I only comment because I often hear people spout off about Adam Smith, and when I do it often sounds quite naive given the broad spectrum of market forces competing with the invisible hand.
That' why I said there has to be more more opportunity for individual people to enforce freedom of choice and availability of information. One of the problems with government monopolies is that they enforce their monopoly status by superior firepower. Lawsuits and a litigious society suck, but they suck less than rule by fiat and gun.
Please contribute facts or reasoning to back up your assertion. Blind assertions of faith don't make for a discussion. I have given my reasoning, that I think bureaucrats working for a monopoly (the government) are more interested in keeping their empire intact and even expanding than doing a good job, and that the recent food news was not discovered by government health inspectors. Now it's your turn to say something useful.
How many of those problems you cite were caught by the regulators you espouse?
Each little step of regulation has a noble purpose, but the combined weight slows down the economy so much that we would be better off without the regulation. I would rather have restaurants brag about the inspection company they hire on their own than have the government force one bureaucracy on everybody.
Do you ever eat at friends' houses? How about a neighbor you hardly know? How about a potluck at school or church or work or even a block party?
Do you ever ask any of them for a health inspection report?
Government health inspections do almost nothing except tie up thousands of people in a bureaucracy, and the people who run those bureaucracies have no interest in food safety, only in keeping control of their bureaucracy and expanding its writ. I am not a big fan of greedy profit driven motivation, except it's like democracy as quoted by Winston Churchill: it's the worst way of doing things except for all the others.
The invisible hand of Adam Smith says that when people have information and choice, their selfish choices work together for the best overall good. The trick is to make sure people have the information and choices they need, and having one government bureaucracy is not a choice, especially when that bureaucracy only releases information when it helps the bureaucrats control their turf by punishing those who oppose them and by favoring those who help them. Private bureaucracies might have those same thoughts, but the profit motive brings them back in line -- as long as there is competition and people have the information to differentiate and choose, which is exactly the opposite of what empire building bureaucrats want.
Here's an example of how things would work if inspections were voluntary and run by businesses: right now inspections are done by guys with clipboards, thermometers, and subjective opinions, right? If the inspectors cared about profit, I believe that by now we would have automated real time inspection systems possible, where sensors in kitchens would monitor for rats, roaches, warm refrigerators, cold meat, etc. That would be a much better health regulator than unannounced once a year inspections by inspectors susceptible to bribes and favoritism. No government bureaucrat would ever put up with such a system, as it would reduce the size of his empire. Profit driven businesses would, for it would reduce their employee count, increase their profits, lower their prices, enhance their reputation with the public, and grow their business. All those laid off inspectors would now be available for productive work.
Liek I said, regulations have noble intent, but that paves the road to hell. Regulations freeze conditions, they are the enemy of advances and innovation, and they are perfectly suited to slow moving bureaucracies who don't want anything to upset their apple cart. They are the last resort of those who don't want to ever do anything differently.
I know what you mean; no monopoly lasts forever. If they really are truly bad, they will suffocate themselves. If I really believe in a free market, then trying to prevent one aspect of that (monopolies) by fiat is unnecessary. That's why I don't want the government trying to regulate them -- you get politics and special interests involved and they find all sorts of excuses to justify new regulations to expand their bureaucratic territories.
But corporations themselves are a government creation. Not allowing corporations seems like a big loss to any economy. Some projects need big companies. I can't imagine the awful inefficiences if manufacturers could not grow beyond a certain size due to not having corporations.
Since people can sue businesses for fraud, what if you were to consider the ill-effects of a monopoly to be fraud? What if people could sue Microsoft for its special deals with Dell, or AT&T for its shenanigans, or Standard Oil for its evil effects?
I think that would solve the problems of monopolies. Ron Paul likes to say that if people could sue polluters for sending the pollution into their backyards, literally, that would replace the EPA. I am doubtful, but maybe such an approach would work with simpler concerns like a monopoly having so much power that it distorts the marketplace in easily identified ways.
