, if it doesn't work? And I never said mysterious, and what they do is very much manipulative. They're very scientific about it, and the information is out there that it's done. Selling a product can be (depends upon the product) as much about image, if not more so, than about the actual product.

There is no evidence that suggests advertising takes it to an extreme. Suggestion and appeal is where it maxes out. And nothing is wrong with that.

But it works, and they're not advertising the quality of the product. The point of me bringing this up isn't to say it's evil and that we should stop it, but that businesses actively engage in trying to distort the  market in their favor, through various means, and it's not all rational. You're libertarian theory holds that humans are individuals, and rational, and that is why the free-market should be trusted fully. I'm showing how that is just not true, and how humans are emotional and easily led. There's so much proof on this, I don't even know where to start (though I did link a video).

No, my phone wasn't capable of running an app, and he very much did pinpoint my position.

I cant find any way to trace a phone using gps or trilateration without some form of consent to a service or application being offered to the phone number registered to that phone. There are apps as I mentioned, but to be legal they need to be consensual, and there are services like google latitude. Try and find the app your friend used. If the government doesn't get involved and demand that your carrier track you, it doesn't usually happen.

When people buy a cell phone, they aren't aware that it tracks them. It may be in the contract, somewhere, but people aren't going to understand the jargon, or quite honestly, probably read it. They're in on the act, but that doesn't mean that private corporations aren't collecting massive amounts of data on the American people, data which can be used by someone with the money, data which can be used to breach your privacy.

Bullshit. You sign contracts when you buy a house, buy a car, rent anything, sell anything and the list goes on. You need to read the fine print and make an effort to understand it because they are such monumental things that affect your entire life so readily. If you don't read it, you are 100% at fault for any behavior that results because its their fault for signing and agreeing to it and any argument to the contrary is a cop out. By the way, if a company collects or sells personal data not stipulated in the terms, they are legally at fault and usually get ripped up and down by consumers interest groups anyway. Your whole line sounds like something out of a conspiracy theory. What precisely is the data they are collecting and how are they doing it, who is going to abuse it, who are they selling it to, and what proof do you have? This whole ominous "They are doing it because they are and they are selling it to everyone because they are" thing holds no weight.

https://www.consumerreports.org/cro/money/consumer-protection/big-brother-is-watching/overview/index.htm

I couldn't tell you how he did it, but I saw his phone do it. And who says it needs to be legal? I guess I should say former co-workers, and the guy was cool, but a tad shady.

You're argument sounds a lot to me like some arguments made into why government surveillance isn't a problem - that there is so much data, and that it is so rarely accessed, that it's not a problem. How do you know how this information is being used?

Mainstream libertarianism makes a hooey about taxes being theft and evil, but if you want to have an army and a federal government, you're going to have taxes. The army is the force behind taxation, so if libertarians want to have the army, they have to swallow the bullet about taxing being theft, so that we can move on with the discussion

No, mainstream libertarianism is not anarchy and makes no qualms about taxes at the base. They make qualms about increasing taxes, hidden taxes and fees, and new taxes for things that should not be taxed and the hostile enforcement of those taxes.

I'm sorry, but that is just not the argument you hear, it's not the one I hear. It's about tax money being used for things like Welfare programs.

I'll be honest: your view seems much more moderate than most libertarians I come across. Though, what does hostile enforcement of taxes mean? That taxes are enforced? I don't get your point there, you seem to be sliding back into the problem I'm describing. Seriously, if my political view was established, we wouldn't need taxes for the military, wouldn't have a costly drug war, wouldn't do a lot of the things you probably don't want them to. But apparently, I'm not a libertarian, as evidenced by the long history of debates on this forum.

Unfortunately, in order to do so, I have to give up some of my liberties, and accept a higher power over me.

Here is where you lose me. The government can and will use brute force to achieve goals to and past the point of abuse. We have modern examples of that. A business, no matter how big or coercive or manipulative, cannot. They can affect general social change, create trends, create culture, influence the market with new products and the list goes on, but they cannot make you do anything like the government can. So how is the reasonable solution to give in to a higher democratic but still highly governmental power? Even in the best conditions, you can wind up with 49% of people opposed to something and in our case a federal government that decides when it has abused the power it gives itself unconditionally.

Businesses can use brute force, especially if it wasn't for the government. Once again, you've just labeled all government as bad, even though you just previously said you don't think that.

