Correlation not causation. Many tests on the efficacy of unions to "make sure that I have...", has never been shown to be statistically significant. Also, when the business wasn't doing well, the unions got nothing, when they were doing well, the unions got something. In most instances when the Union "got" something, other businesses who didn't have unions also got them, on average. Additionally unions have hurt their supporters by having too much power and demanding things which were beyond the companies capabilities. More of my friends who work in low paying jobs, have been hurt from unions (lost hours/income), than those that have directly benefited.
While this also doesn't show that the unions didn't provide some benefit, it does show that it isn't as clear cut as people seem to expect, and I certainly wouldn't be paying for them, unless they provided some well priced services. Eg, free or cheap 'legal support'/'health care'/etc.
You could redefine "works" to be only inclusive of this one activity. But as I said, even by that measure, you could lose since you'd be increasing the activity you were trying to stop.
I don't think you know the definition of "crime", it's anything where you break the law and can be punished for. Doesn't matter about whether you agree with it or not. Most laws are not about the extreme circumstances, they're about these in between circumstances and so various groups can generally rationalize it. Drugs being a perfect example.
I don't think you know how GDP is calculated. It is extremely rare to have black market transactions included, especially since they can't be measured well. Any values would be guess work.
"To stay in power" is a perfect example of something which can not be easily defined, nor have I talked about that. A politician staying in power is the product of a whole fuck load of forces, and not necessarily due to appeasing the people on a base level. While I have never gotten into political theory much, from the topics I have studied, and the papers I have read, there was no particularly good theory as to what/why people get elected to government and manage to stay in government.
I too come from the land down under, where there's rain and censorship.
However I'm less optimistic about the "near future", I reckon it's going to take a hell of a long time to roll out. They haven't even done Tassie yet, and that's a tiny place in comparison. I live in a place which isn't densely populated (but still 20 minutes from the city), and has no new housing developments, so I'm not expecting to get anything awesome anytime soon. Though I would like some in between solutions, like pseudo exchanges/repeaters/something to transfer many copper connections to many fiber connections, so at the very least I'm not 7kms from my effective exchange... which is what I am at the moment.
Either way, Rudd in a dress is in power, and I just hope she pulls her thumb out and gets this shit done! I want 100mbit!
While this works well for clear cut offenses, such as theft/murder/rape/etc, it will not work well for those offenses which aren't so clear cut, such as piracy/drugs/tax evasion/etc. Because while it could mean jail time, the other drivers of this change (having to explain it to friends and family, public records, finding a job later) are all greatly reduced, or non-existent (depending on how the sample is defined). As such, you will find that a greater percentage of the population will have a lower "cost" from participating in these sorts of activities.
Additionally you need to consider that this is a complex inter-related system, no action is done in a vacuum. Trying to speak generally, if we impose these laws, there is a direct increased cost on society due to the cost of enforcement (extra police, lawyers, etc). This cost even if only slightly, increases the cost of doing business, and the cost of living, where the marginal benefit from working for many, might drop below the marginal benefit of the dole/social security/etc. As such, you get more people who now have a greater incentive to engage in these activities, since they are underground and tax free.
This is just 1 of many different effects that would be working on the people within this economy. When you produce simple linear models of human behaviour (especially on aggregate) like you have, you will come to the conclusion that government policy / law enforcement will provide more optimal outcomes. However, since life is more complicated than your model, you'll be making the wrong decision. You may in fact, end up decreasing GDP (which does not include the black market), personal income, and increasing the very activity you intended to reduce/stop.
So remember kids, especially if you're studying economics, these systems are extremely complicated, and your models may lead you to make huge erroneous conclusions.
And the "marginal increase in new sales" is debatable as you'd be eliminating a portion of your network effect from free/warez distribution. While this is also small, there's a chance it could be a greater effect than that from people who now need to buy it.
Well, they better sell it soon, because there's not many left. After that, they'll have to go to IPv6, and with how many of those there are, they aren't going to get much money for an IP.
Though, in new developments they should still fit it out with fiber, since that's the time to make life easy, and fiber has a way greater life expectancy, and through doing more of it, should become much more cost competitive.
LOL It's hardly communist. Produced by a community, and provided for free, does not define ANYTHING as communist. It's as communist as much as Obama providing socialized medicine is communist. (Just for clarity, it isn't)
Well, not quite. Freedom is loosely defined. Though, given freedom means liberty, then there are two concepts of liberty.