The only solution is a truly free market economy without the FED and other allied stupidity.
Yes, as long as it is the Adam Smith variety of free market. Once you get monopolies, the invisible hand goes *poof* and you no longer have a free market.
I personally believe we could throw out 999 out of 1000 laws and regulations and have a happier healthier economy and society. For instance, I would throw out all business licenses and the associated regulation, such as health inspections for restaurants; that's how much I distrust regulation and how it distorts the free market.
But monopolies are just as bad on the business side as they are on the government side, and there has to be some way to prevent them and break them up. Rather than have a government monopoly to break up business monopolies, I would have some way for citizen lawsuits to do the trick. You have to prevent market domination via rackets like those practiced by Microsoft, or the old AT&T, Standard Oil, etc., or you no longer have a free market.
I hope this does pass and colleges start waging war on Hollywood's behalf. It will further drive students away from mass produced entertainment and into the arms of Creative Commons licenses. Hollywood will find that their fence not only keeps the future consumer out of their backyard, it keeps Hollywood out of the next generation of do-it-yourself entertainment and mashups.
Will this be handled by a virtual legal system, with other players taking the roles of the police, judges, bailiffs, attorneys, paralegals, etc? Will there be virtual subpoenas, a virtual trial, and possibly a virtual jail for the virtual (alleged) thief?
I have some for you
on
Lap Desks
·
· Score: -1, Redundant
Next question please
Why didn't you end that sentence fragment with a period?
Why did you use "don't" when "won't" would have been more fitting?
How did you have enough brains to say "lose" instead of "loose" like all the other loosers(sic) who post such useless diatribes?
Did you think your post was funny?
Do you think this post is funny?
Are you afraid to use a real account, or just too lazy?
That ought to be enough questions for a while. Let me know when you need more. I'm not from the government, but I'm still here to help.
I've only been to their store once, but I mail order stuff all the time. Great cubicle toys. The best rubber chickens money can buy outside an art museum:-)
It's my understanding that on-site storage was supposed to be temporary and that the lack of national permanent storage has resulted in most local storage being grossly overused, some of them at high risk of overflowing to the extent taht some reactors might have to shut down prematurely if they can't move their waste elsewhere.
I have nuclear power in the Chicago area (www.comed.com). I've checked, and it's not heavily subsidized.
There's probably little subsidy in day to day operations. The building was subsidized in part, and cleanup (Yucca mountain) is more expensive than building it and entirely at government expense.
Yes, you might think that. The kernel doesn't have this problem except for a few bleeding edge people pulling right out of the test sources. Apache, gcc, nope, no problems there. But qmail has it, and I know of no other so-called stable release (ten years!) with this kind of problem.
Who says I like ALL of the patches he chose? Suppose the patch he chose of the several that solve the same problem has side effects that I don't want, or that solves it in a manner I don't want.
The more patches lumped together, the greater the odds there will be something in it that is wrong for any arbitrary situation.
And if you don't lump them together, the greater the odds that they will conflict.
THAT is what is wrong with qmail's patch mentality.
Seems like everybody and his dog has a patchset for qmail. Unfortunately, many of them conflict with each other. Patchset A solves problems 1, 7, and 12, patchset B solves, 2,7 and 12, patchset C solves 1 and 15. You want to solve problems 1 and 7, but don't want the fixes for 12 or 15. Or you want A's fix for problem 7 but B's fix for problem 12.
Qmail was great in its day, but that day has come and gone. Maybe the public domaining of qmail will allow it to be distributed properly and make it viable again.
Slashdot Mirror
I only comment because I often hear people spout off about Adam Smith, and when I do it often sounds quite naive given the broad spectrum of market forces competing with the invisible hand.
That' why I said there has to be more more opportunity for individual people to enforce freedom of choice and availability of information. One of the problems with government monopolies is that they enforce their monopoly status by superior firepower. Lawsuits and a litigious society suck, but they suck less than rule by fiat and gun.