Our government? Ya, our government is horrible, I've never disagreed with you about that.

[Orthogonal]

Who would force the companies to pay out the fines? Who would do this? Just look at history, and see how much damage companies will knowingly permit for profit.

The insurance company pays out the claims. So, you are either protected from the intrusion happening in the first place, or compensated monetarily to pay for necessary filtration/cleaning up to and including moving you to a new location. Considering how expensive that would be, they would employ means to prevent that from happening in the first place.

As a result, the cost of pollution/waste can no longer be externalized to third parties like it is now. The cost of waste processing and cleanup is now fully internalized so it is in the business' best interest to create a cleaner production process to reduce costs. Higher profits now translates to cleaner environment.

[Scheavo]

Also, your degradation of soldiers is rather insulting. I know quite a few, being from Montana, and I can tell you, most of them are amazing fucking people. People become soldiers for a different reason other than profit - the public good. They do it because they want to help their neighbor, because they want to protect our rights. Are they all saints? No, but no population of humans are ever all saints, so what? I'm not sure if you're aware of who Robert Heinlein is, but he's extremely libertarian in his political view point (I believe he coined the term there is no such thing as a free lunch), and even he wrote a whole book extolling the human virtues of soldiers, and those who join up to be a soldier.

To be fair, it was just a generalized statement about soldier's, much like yours was about merc's. I know a lot of people go into the military with the best of intention's and honestly believe they are doing the right thing, but in the end, they, just like the mercenary soldier, are being paid to kill. Just because they wear a different kind of uniform doesn't change the morality of it.

Self defense is fine, aggression is not. I mean, you've heard about what Nazi soldier's have done, right?

Soldiers may get paid, but that's not the reason why they're there. They get paid because we respect their service, and because it's only respectful. We pay our politicians, there was a great debate if we should, but it was eventually agreed that not to would be wrong. Is Ron Paul the same as Charlie Rangel?

Self defense is fine (though I often think self-defeating), but Nazi soldiers is a fallacious follow up to this argument. Fascism is a very ugly side of human nature, and I think more than a little unfair to say that all Nazi soldiers are the same. Beyond that, we know that people follow order to unethical ends, even otherwise good people. But most importantly, regardless of why Nazi soldiers did what they did, Mercenaries still do what they're infamous for because of money and profit. Since the context of bringing this up is due to the idea that profit and the market-place are a proper filter, I'd say that the point applies even if Nazi's were worse.

[Scheavo]

Who would force the companies to pay out the fines? Who would do this? Just look at history, and see how much damage companies will knowingly permit for profit.

The insurance company pays out the claims. So, you are either protected from the intrusion happening in the first place, or compensated monetarily to pay for necessary filtration/cleaning up to and including moving you to a new location. Considering how expensive that would be, they would employ means to prevent that from happening in the first place.

As a result, the cost of pollution/waste can no longer be externalized to third parties like it is now. The cost of waste processing and cleanup is now fully internalized so it is in the business' best interest to create a cleaner production process to reduce costs. Higher profits now translates to cleaner environment.

What insurance company? Are businesses required to have an insurance company? What if the insurance company goes broke? What if the insurance company is in cahoots by the bigger company? What if the insurance company is a secret, hidden sub-company of the other company? If I get sick because of a chemical in the water, how is it possible to trace that back to a specific company? The company could be one amongst many, do I sue them all? They'd all rightfully claim that it can't be pinned upon them, and that there isn't sufficient proof to convict. What if it's my next door neighbor, using a car that emits harmful chemicals? How do I sue him? How do I sue everyone, everywhere, who is responsible for certain chemicals be used, and being present in the environment? How do I sue companies for acid rain, when I have no idea what company is responsible? He IS supposed to have this insurance, and who is supposed to dictate that he doesn't? Furthermore, if he doesn't have the money (or any business doesn't have the money for that matter), what then? Do we imprison them? Who are we to take away their liberty, when the proof is so stringent, when the factors are so compounded, when all their doing is pursuing their own liberty?

Pragmatically, what the effect would be is telling companies they can't pollute their environment, enforcing this with a judiciary, and a group of people (society) who back up the requirements. Sounds an awful lot like government to me, just completely impossible.