Negative Liberty which is the laissez-faire approach, which you're talking about.
Positive Liberty which is the socialist approach, which you're not talking about.
As it stands, which ever one you choose, is a subjective choice. All attempts to make it objective, are usually absurd, and based on the maximization of "utility" or similar, and are open to extremely wide open to error/critique.
For the record, I'm a negative liberty proponent. I don't find people telling me to be free, particularly helpful in these complex systems, with unintended consequences, that we live in.
Yeah. LOL I like the idea of this site. Especially if it has easy code for web admins to attach to their site. Name and shame the ISP's.
Perhaps create a log of what ISP's and how many customers of their have been affected (sent to your site).
If this can be done in a non-destructive way, eg, by pointing to some javascript on your site, which loads a pop-up window if they are a lame duck, I could see more and more sites using it. Especially as it becomes more critical.
Yeah, I don't see a way that IPv6 won't be adopted. It's absurd to think more will magically appear, and they probably don't rationalize it as magic, but some other inappropriate way. Though, perhaps they do believe in magic? A lot of free market people are religious.
Well, given that there are transition strategies, it's not simply an all or none proposition for those who implement it. Those who don't won't be able to access some resources. Those who do, will be able to access more resources. So, if we saw it as a game, those who switch (given relatively low costs) will not suffer.
Additionally as more of those people switch, the greater the incentive for the others to switch.
Now, if you mean suffer as in "my business is effected by his business", then yes, there will be suffering for those who implement, but also for those who don't.
All in all, we won't know whether its better to force a switch over, or to let the market handle it, since that requires us to have some objective measure of the total loss/gain from both strategies, and most of the problems are the indirect problems.
However, there is a market based solution to a switch over, it doesn't need a regulatory body. Given maintaining IPv4 equipment/server/etc, is costly as it could be re-purposed (opportunity costs)/is a waste of power/data or similar, we could see the internet backbones setting their own dates for when they will no longer support IPv4. This could be done by all of them getting together to discuss some formal schedule, or by them developing their own schedules based on when enough of their customers support it, or similar criteria.
Also remember that as adoption happens, you'll probably find a sort of cascade effect will happen. The end consumer has little investment in this tech, and so they will switch first (after the ISP's of course). Then businesses who want to pursue these customers will come next, and then businesses who want to support those customers, and so on. Until such point that everyone is switched over. So, at the moment we're in the "beginning" phase, where consumers and ISP's are beginning to switch over, the more than happens here, the more the rest of it will accelerate.
While some ISP's have allocated but not yet used addresses, these ISP's given they resist the change, will just be shooting their customers in the foot, and making their competitors look better. Though, I can see an argument that people might flock to those ISP's, because "they offer IPv4" but with the rate of adoption, that's going to happen really quick, and given they do run to that ISP, they'll inevitably have to raise their prices, and we're then back to our original situation.
Granted, it's gonna be messy. Any change over, of such giant infrastructure is going to be messy. Nobody will be able to force the stupid to play nice, especially when they've got deluded ideas of magical address spaces. All we can do, is push for change in the organizations that we can influence (our ISPs, mail providers, etc), and look to limit our personal problems.
I come from the land down under, where there's rain and thunder, and a television oligopoly. In this case, I believe there are several actors in the market. The current overlords who benefit by not changing, the up and comers who want change (DTV), and the government. While the current overlords certainly did not want change, as it would open up their nice comfy protected market, their mechanism of action was by using the regulatory body. After the up and comers gained enough traction, the regulatory body had to capitulate, though it still remains a relative oligopoly.
There's countless times where regulatory bodies have worked both for and against change, so we shouldn't assume that a regulatory body, which would need to be global, and could possibly result in further bad regulation, such as of piracy, and identification; would be a particularly good way for us to go.
Just remember, these are extremely complicated systems, not the IPv6, but the humans who use it.
Hi there, free market cool-aid guy here. I recommend you try it, it tastes delicious.
Anyhow, we've essentially got a "free" market in this instance, in that there's no governing body which can say "You must implement it". I believe that when it comes down to it, you'll see rapid late stage adoption of IPv6. Just like with digital television, except they won't be able to push back the deadlines, except through dodgy mechanisms.
