Data: Captain, I wish to submit myself for disciplinary action. I have disobeyed a direct order from a superior officer. Although the result of my actions proved positive, the ends cannot justify the means.
Captain Picard: No, they can't. However, the claim "I was only following orders" has been used to justify too many tragedies in our history. Starfleet doesn't want officers who will blindly follow orders without analyzing the situation. Your actions were appropriate for the circumstances.
It's an experiment that has been tried and empirically disproven."
So, your argument is that if we had stopped trading with China, the Chinese government would have been more open today and Tienanmen Square students would be heroes? Somehow I think your empirical proof has a few holes in it.
What about Cuba? Not trading with Cuba didn't bring down Castro. And it has not made the Cuban government less oppresive. Isn't that empirical evidence that not trading with another country doesn't solve its social ills?
The goal of trade is increased wealth for the traders. It is not a goal of trade to change another country's culture. It happens that traders often share culture as they trade.
My statement remains true: "Indian women are more likely to be freed if we continue trading with India than if we stop trading with India." Not because freeing Indian women is the goal of trade, but because trade often leads to a cultural exchange and cultural change.
Information is an enemy of isolationist societies. When we trade with others, we share information about our culture as well we do goods and services. Indian women are more likely to be freed if we continue trading with India than if we stop trading with India.
This contraversial clause assumes a responsible legislature that will correctly interpret what "necessary and proper" mean. It is doubtful that many federal agencies continue to pass the test of "necessary and proper".
Such as?
AM radio was originally much like the internet today. Thousands of independents popped up with very low start up costs. It was the FCC which transformed that hodge-podge of stations into the orderly crowd of today. At the same time squeezing out small business in favor of large business. No big surprise. Most regulation of business eventually becomes a method of keeping competition from injuring established industry. After all, it is big business which is most likely to hire effective lobbyists. How can you see policies favoring large business as "needed and proper"?
Current price supports for farm crops administered through the USDA, push the price of some foods in supermarkets up. This hurts far more poor people than it helps farmers. Farm price supports and subsidies effectively rob from the poor to pay the rich. There is nothing "needed and proper" about these harmful practices.
Former officials of the FDA admit that present drug testing policies kill thousands each year by delaying medicines and devices that are ready for market. Many medicines which are already approved in other countries must be approved again in this country. The FDA is killing more people than would have died had they not existed. It takes a pretty warped mind to find this as "needed and proper"?
If any commerce (which nowadays is a lot) occurs over state lines, then it falls under the jurisdiction of the federal government.
Jurisdiction does not imply a need for a specific law. For example, if I and my neighbor lived on opposite sides of a state border and we decided to barter eggs for pork, we are required under federal law to report the transaction and pay various taxes on it. This is hardly "needed and proper". There is a great chasm between jurisdiction and the need for a specific law. Criminal laws already protect the particpants from fraud and injury. Clear property rights protect them from financial harm. Any additional harm to one or the other can be handled in the courts.
Given the free trade between states, there would be a lot of government agencies required to manage everything.
That's the beauty of free trade. It does not need centralized management. In fact, it is retarded by such management. It depends on participants having the freedom to associate with each other without third party interference. It depends on the rule of law to protect the property rights (the body, the mind, the possessions, and the labor) of participants. There is little "necessary and proper" about government regulation of industry.
"To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;"
In his 1824 opinion, Chief Justice John Marshall stated:
Comprehensive as the word among is, it may very properly be restricted to that commerce which concerns more States than one. The phrase is not one which would probably have been selected to indicate the completely interior traffic of a State, because it is not an apt phrase for that purpose. . . . The genius and character of the whole government seem to be, that its action is to be applied to all the external concerns of the nation, and to those internal concerns which affect the States generally; but not to those which are completely within a particular State, which do not affect other States, and with which it is not necessary to interfere, for the purpose of executing some of the general powers of the government. The completely internal commerce of a State, then, may be considered as reserved for the State itself.