[Orthogonal]

You are the client of the insurance company, since you are paying them a premium for a clean environment in your area, they serve you (This would be just like having Fire Insurance and Health insurance). The business's will be clients too after agreeing to the term's of moving into your area as well, kind of like an HOA for companies on their allowed mount of pollution based on the criteria you the customer set for them. You wouldn't be suing anyone for infractions, it would all be done through the insurance company which acts as an agreed upon arbitrator by all parties.

If an insurance company is rogue or in cahoots, their reputation would be tarnished and wouldn't be in business very long as one of their rival's would swoop in to take the business.

As for going out of business? it happens. Just like governments collaps financially. See Greece.

[Scheavo]

You are the client of the insurance company, since you are paying them a premium for a clean environment in your area, they serve you (This would be just like having Fire Insurance and Health insurance). The business's will be clients too after agreeing to the term's of moving into your area as well, kind of like an HOA for companies on their allowed mount of pollution based on the criteria you the customer set for them. You wouldn't be suing anyone for infractions, it would all be done through the insurance company which acts as an agreed upon arbitrator by all parties.

Dude, that bold part, is democratic government. What the fuck. What constitutes in area, a watershed? Industries across the country can effect my environment.

I really don't see how an insurance company is going to make money off of this, or how some of the problems are insurance related. What will insurance companies do when CO2 acidifies the ocean, and collapses the ecosystem? It's a little too late by that point.

If an insurance company is rogue or in cahoots, their reputation would be tarnished and wouldn't be in business very long as one of their rival's would swoop in to take the business.

And you would know this... how? Maybe you'd find out, but you very easily wouldn't. Also, one good way of keeping track of who owns who, and what companies own's what, is taxes. It makes public such information.

As for going out of business? it happens. Just like governments collaps financially. See Greece.

Yar, government an business are entirely similar. I've argued this.

But in this case, I don't see how the insurance system would work too well. Insurance works where the reason for paying out is random / uncontrolled, etc. You don't' know when you're gion to get in a car accident, you don't know when a natural disaster will strike, you don't know when you'll need health care. This leads to windows where companies can make profits off premiums. How is that going to work with the environment? Also, how does this get back to the industry? If there's an insurance company making profit on environmental claims, where does a business come into the paying scheme?

[Super Dude]

Would you stop? You're not contributing anything to the discussion.

I'm just saying, if the ingredients are of such high quality, the preparation is such high quality, and the food in general is good stuff, how can it be that McDonald's is so unhealthy? Basically, the food is cheap and consequently is cheaply made. No state of the art ingredients are going to change that.

And yes I realize that, but that's more due to just losing track of the discussion and me trying to pick it back up again.

[Orthogonal]

You are the client of the insurance company, since you are paying them a premium for a clean environment in your area, they serve you (This would be just like having Fire Insurance and Health insurance). The business's will be clients too after agreeing to the term's of moving into your area as well, kind of like an HOA for companies on their allowed mount of pollution based on the criteria you the customer set for them. You wouldn't be suing anyone for infractions, it would all be done through the insurance company which acts as an agreed upon arbitrator by all parties.

Dude, that bold part, is democratic government. What the fuck. What constitutes in area, a watershed? Industries across the country can effect my environment.

They are not the same. The free-market system proposed is voluntary and people will have signed a contract. Everyone who signed the Constitution died long ago, so it is no longer a binding document. Basic contract theory 101. If everyone were to sign on the dotted line, without coercion, I would have no problem with it.

[Super Dude]

You are the client of the insurance company, since you are paying them a premium for a clean environment in your area, they serve you (This would be just like having Fire Insurance and Health insurance). The business's will be clients too after agreeing to the term's of moving into your area as well, kind of like an HOA for companies on their allowed mount of pollution based on the criteria you the customer set for them. You wouldn't be suing anyone for infractions, it would all be done through the insurance company which acts as an agreed upon arbitrator by all parties.

Dude, that bold part, is democratic government. What the fuck. What constitutes in area, a watershed? Industries across the country can effect my environment.

They are not the same. The free-market system proposed is voluntary and people will have signed a contract. Everyone who signed the Constitution died long ago, so it is no longer a binding document. Basic contract theory 101. If everyone were to sign on the dotted line, without coercion, I would have no problem with it.

We are voluntarily bound to the Constitution still. If we weren't there'd have been another civil war or something by now.  Yet we continue to operate within and observe the requirements and limitations of being bound to the Constitution.

