[ Copy this | Start New | Full Size ]

Login:
Password:
Lost password| Sign Up
New messages · Members · Forum rules · Search · RSS · Profile · Logout
  • Page 10 of 10
  • «
  • 1
  • 2
  • …
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
Forum moderator: El_Matador, ThaScience, s0dr2  
Forum » Knowledge » Politics/Economics » Anarcho-Capitalism Debate
Anarcho-Capitalism Debate
J-Breakz Date: Friday, 12/Feb/10, 1:05 AM | Message # 136

Heads
Posts: 2162
Reputation: 0
Offline
Quote (eboyd)
ith a person owning the lake, automatically, because this is how capitalism works, they will supply the people with water, but charge an interest fee. this interest fee is the business's profit.

...what? no. Once again there is no monopoly. it will stay at the equilibrium unless water companies improve technologies to make water extraction more efficient or something. Prices today might raise but that isn't because of the companies wanting to. It's because of inflation.
livin life like some cheesy movie
J-Breakz Date: Friday, 12/Feb/10, 1:10 AM | Message # 137

Heads
Posts: 2162
Reputation: 0
Offline
Quote (eboyd)
not true. there's no reason to assume that such a big problem would arise, and if it turned out that it did, we would probably have to sit down and consider a faster way to handle certain types of decisions. that all comes with society building. it usually takes a society a few years to gain it's balance.

That's such a weak argument. So basically everyone is using the hell out of your resources so you sit down and have a meeting with others and come up with a decision. That decision doesn't work already one resource is depleted so you decide to have another meeting about what happen and keep on telling people they shouldn't do that. Yeah, very effective.

Yeah if you noticed this ISNT just about water. Im just presenting an example. Another can be fish, trees, other animals, etc. So you're going to be holding those meetings that are going to be even taking up MORE time while people are wasting away resources.

livin life like some cheesy movie
J-Breakz Date: Friday, 12/Feb/10, 1:28 AM | Message # 138

Heads
Posts: 2162
Reputation: 0
Offline
Quote (J-Breakz)

...what? no. Once again there is no monopoly. it will stay at the equilibrium unless water companies improve technologies to make water extraction more efficient or something. Prices today might raise but that isn't because of the companies wanting to. It's because of inflation.

And how would that make sense anyways?! Why would the company WANT demand to lower? If he didn't raise prices then he would actually get more money in the long run. A company just wouldn't raise prices for no reason.
livin life like some cheesy movie
eboyd Date: Friday, 12/Feb/10, 1:36 AM | Message # 139

Heads
Posts: 13145
Reputation: 2
Offline
Quote (J-Breakz)
...what? no. Once again there is no monopoly. it will stay at the equilibrium unless water companies improve technologies to make water extraction more efficient or something. Prices today might raise but that isn't because of the companies wanting to. It's because of inflation.

equilibrium is already adjusted for the company to profit and also to account for how much the company has to pay for supplies and employees. those factors wouldn't exist in a society where the factories, banks, aqueducts, distilleries, restaurants, etc., are run by the communities in which they exist physically and there is no ownership involved.

Quote (J-Breakz)
That's such a weak argument. So basically everyone is using the hell out of your resources so you sit down and have a meeting with others and come up with a decision. That decision doesn't work already one resource is depleted so you decide to have another meeting about what happen and keep on telling people they shouldn't do that. Yeah, very effective.

no, you gave me an unrealistic example. lol who would be trying to come and take a shitload of water for their own personal use on a daily basis? where would they store it? if you have the option to either bring water from a lake and distill it yourself, then drink it or possibly risk disease from the impurities in the water, or you can go buy it virtually for free from the DWP, why would you assume people would continue to drink directly from the lake? if they want good water, they either pay for it or spend time purifying it themselves. that's why what you are talking about is absurd to consider. as for the decision making in other aspects, you assume such a process would occur at the same speed that governments today make similar decisions. you don't have to worry about working around the schedules of an assembly, all the political BS involved, etc., you just have to let people know of a set date when there will be a meeting to discuss the issue which would be easier because television would no longer be owned and so the people that volunteered to work for the media would announce it there, in newspapers, on the net, etc. even the scientific aspect of it would be quick because the scientists wouldn't have to wait for funding from the government or corporations in order to find out the numbers. it would move much quicker and there would be very limited cases in which these meetings would drag on in such a fashion anyways.

my new theme song



erikboyd60@hotmail.com

"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"

-T.S. Eliot

battle record:

7-0-0

eboyd Date: Friday, 12/Feb/10, 1:39 AM | Message # 140

Heads
Posts: 13145
Reputation: 2
Offline
Quote (J-Breakz)
Yeah if you noticed this ISNT just about water. Im just presenting an example. Another can be fish, trees, other animals, etc. So you're going to be holding those meetings that are going to be even taking up MORE time while people are wasting away resources.

and how would companies make these decisions? board meetings, no? exactly.

Quote (J-Breakz)
And how would that make sense anyways?! Why would the company WANT demand to lower? If he didn't raise prices then he would actually get more money in the long run. A company just wouldn't raise prices for no reason.

they wouldn't want it to. it is an unfortunate side effect of their structure.

my new theme song



erikboyd60@hotmail.com

"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"

-T.S. Eliot

battle record:

7-0-0

J-Breakz Date: Friday, 12/Feb/10, 1:48 AM | Message # 141

Heads
Posts: 2162
Reputation: 0
Offline
Quote (eboyd)
no, you gave me an unrealistic example.