So, the OP was also correct in saying "The Federal government had no power to regulate trade -- they were provided to make sure the States didn't set embargoes or tariffs or taxes against other States"
"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration."
That's from the 16th Amendment. It was ratified in 1909. For more than a hundred years the feds were not allowed to tax without apportionment. So, the OP was correct in saying "The Federal government had no power to tax unless it was a tax that would be provided equally to anyone utilizing a product or service."
"To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."
This contraversial clause assumes a responsible legislature that will correctly interpret what "necessary and proper" mean. It is doubtful that many federal agencies continue to pass the test of "necessary and proper".
And would render government ineffective, so that it wouldn't have the power to serve the people.
It would only render the government ineffective in those areas where political power is most disruptive. For example, limiting government by not allowing it to compete in or make laws regarding a postal service, does not do a disservice to citizens and still allows the government to be effective at prosecuting criminal cases. One limitation does not necessarily make all government ineffective.
If the ISP wanted to really set a precendent, I bet they could vindictively garnish his wages just to keep him in a pinch.
You are assuming he makes garnishable wages and that he remains in a wage garnishment State. Texas, for example, does not allow creditors to garnish wages.
Dumping is illegal. IMHO, rightly so, because it can easily be used as a means for a well-funded operation to stifle their competition.
"Selling under market price" OTOH is what the free market is all about: . ..
We cannot make dumping illegal and still have free markets. Free markets must allow dumping to remain free. Dumping depends on limited markets to survive.
Consumers rarely shop for price alone. Savvy consumers are rarely fooled by gimmicks (like dumping, loss leaders, etc.). Free markets tend to contain more savvy consumers than bound or limited markets do. Dumping depends on markets where consumers are not savvy enough to see why dumping is bad.
By limiting a market you tend to make your consumers more dependent on laws and less on their own abilities, thus decreasing savvy cusumers and increasing the effectiveness of dumping. By freeing the market, you tend to get more savvy consumers, lowering the success of gimmick offers.
selling below cost is not allowed most of the time i would hope
and selling below market value but above cost is perfectly ok and that is compitition and part of a free market.
The free market is free. That means selling below cost is also a part of it. And rightfully so. Sometimes it is better to rid yourself of excess inventory to make room for new stuff and people have been fooled by loss leaders since money was invented.
Selling below cost can never last very long unless you are making excess profits on another (or companion) products(s). Below cost prices aid the consumer-the people we are in business for. Lower market prices tend to increase quality of life. Generally, more people gain than lose.
Price is a very important piece of information. When we limit a market price we remove or hide that information from some market participants. If a law limiting price does not also create a method to inform those participants that the price is being supported, then the law chances damaging some market response.
How would you feel if you were an IT technician, and a big corporation started supplying IT services in your home town for $5 an hour.. then after you were driven into bankruptcy, started raising its prices back to industry norms?
Small operators need to change with the market. That is one advantage of being small. I can quickly adjust to market changes.
That large firm will have a tougher time doing that. And that's my advantage. They can take care of the major part of the market. I'll go after the people they cannot reach because they are not flexible enough.
I can do that, not by competing with them, but by constantly withdrawing from competing markets. Let them continue their low price service. When the price goes back and I have weathered the storm, I can breathe a little easier. My smaller competitors, which were not flexible enough, lose out, but so many more people win.
New competition, even big competition, is good for the consumer. It tends to widen the market and create more niche markets. It drives prices down and it raises quality of life. It strengthens the old market players and weeds out the inefficient ones.
No, these are not equivalent. Both the phone network and the postal service have effective measures in place to at least reduce unwanted traffic.
The phone network and the postal service are also very mature products. Phones have been around more than 100 years. Private correspondence in America was delivered as far back as the early 1600's. You cannot expect the same level of innovations in email as you do from mail and phone.
The national Do Not Call list and postal policies restrict junk mailers and callers, and they have legal teeth that can be (and have been) used to penalize offenders.
The DO Not Call list is a very recent addition to phone service and does not restrict all unsolicited calls. Just calls from organizations which do not posses the political clout to be exempt from that list.