[Scheavo]

You are the client of the insurance company, since you are paying them a premium for a clean environment in your area, they serve you (This would be just like having Fire Insurance and Health insurance). The business's will be clients too after agreeing to the term's of moving into your area as well, kind of like an HOA for companies on their allowed mount of pollution based on the criteria you the customer set for them. You wouldn't be suing anyone for infractions, it would all be done through the insurance company which acts as an agreed upon arbitrator by all parties.

Dude, that bold part, is democratic government. What the fuck. What constitutes in area, a watershed? Industries across the country can effect my environment.

They are not the same. The free-market system proposed is voluntary and people will have signed a contract. Everyone who signed the Constitution died long ago, so it is no longer a binding document. Basic contract theory 101. If everyone were to sign on the dotted line, without coercion, I would have no problem with it.

So what happens when I have kids? I'm enslaving my kids by having kids, because they'll grow up in a world where there's one insurance company, whom they have to go through, and whom they have no way of controlling it, becuase there's no competition. And if there is competition, that makes the market-place even more complicated, as companies wouldn't know which rules to follow, or what their liabilities are, making the entire thing worse. Also, how does the insurance c company come to an agreement on the issues? If one person doesn't want said chemical, does that mean said chemical can't be used? Does it require majority opinion? Well, again, you're talking about a democracy. The problem is, you propose something which would function exactly like a government, in every way, but you want to call it something different, and lambast anyone who says we need government.

Though to show how we agree a little, I think there should be a "revolution" every so often, that the social contract needs to be remade with every generation.

Also, please explain again how having a third party insurance company is going to get companies to reduce their pollution. Why should a company follow the rules, when there's nothing forcing them to? Boycotts work great in a lot of area's, but no so great when it comes down to food and water.

Lastly, what an area that an insurance company manages? Up to the consumers, or a strict locality? If it's up the consumers, then we'd end up with something just like the federal government, by another name. If if it's a small strict locality, then you have problems actually guaranteeing the quality in question here; and also begs the question of who says that a company can't be larger.

[Orthogonal]

So what happens when I have kids? I'm enslaving my kids by having kids, because they'll grow up in a world where there's one insurance company, whom they have to go through, and whom they have no way of controlling it, becuase there's no competition. And if there is competition, that makes the market-place even more complicated, as companies wouldn't know which rules to follow, or what their liabilities are, making the entire thing worse. Also, how does the insurance c company come to an agreement on the issues? If one person doesn't want said chemical, does that mean said chemical can't be used? Does it require majority opinion? Well, again, you're talking about a democracy. The problem is, you propose something which would function exactly like a government, in every way, but you want to call it something different, and lambast anyone who says we need government.

Though to show how we agree a little, I think there should be a "revolution" every so often, that the social contract needs to be remade with every generation.

Also, please explain again how having a third party insurance company is going to get companies to reduce their pollution. Why should a company follow the rules, when there's nothing forcing them to? Boycotts work great in a lot of area's, but no so great when it comes down to food and water.

Lastly, what an area that an insurance company manages? Up to the consumers, or a strict locality? If it's up the consumers, then we'd end up with something just like the federal government, by another name. If if it's a small strict locality, then you have problems actually guaranteeing the quality in question here; and also begs the question of who says that a company can't be larger.

Why would there be only 1 insurance company. There would likely be many, that's the point of markets, the poly-centric nature ensures competition continually tries new approaches to find what is best in a dynamic situation. The governmental mono-centric one-size-fits-all approach is very slow to react and try new things to improve. The scope the insurance companies coverage would be as small or as large as it needed to be. Border's are irrational in the market system, since you are contracting with people directly, no matter where they are, it ensures they play by the same rules. If you don't want a particular chemical in your local environment, but another company really wanted to use it. It doesn't have to be a black-and-white ultimatum where one of you wins out at the others expense, it would go to arbitration to work out a solution and may very well be a win-win. Perhaps the company will use special filtration or post-processing to eliminate the chemical, or people's homes or utilities are fitted with addditional mechanisms to prevent contamination. There are lots of ways, but the point is, common ground can be found.

[Super Dude]

Thought it would be appropriate to post this here: https://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/18/us/politics/obama-tax-plan-would-ask-more-of-millionaires.html

He's calling it the "Buffet Plan."

[Orthogonal]

Thought it would be appropriate to post this here: https://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/18/us/politics/obama-tax-plan-would-ask-more-of-millionaires.html

He's calling it the "Buffet Plan."

Why on earth would you post this and bring us back on topic