ADVERTISEMENT

For Syskatine With Love

I appreciate that but after reading it the reader is no closer to knowing how to handle a specific problem.

You read the article and that's your take-away? Your comment suggests you either didn't read it or you didn't understand it. I encourage you to read it again. It is perfectly acceptable for you to read it with a mind to find flaws in his argument, but it's best if you understand his argument before offering criticism. Your comment suggests you had no real criticism, just a bland cookie cutter response you trot out if you have nothing significant to say. To be honest I'm a little disappointed. I was hoping to have a conversation.
 
I read it, I just don't know how to practically apply it to a contemporary issue. I'm all ears.

And I'm not trying to be dismissive, we've just argued it quite a bit through the years before you were active on the board. Everyone's for "free markets," the issue usually is where do you step in and regulate it.
 
I read it, I just don't know how to practically apply it to a contemporary issue. I'm all ears.

And I'm not trying to be dismissive, we've just argued it quite a bit through the years before you were active on the board. Everyone's for "free markets," the issue usually is where do you step in and regulate it.

OK, let's pick a contemporary issue and apply free market principles to it, and see where that gets us. Do you want to pick the issue?
 
  • Like
Reactions: CBradSmith
Electricity.
OK, electricity. Electricity is a commodity that must be created (generated) and transported from the person or company that generates it to the consumer. One person/company generates electricity using solar energy. Another uses wind energy. Another fossil fuel. And so on. The consumer picks the person/company from whom he wants to buy his electricity. For one person who wants to save the environment he buys his electricity from a solar company, one of many available to him. Another person chooses the cheapest electricity on the market so he buys it from one of the fossil fuel companies. What has happened is a trade in which each participant profited, and each participant is satisfied. The consumer valued the electricity over his money, and the producer valued the money over his product. There is a free market in play. Producers recognize that the consumer is king. He either provides the electricity to the consumer in the amount desired at the price expected or the consumer finds a producer that is willing to meet his demands. Every transaction is made between consenting participants. No coercion is necessary.
 
Electricity.
I don't claim to be an electricity expert, but have used electricity my whole life. And from the consumer perspective nothing has changed in my dozens of years of life. I still have electrical outlets in the wall, my power is still delivered through aerial power cables, and I still do not get a choice of my provider. Am I forgetting some consumer side innovation?

The only real innovation that I can think of is that when my power does go out I can now use my smart phone to report the outage. That is really nice!
 
OK, electricity. Electricity is a commodity that must be created (generated) and transported from the person or company that generates it to the consumer. One person/company generates electricity using solar energy. Another uses wind energy. Another fossil fuel. And so on. The consumer picks the person/company from whom he wants to buy his electricity. For one person who wants to save the environment he buys his electricity from a solar company, one of many available to him. Another person chooses the cheapest electricity on the market so he buys it from one of the fossil fuel companies. What has happened is a trade in which each participant profited, and each participant is satisfied. The consumer valued the electricity over his money, and the producer valued the money over his product. There is a free market in play. Producers recognize that the consumer is king. He either provides the electricity to the consumer in the amount desired at the price expected or the consumer finds a producer that is willing to meet his demands. Every transaction is made between consenting participants. No coercion is necessary.

You're being pretty selective. The electricity travels through lines that are condemned by emminent domain (not free market, telling a property owner they have to let a utility use their property), rates are set by the government (to prevent OG&E from gouging us or hogging all of the transmission easements), mandatory safety laws and regulations are in place so that the general public doesn't get electrocuted when a thunderstorm knocks down a pole, don't you think those are common sense restraints on a pure free market enterprise?

I for one am thankful that OG&E doesn't have wide-open latitude to charge whatever they can. Aren't you?
 
I don't claim to be an electricity expert, but have used electricity my whole life. And from the consumer perspective nothing has changed in my dozens of years of life. I still have electrical outlets in the wall, my power is still delivered through aerial power cables, and I still do not get a choice of my provider. Am I forgetting some consumer side innovation?

The only real innovation that I can think of is that when my power does go out I can now use my smart phone to report the outage. That is really nice!

That's my experience, too. I'm unaware of any options in my little backwater. I haven't had the electricity company negotiate rates with me, either, like you'd expect in a free market enterprise. They're a monopoly that is protected by the government with rates set by the government.
 
You're being pretty selective. The electricity travels through lines that are condemned by emminent domain (not free market, telling a property owner they have to let a utility use their property), rates are set by the government (to prevent OG&E from gouging us or hogging all of the transmission easements), mandatory safety laws and regulations are in place so that the general public doesn't get electrocuted when a thunderstorm knocks down a pole, don't you think those are common sense restraints on a pure free market enterprise?