The USPS has special rates for bulk mail senders. I can send bulk post card mailings as low as 9 cents each and get it to everyone on the route. The USPS has always maintained special pricing to encourage bulk mailers, like junk mail.
Notably, both the phone and snail-mail systems also have another feature in common; a certain amount of network-entry authentication, resulting in the traceability of offenders.
This shows their maturity as an industry, these features were not available when these industries were young. Look at how long phone service existed before caller ID was common. Email has existed for only a small fraction of that time.
As I said earlier, to be fair, you should compare the time spent on email/spam to the time spent on alternative technologies. There is no email technology available which has no spam. So you are unable to select that product for the comparison.
Spam is a part of email, just as unsolicited phone calls and junk mail are part of their respective technologies. As long as we have email (as it exists today), we will have spam. The two are inseparable. As you have already observed handling spam takes time. To completely rid yourself of spam, you'll need to use something other than email (or you'll need to change significantly change what email is).
Spam is not trespass nor is it theft of services. It is an unwanted part of a new technology. If email and spam were not a more productive use of your time than other existing technologies then you wouldn't use it. The productivity lost to spam is more than made up by the productivity gained through the use of email over other technologies.
if more people had a sense of personal responsibilities, we [would] not need so many stupid laws.
The Nanny State benefits neither the parents nor the children. It cripples people by providing for them what they should provide for themselves. Perpetuating a need for more laws.
Let's repeal the stupid laws to force most parents to be more responsible. Those children harmed by poor parenting will probably be less than those children harmed by poor laws.
Companies who make consumer devices have got to stop expecting best cases and start expecting worst cases. They've got to make devices that degrade gracefully, when possible.
They already do make such products. You are just not buying them. Instead of changing all those companies, why not change your buying habits?
Microsoft is a for-profit company, so it will do anything to make a profit.
The old guys around my part of Texas would tell you "Son, that dog don't hunt."
Most of the more than 21 million firms in the U.S. are run for-profit. "For-profit" does not mean "unethical". Most of us run our businesses with very high ethical standards.
In general the current trend is to stop collectively working for the best of everyone and to singularly work for the best for ourselves. If that mode of thought dominates, the poor can walk to the fire station (and be lucky to find one still staffed).
Why do you believe that the poor won't work for the best for themselves as you will for yourself? Having less resources than you does not mean the poor will not want basic necessities. You seem to be advocating helping the poor by choosing what is best for them. Stop equating poor with stupid. Collectively working for the best of everyone is called socialism. Singularly [working] for the best for ourselves is called freedom. The poor should be just as free to choose basic necessities as you are.
[S]pam is not a matter of [free] speach, but a matter of THEFT OF SERVICES AND RESSOURCES.
No it's not. Not even when you aren't screaming.
Most spam is illegally sent through breached and trojaned computers.
You seem to be confusing the product (spam) with its delivery method. Delivering milk or chicken illegally doesn't make the milk and chicken a theft of service or a drain on resources.
In short, spamming regulation and penalties are nothing more than enforcement of existing property laws. It has nothing to do whatsoever with censorship nor [free] speach.
Enforcement of property rights does not require new law. The theft of services and resource drains can already be handled by civil courts at the expense of the people involved rather than all tax payers.
Most regulation has one common theme. Protecting industry from competition and innovation. Reducing competition and innovation is never beneficial to consumers.
As long as it doesn't "take off" into the flight path of a 747. There needs to be a designated unpopulated region where these people can go play space cadet.
There is no reason for that designation to come from governement. Private industy can set up guidelines like that as well. The hardware in your computer and the internet are two great examples of industries setting standards and rules without the need for governemnt regulation.
A private industry agreement also means changing the designation later on will not require an act of congress.
Let's say I sell you a donut, and it doesn't have an ingredient label. How do you know what's in it?... If I know what's in the donut (and thus have a better idea of its quality), and you don't, that's information asymmetry.