Yes because water shortages never happen in the real world.
Quote (eboyd)
and how would companies make these decisions? board meetings, no? exactly.

Yes but the owners of companies have a direct self-interest to not waste resources. Stop ignoring basic economics. Do you want evidence supporting the tragedy of the commons theory?
Quote (eboyd)
equilibrium is already adjusted for the company to profit and also to account for how much the company has to pay for supplies and employees.

...ok? I already know that. What's your point?
Quote (eboyd)
you don't have to worry about working around the schedules of an assembly, all the political BS involved, etc., you just have to let people know of a set date when there will be a meeting to discuss the issue which would be easier because television would no longer be owned and so the people that volunteered to work for the media would announce it there, in newspapers, on the net, etc.

Yeah, thats how it starts with regular governments. But then because they have so many issues to deal with then they get very busy schedules.
livin life like some cheesy movie
eboyd Date: Friday, 12/Feb/10, 2:17 AM | Message # 142

Heads
Posts: 13145
Reputation: 2
Offline
Quote (J-Breakz)
Yes because water shortages never happen in the real world.

no, that's not at all what i said. i described exactly how they would prevent water shortages, which was actually similar to how it would happen in your society, only the people involved in the decision would be all of those who are interested, not just the people who are going to profit by selling the water.

Quote (J-Breakz)
Yes but the owners of companies have a direct self-interest to not waste resources. Stop ignoring basic economics.

lol and people who drink the water don't have a direct self interest? lol dude come on, now you're just sounding silly. and btw, i actually explained in on the last page why my system would work and how it would be more efficient and natural than yours using an economic explanation, but apparently when i actually talk about economics, you can ignore that, because i guess idk wtf i'm talking about (even though i'm already in my junior year as a business student).

Quote (J-Breakz)
Do you want evidence supporting the tragedy of the commons theory?

no, because it wouldn't apply to my society. why do you insist on regulation even when it isn't necessary?

Quote (J-Breakz)
...ok? I already know that. What's your point?

my point is that i have already economically shown that the money-represents-labor model wouldn't have this problem, allowing prices to take their natural course, unlike in an anarcho-capitalist society.

Quote (J-Breakz)
Yeah, thats how it starts with regular governments.

lol ok buddy. who is going to have a busy schedule? there is no schedule. there is no assembly to have a schedule. it would be the people of a community voluntarily coming together to make decisions. why don't you read my detailed response describing exactly why it's laughable that you are trying to claim that this is a form of government within that big ass post of mine on the last page before trying to continue with your claims that this is a government i am proposing. debunk that first and then i'll address those claims. until then, this was a futile attempt.

Quote (J-Breakz)
But then because they have so many issues to deal with then they get very busy schedules.

you know, this really reminds me of the arguments my conservative buddies and my dad use to show that society needs a leader. "well, decision making necessitates a government". you are pretty much making an argument for government and you don't even realize it.

my new theme song



erikboyd60@hotmail.com

"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"

-T.S. Eliot

battle record:

7-0-0

J-Breakz Date: Friday, 12/Feb/10, 4:14 PM | Message # 143

Heads
Posts: 2162
Reputation: 0
Offline
Quote (eboyd)
lol and people who drink the water don't have a direct self interest? lol dude come on, now you're just sounding silly.

Just like it would be in the people's self interest to maintain public restrooms? Or how it would be in peoples self interest to take care of the environment and do things like not litter? Or how it would be in peoples self interest to not damage public property at all? etc. I think I proved my point. If not, here's some more examples:

http://greeneconomics.blogspot.com/2006....nd.html

http://www.chattoogariver.org/index.php?quart=Sp2002&req=commons

Quote (eboyd)
why do you insist on regulation even when it isn't necessary?

Self-regulation is necessary, because your society would destroy your resources.
Quote (eboyd)
no, because it wouldn't apply to my society.

Lol, how wouldn't it? Your method of dealing with the problem has pretty much been the method used for pollution, commercial fishing, etc. It hasn't worked out too well.
Quote (eboyd)
apparently when i actually talk about economics, you can ignore that, because i guess idk wtf i'm talking about (even though i'm already in my junior year as a business student).
Well, I'm really trying hard not to, but an eyebrow gets raised when you talk about Cuba having a healthy economy and businesses offering monopolistic prices. And I'm really trying to let you explain but whenever I try to get you to do that you just end up saying "Oh, well this is irrelevant anyways cuz my society wouldn't have this problem". Yeah, whatever, lol.
Quote (eboyd)
my point is that i have already economically shown that the money-represents-labor model wouldn't have this problem, allowing prices to take their natural course, unlike in an anarcho-capitalist society.

Alright, so what does that have to do with your whole idea of an interest fee?
Quote (eboyd)
why don't you read my detailed response describing exactly why it's laughable that you are trying to claim that this is a form of government within that big ass post of mine on the last page before trying to continue with your claims that this is a government i am proposing. debunk that first and then i'll address those claims. until then, this was a futile attempt.

Pretty much what you said is "Yeah, my society is a government. So I'm going to argue that your society is a government. Ok, now I'm going to talk about water and act like J-Breakz wasn't just using this as an example of many different possible scenarios."
livin life like some cheesy movie
Forum » Knowledge » Politics/Economics » Anarcho-Capitalism Debate
  • Page 10 of 10
  • «
  • 1
  • 2
  • …
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
Search: