Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   Jonny (jonny@annihilation.social)'s status on Friday, 13-Sep-2024 16:47:23 JST Jonny

   in reply to

   • h4890
   • Emeritus Prof Christopher May
   @h4890 @ChrisMayLA6
   Nice text wall
   • ✙ dcc :pedomustdie: :phear_slackware: likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     h4890 (h4890@liberdon.com)'s status on Friday, 13-Sep-2024 16:47:24 JST h4890

     in reply to

     • Emeritus Prof Christopher May

     @ChrisMayLA6

     Ahhh... this is interesting! I agree with you that rules are needed in a community, in a market and within a government. 100%.

     I do however believe, that it is 100% possible to create and enforce these rules in a private way, and that this in fact, has happened (and is happening) around is every day.

     Therefore I do not think we need the government which in my opinion is morally indefensible. All we need is market dynamics and individuals.

   • Embed this notice
     Emeritus Prof Christopher May (chrismayla6@zirk.us)'s status on Friday, 13-Sep-2024 16:47:25 JST Emeritus Prof Christopher May

     in reply to

     • h4890

     @h4890 @amerika@annihilation.social

     I'm not going to disagreee wth you about the death toll exacted by Govt.s which has been massive.... but, that's an argument for fixing the problems with international politics & governments, not an argument that anarchy (by which I mean an absence of legal rules, not chaos) is the answer - I have anarchist friends who think its possible to have a society without political authority, but we now just agree to differ....

   • Embed this notice
     h4890 (h4890@liberdon.com)'s status on Friday, 13-Sep-2024 16:47:26 JST h4890

     in reply to

     • Emeritus Prof Christopher May
     • ≠

     @amerika @ChrisMayLA6

     I think government can best be compared with cancer. It grows until it gets too big and kills the host, and then it collapses.

     If that does not happen, the host, that is we the people, live sub-standard lives, feeling ill and getting depressed by all the medicines we need to take to keep the cancer in check.

     Either way, governments have killed way more people throughout our history than private companies, which are based on voluntary informed consent, and

   • Embed this notice
     h4890 (h4890@liberdon.com)'s status on Friday, 13-Sep-2024 16:47:27 JST h4890

     in reply to

     • Emeritus Prof Christopher May
     • ≠

     @amerika @ChrisMayLA6

     Yes, I think it can be visualized as a continuum of power between the individual and the state.

     It's almost like a zero sum game. The more power the government has, the worse for the individual, and the more power the individual has, the worse for the state.

     Add to that the ethical problem of the state being based on violence, which makes it an unethical institution no different, at the core, from a maffia gang.

   • Embed this notice
     ≠ (amerika@annihilation.social)'s status on Friday, 13-Sep-2024 16:47:27 JST ≠

     in reply to

     • h4890
     • Emeritus Prof Christopher May
     @h4890 @ChrisMayLA6
     
     As a nihilist, I have no bias against mafias per se. If the mafia achieves better results than all other available options, it is the best choice.
     
     Even more, I am not an anarchist; there needs to be some strong power in every society in order to protect it. Strong power however is less likely to intervene in daily life and small details. Again, relative better options win here.
     
     That being said, _government is a self-interested industry_. If you give it a mandate like "equality" it will grow to infinite size and power.
   • Embed this notice
     h4890 (h4890@liberdon.com)'s status on Friday, 13-Sep-2024 16:47:28 JST h4890

     in reply to

     • Emeritus Prof Christopher May
     • ≠

     @ChrisMayLA6
     @amerika

     Isn't that inside the box thinking? Why can't markets be unregulated? It's not as if there's a law of nature that says that they cannot.

   • Embed this notice
     ≠ (amerika@annihilation.social)'s status on Friday, 13-Sep-2024 16:47:28 JST ≠

     in reply to

     • h4890
     • Emeritus Prof Christopher May
     @h4890 @ChrisMayLA6
     
     From my perspective, the bigger issue is equal and opposite reactions.
     
     The more you regulate a market, the more you extract wealth from the citizens...
   • Embed this notice
     Emeritus Prof Christopher May (chrismayla6@zirk.us)'s status on Friday, 13-Sep-2024 16:47:29 JST Emeritus Prof Christopher May

     in reply to

     • h4890

     @h4890

     Well, i think your point about existing businesses working with Govt. is key certainly - but markets cannot be unregulated (markets are essentially a legalised environment of exchange) and so oligopoly always has this ability....

   • Embed this notice
     h4890 (h4890@liberdon.com)'s status on Friday, 13-Sep-2024 16:47:30 JST h4890

     in reply to

     • Emeritus Prof Christopher May

     @ChrisMayLA6 a private arm of the government.

     On the other hand... if you are driven enough to break a monopoly of the government, or an oligopoly, there's plenty of cash to win!

     Jan Stenbeck of sweden, smashed the government monopoly on telecommunication and TV in sweden, and it made him a billionaire in USD.

   • Embed this notice
     h4890 (h4890@liberdon.com)'s status on Friday, 13-Sep-2024 16:47:31 JST h4890

     in reply to

     • Emeritus Prof Christopher May

     @ChrisMayLA6

     I beg to differ... I think oligopolies are due to the government making it difficult and expensive for new businesses to start.

     Existing businesses frequently work with the government to create as many laws and administrative burdens they can, to keep the competition out.

     I am a small business owner, and based on my experience of doing business in northern europe this is the case.

     At the extreme macro level, you can see how banks utilize this. Banks today are basically

   • Embed this notice
     Emeritus Prof Christopher May (chrismayla6@zirk.us)'s status on Friday, 13-Sep-2024 16:47:32 JST Emeritus Prof Christopher May

     in reply to

     • h4890

     @h4890

     Hmmm... I'm not sure this type of supply-side solution would work - after all, for businesses this is already a relatively low-tax market environment - the issue around business rates is a little different, but even then, what we are really seeing is the consolidation of oligopolies & that is very much driven by the market & a lack of effective anti-comepetiton regulation to enhance prospects for smaller businesses....

   • Embed this notice
     h4890 (h4890@liberdon.com)'s status on Friday, 13-Sep-2024 16:47:33 JST h4890

     in reply to

     • Emeritus Prof Christopher May

     @ChrisMayLA6

     I think everything flows from the market. If a country wants business, they need to lower taxes, reduce administration and deregulate.

     Then businesses will be attracted and people will start their own.

     The opposite way, high taxes, high administration and regulation, damages business.

     This pattern has been repeated since oktober 1917 and ever after.

     For a short and crisp overview of the power of freedom and markets have a look at Johan Norbergs "The Capitalist Manifesto".

   • Embed this notice
     Emeritus Prof Christopher May (chrismayla6@zirk.us)'s status on Friday, 13-Sep-2024 16:47:34 JST Emeritus Prof Christopher May

     The landscape of the high street continues to change as retailers withdraw, in some cases consolidating business in out-of-town sites, in others though a shift to more e-tailing.

     The key Q. is how quickly (or at all) can other services fill the gaps in the urban landscape, or are some town centres doomed to eventual collapse altogether.

     While the shift(s) may be too pronounced to reverse (and perhaps we shouldn't try), urban planning needs an urgent response!

     #politics
     https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/sep/12/chemist-pub-and-bank-closures-lead-to-2300-more-empty-uk-stores-survey-finds