Agreed. For a few donuts. Perhaps a small bakery in a one bakery town. That portion of the US food market covered by labeling laws is not a small market. It is very complex and very competative. Asymmetrical Information Markets, as described by Akerlof, are neither complex nor competative. IMO, The U.S. food market is not an Akerlof example of information asymmetry.
If I can manufacure my donuts cheaper by using inferior ingredients, I can undercut the prices of donut manufacureres who make similar tasting yet higher quality (perhaps healthier) donuts. Possibly I can even put them out of business.
You've gone from selling one donut to selling the most donuts. You won't get that large without having really large customers. Customers like Kroger or Walmart. Customers that, if ingredients become a concern, can and will be able to test your product ingredients. How do you keep these customer if ingredients become a concern to them?
Perhaps your marketing plan includes selling your donuts from your own locations. What do you do when Starbucks starts selling donuts with ingredient information? What do you do when they begin to market their higher priced donuts to health conscious customers in newspapers and on TV? How long will your shareholders allow you to ignore that market?
Uh-oh! The whole foods market next door is undercutting Starbucks donut price and are selling healthier donuts than both you and Starbucks. You're losing your higher end market share. What do you do? Oh crap, there's an article in Consumer's Digest and your donuts are dead last. Not to worry, your donuts are cheaper!
My superior market positions is assured by lack of food labelling, so it's naive to assume I'm going to support any kind of "efficient, adequate, and useful" labelling.
Certainly you wouldn't support labeling laws, but then again, they are not needed in this market.
Your superior market positions are assured because your customers place less importance in their health than in the price of your product. Labeling laws won't benefit your industry because your customers don't care about your ingredients. If they cared about ingredients, they wouldn't be buying your donuts.
Therefore the label laws, which increase costs, would be harmful to you and to your customers (higher cost - higher price - lower sales - lower profits). Customers would receive less for their dollar (higher prices) and you would receive less in profits (lower sales). Everyone loses (except the government employees paid to enforce the laws).
If you were competing in a marketplace where the customer placed an importance on the health over that of the price of your donuts, you would not grow to market dominance if your competitors supply ingredient labels. In that market labeling laws would not be needed because the labels would already exist. Startup donut bakers would actually be hindered by those laws and innovation would be stifled or slowed. Everyone loses (except the government employees paid to enforce the laws).
Not all markets are controlled by price. In those which are controlled predominantly by price, the highest quality product is (all other things equal) the lowest priced product. In a market where predominantly healthy product determines quality, the highest quality product is the one the buyer perceives as healthiest.
In a truly free market all donut makers could survive as long as they deliver products at a profit. Unlabeled products would have a smaller market than labeled products if health was more important than price. Regulated markets only benefit regulators.
A libertarian government is held to the same ethical standard as individual citizens are. Currently, in the U.S., it is legal for government to confiscate property of an individual citizen with and without due process. In a libertarian society government is granted no such right.
[Akerlof] shows that in a market where the consumer does not know the quality of the things he/she buys (information asymmetry), the market will provide a strong disinsentive for sellers to sell high quality products. Food labelling laws allow the market to operate much better, and as a side bonus, occasionally prevent people allergic to certain kinds of food from ending up in the hospital.
You are assuming that food markets are asymmetrical information markets. I would ask you to prove that assumption. Akerlof does not say that information asymmetry applies to all markets. And his assertions do not account for competition and for consumer education and experience.
Further, Akerlof's asymmetrical information market applies to a market in which the information disparity only goes one way. In real markets asymmetrical information travels in both direction. In the food markets consumers often know more about their choices than sellers do. This marketing information is so important that screening is often done by sellers even before products reach the market.
Food labeling laws hinder the marketplace by robbing from the consumer the most efficient labeling systems. They halt innovation in the market which would generate better systems. They "level the playing field", removing the incentive for product manufacturers to excel and to compete. Only market participants can guarantee the generation efficient, adequate, and useful food labeling.
The government prevents me from murdering whomever I please, thus by the law of unintended consequences society would benefit if they just let me go ahead with it.