If however the price for addresses does rise, very quickly you'd see a huge incentive to switch to IPv6. The IPv6 compliant ISP's would be able to offer you a far better service, for a far lower cost, and they can perhaps sell their IPv4 addresses on to stupid/poor ISP's who can't.
Imagine if the price of a single address was thousands a year, how much of an incentive would that be to switch to IPv6? I reckon it would be a huge incentive.
Either way, high frequency trading is a valid form of valuation, like any other. They base their valuations on split second data and algorithms. While it's not my cup of tea, we can't say it's a 100% invalid method, or that they aren't providing any value. Though you may not agree with these rationalizations, we can not objectively rule them out.
This is more of a philosophical / moral argument, as opposed to a market efficiency argument.
Exactly! In fact, I need a pile of calculators for my exams.
I need a graphics calculator (TI-Nspire CAS v1) for all the exams I'm allowed that functionality (makes a lot of shit real easy). A financial calculator (TI BA II Plus Pro) for the exams where I'm ONLY allowed this exact calculator (though I've also got the option of using the HP 12C). A simple scientific calculator for the exams where I am explicitly allowed neither of the other two. Then of course theres many exams where I'm allowed no calculator.
It's ridiculously. Hell, the exams where I need a specific type of calculator, are the worst. Those calculators haven't changed much in years because of it.
I know modern calculators, especially graphics calculators could do a lot more, have more information in menus about the arguments of functions, or more storage, and more processing power, but the lecturers are scared of any change. I have so many exams where having the ability to write large complex formulas and see them laid out exactly how its written, then calculating different numbers, would be invaluable, and any storage capacity would not enable you much benefit from cheating, yet I can't take it in.
The iPhone has had a few problems (antenna, etc) and these weren't covered under the warranty. However, there were many rumors that Apple had fixed it silently, and that when you sent a phone for repair, they were fixing this as well.
As such, you might find that a lot of people were doing this on purpose, to see if they can get a phone, which had the other problems fixed.
Stalinist Libertarians is a weird description, though it does describe them quite well. The hordes on TV that I see are insane, they argue for less government and more government in the same breath. There is almost no logical consistency.
Though they are integral, that doesn't mean they should be. In fact the scope of government being this large, and being enforceable is a reasonably new phenomenon. Since roughly the 1900's.
It's at this point that someone says "Look how bad it was back then!", which at first seems a valid statement, but we've progressed technologically, population wise, education wise and similar. Such that, the removal of government would not result in us going backwards and to that time.
Organized systems, certainly. I'm not arbitrarily arguing against voluntary organization, I'm arguing against a centralized authority with the "right" to initiate physical force. Hell, I would be content if the scope of government were just dramatically reduced, from the nanny state we currently have.
Additionally I'm not arguing that people shouldn't be able to voluntarily join a group and agree to their rules, or that some group which owns the area, isn't allowed to impose their own rules, given it doesn't violate the non-aggression axiom.
This is the point where the argument becomes far too deep for a Slashdot thread, and more so, consumes far too much of my time. However, as I said before (or I think I said it), if you're really interested in this subject, a good background in maths & economics is essential. Hell, even a little philosophy/law/accounting helps. Though these studies start off a little dry for most, by the honors/PhD level, you start getting into the real interesting stuff, where you can get into different economic ideologies, and the basic logic which each is based on. Then you really get into it, and it's fascinating. Also, if you've got the drive to stay in there this long, there's awesome money to be made.
You seem sincere and interested, so I am sorry I disregarded you as another troll and basically just mocked you.
Because a known system has some properties of the proposed system, and the known system is worse than ours, therefore the proposed system must be bad.
Q.E.D.
I can tell, you're a thinker! Can't fault that logic. You're a modelling genius. People should stop studying this topic, and just ask you. You'll set 'em straight!
Ah, you talk like a fag, and your shit's all retarded.
If you're interested in this topic, go back to Uni, study economics, particularly the foundations of the various schools of thought.
Slashdot Mirror
Correlation not causation. Many tests on the efficacy of unions to "make sure that I have...", has never been shown to be statistically significant. Also, when the business wasn't doing well, the unions got nothing, when they were doing well, the unions got something. In most instances when the Union "got" something, other businesses who didn't have unions also got them, on average. Additionally unions have hurt their supporters by having too much power and demanding things which were beyond the companies capabilities. More of my friends who work in low paying jobs, have been hurt from unions (lost hours/income), than those that have directly benefited.