Please contribute facts or reasoning to back up your assertion. Blind assertions of faith don't make for a discussion. I have given my reasoning, that I think bureaucrats working for a monopoly (the government) are more interested in keeping their empire intact and even expanding than doing a good job, and that the recent food news was not discovered by government health inspectors. Now it's your turn to say something useful.
How many of those problems you cite were caught by the regulators you espouse?
Each little step of regulation has a noble purpose, but the combined weight slows down the economy so much that we would be better off without the regulation. I would rather have restaurants brag about the inspection company they hire on their own than have the government force one bureaucracy on everybody.
Do you ever eat at friends' houses? How about a neighbor you hardly know? How about a potluck at school or church or work or even a block party?
Do you ever ask any of them for a health inspection report?
Government health inspections do almost nothing except tie up thousands of people in a bureaucracy, and the people who run those bureaucracies have no interest in food safety, only in keeping control of their bureaucracy and expanding its writ. I am not a big fan of greedy profit driven motivation, except it's like democracy as quoted by Winston Churchill: it's the worst way of doing things except for all the others.
The invisible hand of Adam Smith says that when people have information and choice, their selfish choices work together for the best overall good. The trick is to make sure people have the information and choices they need, and having one government bureaucracy is not a choice, especially when that bureaucracy only releases information when it helps the bureaucrats control their turf by punishing those who oppose them and by favoring those who help them. Private bureaucracies might have those same thoughts, but the profit motive brings them back in line -- as long as there is competition and people have the information to differentiate and choose, which is exactly the opposite of what empire building bureaucrats want.
Here's an example of how things would work if inspections were voluntary and run by businesses: right now inspections are done by guys with clipboards, thermometers, and subjective opinions, right? If the inspectors cared about profit, I believe that by now we would have automated real time inspection systems possible, where sensors in kitchens would monitor for rats, roaches, warm refrigerators, cold meat, etc. That would be a much better health regulator than unannounced once a year inspections by inspectors susceptible to bribes and favoritism. No government bureaucrat would ever put up with such a system, as it would reduce the size of his empire. Profit driven businesses would, for it would reduce their employee count, increase their profits, lower their prices, enhance their reputation with the public, and grow their business. All those laid off inspectors would now be available for productive work.
Liek I said, regulations have noble intent, but that paves the road to hell. Regulations freeze conditions, they are the enemy of advances and innovation, and they are perfectly suited to slow moving bureaucracies who don't want anything to upset their apple cart. They are the last resort of those who don't want to ever do anything differently.
the Fucking Terranosaur Article?
The Frozen | Fluffy | Fossilized Terranosaur Article, please.
I know what you mean; no monopoly lasts forever. If they really are truly bad, they will suffocate themselves. If I really believe in a free market, then trying to prevent one aspect of that (monopolies) by fiat is unnecessary. That's why I don't want the government trying to regulate them -- you get politics and special interests involved and they find all sorts of excuses to justify new regulations to expand their bureaucratic territories.
But corporations themselves are a government creation. Not allowing corporations seems like a big loss to any economy. Some projects need big companies. I can't imagine the awful inefficiences if manufacturers could not grow beyond a certain size due to not having corporations.
Since people can sue businesses for fraud, what if you were to consider the ill-effects of a monopoly to be fraud? What if people could sue Microsoft for its special deals with Dell, or AT&T for its shenanigans, or Standard Oil for its evil effects?
I think that would solve the problems of monopolies. Ron Paul likes to say that if people could sue polluters for sending the pollution into their backyards, literally, that would replace the EPA. I am doubtful, but maybe such an approach would work with simpler concerns like a monopoly having so much power that it distorts the marketplace in easily identified ways.
The only solution is a truly free market economy without the FED and other allied stupidity.
Yes, as long as it is the Adam Smith variety of free market. Once you get monopolies, the invisible hand goes *poof* and you no longer have a free market.