Criminal laws are meant to protect rights -- not markets. Laws which protect rights are acceptable in a libertarian society. A law against murder is not a freedom-reducing action. It is a property right protection.
Anyway, no man is an island and it's okay to seek help from your fellow man once in a while. The fact is that no one has the time to research every product they use (even if a consumer magazine does sum it up for them). Furthermore I've never seen any evidence that an unregulated market will always serve the interests of consumers. The market has all of the same problems that genetic algorithms do. If initial conditions and constraints aren't properly set, it ends up "cheating" and not giving you what you really want.
I have never seen evidence that a regulated market will always serve the interests of consumers. You're assuming markets exist for goals other than supplying a demand made by consumers. Unregulated markets have no choice but to serve the interests of consumers. Artificial demand cheats the consumer. It assumes this artificial demand is the better than actual consumer demand.
I cannot take it on faith that the market will always serve the public's interest. This is effectively a matter of religion. I've never seen this assertion backed by anything more than some feeble anecdotes that fail to address the broader issues that might be at play.
I cannot take it on faith that someone besides me will always act in my best interest. I can provide clear evidence of regulated markets which create demand for products which do not benefit the public's interest and which eliminate products which are in the public's interest. I, also, believe this is effectively a matter of religion. Some people always want to decide what is good for everyone else believing that they have some inside track to the Truth.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you have to ask, "What would Picard do?"
Data: Captain, I wish to submit myself for disciplinary action. I have disobeyed a direct order from a superior officer. Although the result of my actions proved positive, the ends cannot justify the means.
Captain Picard: No, they can't. However, the claim "I was only following orders" has been used to justify too many tragedies in our history. Starfleet doesn't want officers who will blindly follow orders without analyzing the situation. Your actions were appropriate for the circumstances.
And the difference between cult and religion is...?
About a hundred years.
It's an experiment that has been tried and empirically disproven."
So, your argument is that if we had stopped trading with China, the Chinese government would have been more open today and Tienanmen Square students would be heroes? Somehow I think your empirical proof has a few holes in it.
What about Cuba? Not trading with Cuba didn't bring down Castro. And it has not made the Cuban government less oppresive. Isn't that empirical evidence that not trading with another country doesn't solve its social ills?
The goal of trade is increased wealth for the traders. It is not a goal of trade to change another country's culture. It happens that traders often share culture as they trade.
My statement remains true: "Indian women are more likely to be freed if we continue trading with India than if we stop trading with India." Not because freeing Indian women is the goal of trade, but because trade often leads to a cultural exchange and cultural change.
Information is an enemy of isolationist societies. When we trade with others, we share information about our culture as well we do goods and services. Indian women are more likely to be freed if we continue trading with India than if we stop trading with India.
I wonder what that CEO will do with the money?
I guess he could either invest it or spend it or burn it.
If he burns it. The money supply goes down and there is a tiny amount of deflation. Not a bad thing.
If he invests it, the amount of available capital increases. Not a bad thing.
If he spends it, all the people in those industires in which he spends it benefit. Not a bad thing.
Where is the down side again? Oh, that's right. The money isn't going into the pockets you think it should go. Not a bad thing.
I said
Such as?AM radio was originally much like the internet today. Thousands of independents popped up with very low start up costs. It was the FCC which transformed that hodge-podge of stations into the orderly crowd of today. At the same time squeezing out small business in favor of large business. No big surprise. Most regulation of business eventually becomes a method of keeping competition from injuring established industry. After all, it is big business which is most likely to hire effective lobbyists. How can you see policies favoring large business as "needed and proper"?
Current price supports for farm crops administered through the USDA, push the price of some foods in supermarkets up. This hurts far more poor people than it helps farmers. Farm price supports and subsidies effectively rob from the poor to pay the rich. There is nothing "needed and proper" about these harmful practices.
Former officials of the FDA admit that present drug testing policies kill thousands each year by delaying medicines and devices that are ready for market. Many medicines which are already approved in other countries must be approved again in this country. The FDA is killing more people than would have died had they not existed. It takes a pretty warped mind to find this as "needed and proper"?