While this also doesn't show that the unions didn't provide some benefit, it does show that it isn't as clear cut as people seem to expect, and I certainly wouldn't be paying for them, unless they provided some well priced services. Eg, free or cheap 'legal support'/'health care'/etc.
You could redefine "works" to be only inclusive of this one activity. But as I said, even by that measure, you could lose since you'd be increasing the activity you were trying to stop.
I don't think you know the definition of "crime", it's anything where you break the law and can be punished for. Doesn't matter about whether you agree with it or not. Most laws are not about the extreme circumstances, they're about these in between circumstances and so various groups can generally rationalize it. Drugs being a perfect example.
I don't think you know how GDP is calculated. It is extremely rare to have black market transactions included, especially since they can't be measured well. Any values would be guess work.
"To stay in power" is a perfect example of something which can not be easily defined, nor have I talked about that. A politician staying in power is the product of a whole fuck load of forces, and not necessarily due to appeasing the people on a base level. While I have never gotten into political theory much, from the topics I have studied, and the papers I have read, there was no particularly good theory as to what/why people get elected to government and manage to stay in government.
I too come from the land down under, where there's rain and censorship.
However I'm less optimistic about the "near future", I reckon it's going to take a hell of a long time to roll out. They haven't even done Tassie yet, and that's a tiny place in comparison. I live in a place which isn't densely populated (but still 20 minutes from the city), and has no new housing developments, so I'm not expecting to get anything awesome anytime soon. Though I would like some in between solutions, like pseudo exchanges/repeaters/something to transfer many copper connections to many fiber connections, so at the very least I'm not 7kms from my effective exchange... which is what I am at the moment.
Either way, Rudd in a dress is in power, and I just hope she pulls her thumb out and gets this shit done! I want 100mbit!
While this works well for clear cut offenses, such as theft/murder/rape/etc, it will not work well for those offenses which aren't so clear cut, such as piracy/drugs/tax evasion/etc. Because while it could mean jail time, the other drivers of this change (having to explain it to friends and family, public records, finding a job later) are all greatly reduced, or non-existent (depending on how the sample is defined). As such, you will find that a greater percentage of the population will have a lower "cost" from participating in these sorts of activities.
Additionally you need to consider that this is a complex inter-related system, no action is done in a vacuum. Trying to speak generally, if we impose these laws, there is a direct increased cost on society due to the cost of enforcement (extra police, lawyers, etc). This cost even if only slightly, increases the cost of doing business, and the cost of living, where the marginal benefit from working for many, might drop below the marginal benefit of the dole/social security/etc. As such, you get more people who now have a greater incentive to engage in these activities, since they are underground and tax free.
This is just 1 of many different effects that would be working on the people within this economy. When you produce simple linear models of human behaviour (especially on aggregate) like you have, you will come to the conclusion that government policy / law enforcement will provide more optimal outcomes. However, since life is more complicated than your model, you'll be making the wrong decision. You may in fact, end up decreasing GDP (which does not include the black market), personal income, and increasing the very activity you intended to reduce/stop.
So remember kids, especially if you're studying economics, these systems are extremely complicated, and your models may lead you to make huge erroneous conclusions.
[joins in on slow clap]
And the "marginal increase in new sales" is debatable as you'd be eliminating a portion of your network effect from free/warez distribution. While this is also small, there's a chance it could be a greater effect than that from people who now need to buy it.
Well, they better sell it soon, because there's not many left. After that, they'll have to go to IPv6, and with how many of those there are, they aren't going to get much money for an IP.
Warez monkeys got on our porch, mumma just sweep 'em off with a broom.
Though, in new developments they should still fit it out with fiber, since that's the time to make life easy, and fiber has a way greater life expectancy, and through doing more of it, should become much more cost competitive.
Awesome! Can somebody link me to AdBlock for Nook?
LOL It's hardly communist. Produced by a community, and provided for free, does not define ANYTHING as communist. It's as communist as much as Obama providing socialized medicine is communist. (Just for clarity, it isn't)
Well, not quite. Freedom is loosely defined. Though, given freedom means liberty, then there are two concepts of liberty.
Negative Liberty which is the laissez-faire approach, which you're talking about.
Positive Liberty which is the socialist approach, which you're not talking about.
As it stands, which ever one you choose, is a subjective choice. All attempts to make it objective, are usually absurd, and based on the maximization of "utility" or similar, and are open to extremely wide open to error/critique.