I for one am thankful that OG&E doesn't have wide-open latitude to charge whatever they can. Aren't you?[/QUOTE
You're being pretty selective. The electricity travels through lines that are condemned by emminent domain (not free market, telling a property owner they have to let a utility use their property), rates are set by the government (to prevent OG&E from gouging us or hogging all of the transmission easements), mandatory safety laws and regulations are in place so that the general public doesn't get electrocuted when a thunderstorm knocks down a pole, don't you think those are common sense restraints on a pure free market enterprise?

I for one am thankful that OG&E doesn't have wide-open latitude to charge whatever they can. Aren't you?

I hardly know where to begin. The sins you are attributing to a free market (emminent domain, rate setting, transmission easements) are all elements of a regulatory state, the exact opposite of a free market. Your concern for gouging by a company like OG&E are completely unfounded. You are not understanding the role that competition plays in a free market. I don't know what you do for a living, but whatever it is, surely you have competitors. And what does that competition do? It makes you behave as honorably as possible. It gives you incentive to provide the best service you can at a price attractive to your customers. Otherwise a competitor will swoop in and absorb your market share.

What makes you think a free market in electricity would be different? Because you don't see it in your life now, a life ruled by a regulatory state? Do you actually believe OG&E would do away with the commissions, committees, regulations, rules, laws, etc. if it could? They love the regulatory state. It assures them of not having any competition. Who do you think controls those commissions, committees? They're a lot like Hilary Clinton: publicly they whine about excessive regulation, while privately they want more.

Are you under the impression that a company, operating in a free market, would be indifferent to the safety of the public? Wouldn't care if someone were electrocuted by their lines? Would have nothing to fear if their negligence caused harm? That is a naive attitude.
 
You're asking a trial lawyer this? Do you have any idea the abuses big business has perpetrated when they can get away with it? I can keep you on here until tomorrow telling you of abuses big business has done. Have you ever heard of the Sherman Act? What railroads were doing to this country? This call was made in the 1800's.

By chance, who do/did you work for to have such a non "naive" view of big business?
 
You're asking a trial lawyer this? Do you have any idea the abuses big business has perpetrated when they can get away with it? I can keep you on here until tomorrow telling you of abuses big business has done. Have you ever heard of the Sherman Act? What railroads were doing to this country? This call was made in the 1800's.

By chance, who do/did you work for to have such a non "naive" view of big business?
I repeat: your notion of "big business" is colored by the "big businesses" that were an outgrowth of the regulatory state.
 
I repeat: your notion of "big business" is colored by the "big businesses" that were an outgrowth of the regulatory state.

Have you heard of the Sherman Act?

Have you heard about J.P. Morgan, Vanderbilt, Rockefeller, et al? How was Standard Oil created as an outgrowth of the regulatory state? Or Wal Mart?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Medic007
You're asking a trial lawyer this? Do you have any idea the abuses big business has perpetrated when they can get away with it? I can keep you on here until tomorrow telling you of abuses big business has done. Have you ever heard of the Sherman Act? What railroads were doing to this country? This call was made in the 1800's.

By chance, who do/did you work for to have such a non "naive" view of big business?
Gotta agree with my man syskatine here. In general, regulations aren't born out of a desire to regulate. They arise from an event(s). "Free market" in pharmaceuticals led to deaths and addictions. The federal government stepped in to curb the dangers the pharmaceutical industry posed to the population.
 
  • Like
Reactions: davidallen
Gotta agree with my man syskatine here. In general, regulations aren't born out of a desire to regulate. They arise from an event(s). "Free market" in pharmaceuticals led to deaths and addictions. The federal government stepped in to curb the dangers the pharmaceutical industry posed to the population.

And asbestos... and Ford Pintos... and Underoos... and canned food... and.... and... and....

Lee Iacocca (sp?) testified to Congress that mandatory seatbelts would bankrupt the U.S. auto industry. He was as earnest as he could be.
 
And asbestos... and Ford Pintos... and Underoos... and canned food... and.... and... and....

Lee Iacocca (sp?) testified to Congress that mandatory seatbelts would bankrupt the U.S. auto industry. He was as earnest as he could be.
Underoos is over the line. Who really gives a shit if a child's underwear is ridiculously flammable and will burst into flames if grazed with a spark. I bet there are people who want those flammable undies. Let the free market decide.
 
I hardly know where to begin. The sins you are attributing to a free market (emminent domain, rate setting, transmission easements) are all elements of a regulatory state, the exact opposite of a free market. Your concern for gouging by a company like OG&E are completely unfounded. You are not understanding the role that competition plays in a free market. I don't know what you do for a living, but whatever it is, surely you have competitors. And what does that competition do? It makes you behave as honorably as possible. It gives you incentive to provide the best service you can at a price attractive to your customers. Otherwise a competitor will swoop in and absorb your market share.

What makes you think a free market in electricity would be different? Because you don't see it in your life now, a life ruled by a regulatory state? Do you actually believe OG&E would do away with the commissions, committees, regulations, rules, laws, etc. if it could? They love the regulatory state. It assures them of not having any competition. Who do you think controls those commissions, committees? They're a lot like Hilary Clinton: publicly they whine about excessive regulation, while privately they want more.