If any commerce (which nowadays is a lot) occurs over state lines, then it falls under the jurisdiction of the federal government.Jurisdiction does not imply a need for a specific law. For example, if I and my neighbor lived on opposite sides of a state border and we decided to barter eggs for pork, we are required under federal law to report the transaction and pay various taxes on it. This is hardly "needed and proper". There is a great chasm between jurisdiction and the need for a specific law. Criminal laws already protect the particpants from fraud and injury. Clear property rights protect them from financial harm. Any additional harm to one or the other can be handled in the courts.
Given the free trade between states, there would be a lot of government agencies required to manage everything.That's the beauty of free trade. It does not need centralized management. In fact, it is retarded by such management. It depends on participants having the freedom to associate with each other without third party interference. It depends on the rule of law to protect the property rights (the body, the mind, the possessions, and the labor) of participants. There is little "necessary and proper" about government regulation of industry.
In his 1824 opinion, Chief Justice John Marshall stated:
So, the OP was also correct in saying "The Federal government had no power to regulate trade -- they were provided to make sure the States didn't set embargoes or tariffs or taxes against other States"
"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration."That's from the 16th Amendment. It was ratified in 1909. For more than a hundred years the feds were not allowed to tax without apportionment. So, the OP was correct in saying "The Federal government had no power to tax unless it was a tax that would be provided equally to anyone utilizing a product or service."
"To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."This contraversial clause assumes a responsible legislature that will correctly interpret what "necessary and proper" mean. It is doubtful that many federal agencies continue to pass the test of "necessary and proper".
It would only render the government ineffective in those areas where political power is most disruptive. For example, limiting government by not allowing it to compete in or make laws regarding a postal service, does not do a disservice to citizens and still allows the government to be effective at prosecuting criminal cases. One limitation does not necessarily make all government ineffective.
If the ISP wanted to really set a precendent, I bet they could vindictively garnish his wages just to keep him in a pinch.
You are assuming he makes garnishable wages and that he remains in a wage garnishment State. Texas, for example, does not allow creditors to garnish wages.
That's the most rediculous thing I've ever heard!
So you are not a church goer then, eh?
We cannot make dumping illegal and still have free markets. Free markets must allow dumping to remain free. Dumping depends on limited markets to survive.
Consumers rarely shop for price alone. Savvy consumers are rarely fooled by gimmicks (like dumping, loss leaders, etc.). Free markets tend to contain more savvy consumers than bound or limited markets do. Dumping depends on markets where consumers are not savvy enough to see why dumping is bad.
By limiting a market you tend to make your consumers more dependent on laws and less on their own abilities, thus decreasing savvy cusumers and increasing the effectiveness of dumping. By freeing the market, you tend to get more savvy consumers, lowering the success of gimmick offers.
So Dumping should be legal.
The free market is free. That means selling below cost is also a part of it. And rightfully so. Sometimes it is better to rid yourself of excess inventory to make room for new stuff and people have been fooled by loss leaders since money was invented.
Selling below cost can never last very long unless you are making excess profits on another (or companion) products(s). Below cost prices aid the consumer-the people we are in business for. Lower market prices tend to increase quality of life. Generally, more people gain than lose.
Price is a very important piece of information. When we limit a market price we remove or hide that information from some market participants. If a law limiting price does not also create a method to inform those participants that the price is being supported, then the law chances damaging some market response.
Small operators need to change with the market. That is one advantage of being small. I can quickly adjust to market changes.
That large firm will have a tougher time doing that. And that's my advantage. They can take care of the major part of the market. I'll go after the people they cannot reach because they are not flexible enough.
I can do that, not by competing with them, but by constantly withdrawing from competing markets. Let them continue their low price service. When the price goes back and I have weathered the storm, I can breathe a little easier. My smaller competitors, which were not flexible enough, lose out, but so many more people win.