For the record, I'm a negative liberty proponent. I don't find people telling me to be free, particularly helpful in these complex systems, with unintended consequences, that we live in.
No, they wouldn't. Look at it.
It looks like an old style land rover, though it would be more likely its one of those old style Toyota's. Either way, it'd be called a 4WD.
A ute is totally fucking different.
Yeah. LOL I like the idea of this site. Especially if it has easy code for web admins to attach to their site. Name and shame the ISP's.
Perhaps create a log of what ISP's and how many customers of their have been affected (sent to your site).
If this can be done in a non-destructive way, eg, by pointing to some javascript on your site, which loads a pop-up window if they are a lame duck, I could see more and more sites using it. Especially as it becomes more critical.
Good idea! Do it!
Yeah, I don't see a way that IPv6 won't be adopted. It's absurd to think more will magically appear, and they probably don't rationalize it as magic, but some other inappropriate way. Though, perhaps they do believe in magic? A lot of free market people are religious.
Well, given that there are transition strategies, it's not simply an all or none proposition for those who implement it. Those who don't won't be able to access some resources. Those who do, will be able to access more resources. So, if we saw it as a game, those who switch (given relatively low costs) will not suffer.
Additionally as more of those people switch, the greater the incentive for the others to switch.
Now, if you mean suffer as in "my business is effected by his business", then yes, there will be suffering for those who implement, but also for those who don't.
All in all, we won't know whether its better to force a switch over, or to let the market handle it, since that requires us to have some objective measure of the total loss/gain from both strategies, and most of the problems are the indirect problems.
However, there is a market based solution to a switch over, it doesn't need a regulatory body. Given maintaining IPv4 equipment/server/etc, is costly as it could be re-purposed (opportunity costs)/is a waste of power/data or similar, we could see the internet backbones setting their own dates for when they will no longer support IPv4. This could be done by all of them getting together to discuss some formal schedule, or by them developing their own schedules based on when enough of their customers support it, or similar criteria.
Also remember that as adoption happens, you'll probably find a sort of cascade effect will happen. The end consumer has little investment in this tech, and so they will switch first (after the ISP's of course). Then businesses who want to pursue these customers will come next, and then businesses who want to support those customers, and so on. Until such point that everyone is switched over. So, at the moment we're in the "beginning" phase, where consumers and ISP's are beginning to switch over, the more than happens here, the more the rest of it will accelerate.
While some ISP's have allocated but not yet used addresses, these ISP's given they resist the change, will just be shooting their customers in the foot, and making their competitors look better. Though, I can see an argument that people might flock to those ISP's, because "they offer IPv4" but with the rate of adoption, that's going to happen really quick, and given they do run to that ISP, they'll inevitably have to raise their prices, and we're then back to our original situation.
Granted, it's gonna be messy. Any change over, of such giant infrastructure is going to be messy. Nobody will be able to force the stupid to play nice, especially when they've got deluded ideas of magical address spaces. All we can do, is push for change in the organizations that we can influence (our ISPs, mail providers, etc), and look to limit our personal problems.
I come from the land down under, where there's rain and thunder, and a television oligopoly. In this case, I believe there are several actors in the market. The current overlords who benefit by not changing, the up and comers who want change (DTV), and the government. While the current overlords certainly did not want change, as it would open up their nice comfy protected market, their mechanism of action was by using the regulatory body. After the up and comers gained enough traction, the regulatory body had to capitulate, though it still remains a relative oligopoly.
There's countless times where regulatory bodies have worked both for and against change, so we shouldn't assume that a regulatory body, which would need to be global, and could possibly result in further bad regulation, such as of piracy, and identification; would be a particularly good way for us to go.
Just remember, these are extremely complicated systems, not the IPv6, but the humans who use it.
Hi there, free market cool-aid guy here. I recommend you try it, it tastes delicious.
Anyhow, we've essentially got a "free" market in this instance, in that there's no governing body which can say "You must implement it". I believe that when it comes down to it, you'll see rapid late stage adoption of IPv6. Just like with digital television, except they won't be able to push back the deadlines, except through dodgy mechanisms.
If however the price for addresses does rise, very quickly you'd see a huge incentive to switch to IPv6. The IPv6 compliant ISP's would be able to offer you a far better service, for a far lower cost, and they can perhaps sell their IPv4 addresses on to stupid/poor ISP's who can't.