I personally believe we could throw out 999 out of 1000 laws and regulations and have a happier healthier economy and society. For instance, I would throw out all business licenses and the associated regulation, such as health inspections for restaurants; that's how much I distrust regulation and how it distorts the free market.
But monopolies are just as bad on the business side as they are on the government side, and there has to be some way to prevent them and break them up. Rather than have a government monopoly to break up business monopolies, I would have some way for citizen lawsuits to do the trick. You have to prevent market domination via rackets like those practiced by Microsoft, or the old AT&T, Standard Oil, etc., or you no longer have a free market.
Then in Soviet Russia, we can read about rails on slashdot.
If you're going to be pedantic, I will too.
1941-12-07
Try -08. The Japanese military ran off Tokyo time, not local time.
I hope this does pass and colleges start waging war on Hollywood's behalf. It will further drive students away from mass produced entertainment and into the arms of Creative Commons licenses. Hollywood will find that their fence not only keeps the future consumer out of their backyard, it keeps Hollywood out of the next generation of do-it-yourself entertainment and mashups.
Go for it, bozos.
Fences work both ways.
uficking
Is that a uTypo or an iTypo?
Will this be handled by a virtual legal system, with other players taking the roles of the police, judges, bailiffs, attorneys, paralegals, etc? Will there be virtual subpoenas, a virtual trial, and possibly a virtual jail for the virtual (alleged) thief?
Next question please
Why didn't you end that sentence fragment with a period?
Why did you use "don't" when "won't" would have been more fitting?
How did you have enough brains to say "lose" instead of "loose" like all the other loosers(sic) who post such useless diatribes?
Did you think your post was funny?
Do you think this post is funny?
Are you afraid to use a real account, or just too lazy?
That ought to be enough questions for a while. Let me know when you need more. I'm not from the government, but I'm still here to help.
Vibration. Potholes. Railroad crossings. Just because the driver doesn't do 4G doesn't mean the car isn't.
Do you ever get out to Archie McPhee's?
:-)
I've only been to their store once, but I mail order stuff all the time. Great cubicle toys. The best rubber chickens money can buy outside an art museum
Stay away from those 5 year olds, buddy.
This is open source -- don't just gripe, make your criticism constructive.
It's my understanding that on-site storage was supposed to be temporary and that the lack of national permanent storage has resulted in most local storage being grossly overused, some of them at high risk of overflowing to the extent taht some reactors might have to shut down prematurely if they can't move their waste elsewhere.
I have nuclear power in the Chicago area (www.comed.com). I've checked, and it's not heavily subsidized.
There's probably little subsidy in day to day operations. The building was subsidized in part, and cleanup (Yucca mountain) is more expensive than building it and entirely at government expense.
Probably has to be done within 60 days.
Whoosh. Right over. By several hundred miles.
Literally. Right over.
Yes, you might think that. The kernel doesn't have this problem except for a few bleeding edge people pulling right out of the test sources. Apache, gcc, nope, no problems there. But qmail has it, and I know of no other so-called stable release (ten years!) with this kind of problem.
Who says I like ALL of the patches he chose? Suppose the patch he chose of the several that solve the same problem has side effects that I don't want, or that solves it in a manner I don't want.
The more patches lumped together, the greater the odds there will be something in it that is wrong for any arbitrary situation.
And if you don't lump them together, the greater the odds that they will conflict.
THAT is what is wrong with qmail's patch mentality.
Seems like everybody and his dog has a patchset for qmail. Unfortunately, many of them conflict with each other. Patchset A solves problems 1, 7, and 12, patchset B solves, 2,7 and 12, patchset C solves 1 and 15. You want to solve problems 1 and 7, but don't want the fixes for 12 or 15. Or you want A's fix for problem 7 but B's fix for problem 12.
Qmail was great in its day, but that day has come and gone. Maybe the public domaining of qmail will allow it to be distributed properly and make it viable again.
Jesus, do you always lecture on like that about things everyone knows? Or only when no one can stop you?
His name is SanityInAnarchy, not Jesus.
Do you always whine like that, or only when no one can identify you?