New competition, even big competition, is good for the consumer. It tends to widen the market and create more niche markets. It drives prices down and it raises quality of life. It strengthens the old market players and weeds out the inefficient ones.The phone network and the postal service are also very mature products. Phones have been around more than 100 years. Private correspondence in America was delivered as far back as the early 1600's. You cannot expect the same level of innovations in email as you do from mail and phone.
The DO Not Call list is a very recent addition to phone service and does not restrict all unsolicited calls. Just calls from organizations which do not posses the political clout to be exempt from that list.
The USPS has special rates for bulk mail senders. I can send bulk post card mailings as low as 9 cents each and get it to everyone on the route. The USPS has always maintained special pricing to encourage bulk mailers, like junk mail.
This shows their maturity as an industry, these features were not available when these industries were young. Look at how long phone service existed before caller ID was common. Email has existed for only a small fraction of that time.
As I said earlier, to be fair, you should compare the time spent on email/spam to the time spent on alternative technologies. There is no email technology available which has no spam. So you are unable to select that product for the comparison.
Spam is a part of email, just as unsolicited phone calls and junk mail are part of their respective technologies. As long as we have email (as it exists today), we will have spam. The two are inseparable. As you have already observed handling spam takes time. To completely rid yourself of spam, you'll need to use something other than email (or you'll need to change significantly change what email is).
Spam is not trespass nor is it theft of services. It is an unwanted part of a new technology. If email and spam were not a more productive use of your time than other existing technologies then you wouldn't use it. The productivity lost to spam is more than made up by the productivity gained through the use of email over other technologies.
The Nanny State benefits neither the parents nor the children. It cripples people by providing for them what they should provide for themselves. Perpetuating a need for more laws.
Let's repeal the stupid laws to force most parents to be more responsible. Those children harmed by poor parenting will probably be less than those children harmed by poor laws.
They already do make such products. You are just not buying them. Instead of changing all those companies, why not change your buying habits?
The old guys around my part of Texas would tell you "Son, that dog don't hunt."
Most of the more than 21 million firms in the U.S. are run for-profit. "For-profit" does not mean "unethical". Most of us run our businesses with very high ethical standards.
Why do you believe that the poor won't work for the best for themselves as you will for yourself? Having less resources than you does not mean the poor will not want basic necessities. You seem to be advocating helping the poor by choosing what is best for them. Stop equating poor with stupid. Collectively working for the best of everyone is called socialism. Singularly [working] for the best for ourselves is called freedom. The poor should be just as free to choose basic necessities as you are.
No it's not. Not even when you aren't screaming.
You seem to be confusing the product (spam) with its delivery method. Delivering milk or chicken illegally doesn't make the milk and chicken a theft of service or a drain on resources.
Enforcement of property rights does not require new law. The theft of services and resource drains can already be handled by civil courts at the expense of the people involved rather than all tax payers.
Most regulation has one common theme. Protecting industry from competition and innovation. Reducing competition and innovation is never beneficial to consumers.
As long as it doesn't "take off" into the flight path of a 747. There needs to be a designated unpopulated region where these people can go play space cadet.
There is no reason for that designation to come from governement. Private industy can set up guidelines like that as well. The hardware in your computer and the internet are two great examples of industries setting standards and rules without the need for governemnt regulation.
A private industry agreement also means changing the designation later on will not require an act of congress.
Agreed. For a few donuts. Perhaps a small bakery in a one bakery town. That portion of the US food market covered by labeling laws is not a small market. It is very complex and very competative. Asymmetrical Information Markets, as described by Akerlof, are neither complex nor competative. IMO, The U.S. food market is not an Akerlof example of information asymmetry.
You've gone from selling one donut to selling the most donuts. You won't get that large without having really large customers. Customers like Kroger or Walmart. Customers that, if ingredients become a concern, can and will be able to test your product ingredients. How do you keep these customer if ingredients become a concern to them?
Perhaps your marketing plan includes selling your donuts from your own locations. What do you do when Starbucks starts selling donuts with ingredient information? What do you do when they begin to market their higher priced donuts to health conscious customers in newspapers and on TV? How long will your shareholders allow you to ignore that market?