Imagine if the price of a single address was thousands a year, how much of an incentive would that be to switch to IPv6? I reckon it would be a huge incentive.
Yes and no. Some do, some don't.
Either way, high frequency trading is a valid form of valuation, like any other. They base their valuations on split second data and algorithms. While it's not my cup of tea, we can't say it's a 100% invalid method, or that they aren't providing any value. Though you may not agree with these rationalizations, we can not objectively rule them out.
This is more of a philosophical / moral argument, as opposed to a market efficiency argument.
Exactly! In fact, I need a pile of calculators for my exams.
I need a graphics calculator (TI-Nspire CAS v1) for all the exams I'm allowed that functionality (makes a lot of shit real easy).
A financial calculator (TI BA II Plus Pro) for the exams where I'm ONLY allowed this exact calculator (though I've also got the option of using the HP 12C).
A simple scientific calculator for the exams where I am explicitly allowed neither of the other two.
Then of course theres many exams where I'm allowed no calculator.
It's ridiculously. Hell, the exams where I need a specific type of calculator, are the worst. Those calculators haven't changed much in years because of it.
I know modern calculators, especially graphics calculators could do a lot more, have more information in menus about the arguments of functions, or more storage, and more processing power, but the lecturers are scared of any change. I have so many exams where having the ability to write large complex formulas and see them laid out exactly how its written, then calculating different numbers, would be invaluable, and any storage capacity would not enable you much benefit from cheating, yet I can't take it in.
Oh well, I'm pretty used to it now.
The iPhone has had a few problems (antenna, etc) and these weren't covered under the warranty. However, there were many rumors that Apple had fixed it silently, and that when you sent a phone for repair, they were fixing this as well.
As such, you might find that a lot of people were doing this on purpose, to see if they can get a phone, which had the other problems fixed.
I imagine that whatever this is, it must be Old Greg.
He doesn't like people playin' in his waters. He's gonna hurt you, he likes you, what do you think of him? Don't lie to him boy!
He knows what you're thinking, he's Old Greg, he's a scaly man fish!
Or was it? Given no italics, I'm going to put this one down to a speeling mistake.
Stalinist Libertarians is a weird description, though it does describe them quite well. The hordes on TV that I see are insane, they argue for less government and more government in the same breath. There is almost no logical consistency.
Though they are integral, that doesn't mean they should be. In fact the scope of government being this large, and being enforceable is a reasonably new phenomenon. Since roughly the 1900's.
It's at this point that someone says "Look how bad it was back then!", which at first seems a valid statement, but we've progressed technologically, population wise, education wise and similar. Such that, the removal of government would not result in us going backwards and to that time.
Organized systems, certainly. I'm not arbitrarily arguing against voluntary organization, I'm arguing against a centralized authority with the "right" to initiate physical force. Hell, I would be content if the scope of government were just dramatically reduced, from the nanny state we currently have.
Additionally I'm not arguing that people shouldn't be able to voluntarily join a group and agree to their rules, or that some group which owns the area, isn't allowed to impose their own rules, given it doesn't violate the non-aggression axiom.
This is the point where the argument becomes far too deep for a Slashdot thread, and more so, consumes far too much of my time. However, as I said before (or I think I said it), if you're really interested in this subject, a good background in maths & economics is essential. Hell, even a little philosophy/law/accounting helps. Though these studies start off a little dry for most, by the honors/PhD level, you start getting into the real interesting stuff, where you can get into different economic ideologies, and the basic logic which each is based on. Then you really get into it, and it's fascinating. Also, if you've got the drive to stay in there this long, there's awesome money to be made.
You seem sincere and interested, so I am sorry I disregarded you as another troll and basically just mocked you.
Have a good one. Cheers!
Good argument.
Because a known system has some properties of the proposed system, and the known system is worse than ours, therefore the proposed system must be bad.
Q.E.D.
I can tell, you're a thinker! Can't fault that logic. You're a modelling genius. People should stop studying this topic, and just ask you. You'll set 'em straight!
Ah, you talk like a fag, and your shit's all retarded.
If you're interested in this topic, go back to Uni, study economics, particularly the foundations of the various schools of thought.
Name one, and I'll show you the governance in those areas. There have only been pseudo proxies for a government less system.
Yeah, except that fire fighting is not exclusively government (as this article shows). Perhaps I should add that caveat.