Uh-oh! The whole foods market next door is undercutting Starbucks donut price and are selling healthier donuts than both you and Starbucks. You're losing your higher end market share. What do you do? Oh crap, there's an article in Consumer's Digest and your donuts are dead last. Not to worry, your donuts are cheaper!
Certainly you wouldn't support labeling laws, but then again, they are not needed in this market.
Your superior market positions are assured because your customers place less importance in their health than in the price of your product. Labeling laws won't benefit your industry because your customers don't care about your ingredients. If they cared about ingredients, they wouldn't be buying your donuts.
Therefore the label laws, which increase costs, would be harmful to you and to your customers (higher cost - higher price - lower sales - lower profits). Customers would receive less for their dollar (higher prices) and you would receive less in profits (lower sales). Everyone loses (except the government employees paid to enforce the laws).
If you were competing in a marketplace where the customer placed an importance on the health over that of the price of your donuts, you would not grow to market dominance if your competitors supply ingredient labels. In that market labeling laws would not be needed because the labels would already exist. Startup donut bakers would actually be hindered by those laws and innovation would be stifled or slowed. Everyone loses (except the government employees paid to enforce the laws).
Not all markets are controlled by price. In those which are controlled predominantly by price, the highest quality product is (all other things equal) the lowest priced product. In a market where predominantly healthy product determines quality, the highest quality product is the one the buyer perceives as healthiest.
In a truly free market all donut makers could survive as long as they deliver products at a profit. Unlabeled products would have a smaller market than labeled products if health was more important than price. Regulated markets only benefit regulators.
A libertarian government is held to the same ethical standard as individual citizens are. Currently, in the U.S., it is legal for government to confiscate property of an individual citizen with and without due process. In a libertarian society government is granted no such right.
You are assuming that food markets are asymmetrical information markets. I would ask you to prove that assumption. Akerlof does not say that information asymmetry applies to all markets. And his assertions do not account for competition and for consumer education and experience.
Further, Akerlof's asymmetrical information market applies to a market in which the information disparity only goes one way. In real markets asymmetrical information travels in both direction. In the food markets consumers often know more about their choices than sellers do. This marketing information is so important that screening is often done by sellers even before products reach the market.
Food labeling laws hinder the marketplace by robbing from the consumer the most efficient labeling systems. They halt innovation in the market which would generate better systems. They "level the playing field", removing the incentive for product manufacturers to excel and to compete. Only market participants can guarantee the generation efficient, adequate, and useful food labeling.
The government prevents me from murdering whomever I please, thus by the law of unintended consequences society would benefit if they just let me go ahead with it.
Criminal laws are meant to protect rights -- not markets. Laws which protect rights are acceptable in a libertarian society. A law against murder is not a freedom-reducing action. It is a property right protection.
Anyway, no man is an island and it's okay to seek help from your fellow man once in a while. The fact is that no one has the time to research every product they use (even if a consumer magazine does sum it up for them).Furthermore I've never seen any evidence that an unregulated market will always serve the interests of consumers. The market has all of the same problems that genetic algorithms do. If initial conditions and constraints aren't properly set, it ends up "cheating" and not giving you what you really want.
I have never seen evidence that a regulated market will always serve the interests of consumers. You're assuming markets exist for goals other than supplying a demand made by consumers. Unregulated markets have no choice but to serve the interests of consumers. Artificial demand cheats the consumer. It assumes this artificial demand is the better than actual consumer demand.
I cannot take it on faith that the market will always serve the public's interest. This is effectively a matter of religion. I've never seen this assertion backed by anything more than some feeble anecdotes that fail to address the broader issues that might be at play.I cannot take it on faith that someone besides me will always act in my best interest. I can provide clear evidence of regulated markets which create demand for products which do not benefit the public's interest and which eliminate products which are in the public's interest. I, also, believe this is effectively a matter of religion. Some people always want to decide what is good for everyone else believing that they have some inside track to the Truth.
.