Are you under the impression that a company, operating in a free market, would be indifferent to the safety of the public? Wouldn't care if someone were electrocuted by their lines? Would have nothing to fear if their negligence caused harm? That is a naive attitude.

Given the Ford Pinto lawsuits and Corvairs litigation....those two immediately come to mind....I think it's you that have the naive attitude. This is especially true given restrictions and limitations of liability sold as "tort reform".

How do you see the progression from our regulatory state to your corporate anarchist utopia best proceeding? Ever proceeding? Or is this just an exercise in idealism....advocating for an ideal economic world that will never exist?
 
Given the Ford Pinto lawsuits and Corvairs litigation....those two immediately come to mind....I think it's you that have the naive attitude. This is especially true given restrictions and limitations of liability sold as "tort reform".

How do you see the progression from our regulatory state to your corporate anarchist utopia best proceeding? Ever proceeding? Or is this just an exercise in idealism....advocating for an ideal economic world that will never exist?
Dude, very unlibertarian of you
 
Dude, very unlibertarian of you

I get that.

Did you not read my other posts talking about my present struggles with libertarian "ideals" taking to the extreme? I'm not a libertarian absolutist for sure. Don't know if I ever was. I'm not sure exactly where I am right now....maybe a social contract guy with a hard libertarian lean. Constitutional libertarian. I don't even know if that is a thing. Lol.
 
  • Like
Reactions: davidallen
Given the Ford Pinto lawsuits and Corvairs litigation....those two immediately come to mind....I think it's you that have the naive attitude. This is especially true given restrictions and limitations of liability sold as "tort reform".

How do you see the progression from our regulatory state to your corporate anarchist utopia best proceeding? Ever proceeding? Or is this just an exercise in idealism....advocating for an ideal economic world that will never exist?

I'm a little overwhelmed here! Yes, I'm advocating for an ideal economic world that has never existed. But it never will exist if those of us who believe in it don't try.

Who's the politician - Rahm Emanuel? - who said never let a crisis go to waste? As Robert Higgs (economic historian) points out in his book "Crisis & Leviathan" crises are created in a politician's mind, the public is led to believe the only hope of ending the crisis and averting it ever happening again is through government action, mainly via regulation. "Big business" is only too happy to welcome the regulation because they already have the politicians in their pockets, and they can keep the competition out. They get "their people" placed on the regulatory commissions, people who do their bidding while the public is led to believe the commission is looking out for it. Innovation is stifled, monopolies and cartels are formed, and freedom is diminished. But not to worry, it's all for our protection. Big business would never collude with government. The greed of the corporate bigwigs is anathema to our government saviors.
 
The sins you are attributing to a free market (emminent domain, rate setting, transmission easements) are all elements of a regulatory state, the exact opposite of a free market.

Those arent' "sins" - they're necessary to have private enterprise deliver electricity to the consumer. I'm not complaining about them. It's common sense.

What makes you think a free market in electricity would be different?

They wouldn't have the ability to force property owners to let them run electrical lines across their land. One property owner could refuse to let them have an easement and landlock other properties. OG&E owns the easements in my neighborhood -- how could another companies run lines down an alleyway in a subdivision if landowners and OG&E don't have to let them?

Your concern for gouging by a company like OG&E are completely unfounded.

rmdSx.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: CowboyJD
I'm a little overwhelmed here! Yes, I'm advocating for an ideal economic world that has never existed. But it never will exist if those of us who believe in it don't try.

Who's the politician - Rahm Emanuel? - who said never let a crises go to waste? As Robert Higgs (economic historian) points out in his book "Crisis & Leviathan" crises are created in a politician's mind, the public is led to believe the only hope of ending the crisis and averting it ever happening again is through government action, mainly via regulation. "Big business" is only too happy to welcome the regulation because they already have the politicians in their pockets, and they can keep the competition out. They get "their people" placed on the regulatory commissions, people who do their bidding while the public is led to believe the commission is looking out for it. Innovation is stifled, monopolies and cartels are formed, and freedom is diminished. But not to worry, it's all for our protection. Big business would never collide with government. The greed of the corporate bigwigs is anathema to our government saviors.

My question was not whether you were advocating for an ideal world that has never existed....it was an ideal world that would NEVER exist. Those are different. Then I asked for your thoughts on what the ideal (left out "realistic"....but certainly inherent in such a question) process would be to get from where we are now to the ideal world that has never existed. That's the difference between philosophical skylarking and actual sociological and economic action.

My recent struggle with idealistic libertarianism recently has been that it makes a lot of assumptions about the "humanity" and "rationality of people.....how they would act in a anarcho-libertarian society. Many of those assumptions have recently struck me as pretty naive and unrealistic.
 
My question was not whether you were advocating for an ideal world that has never existed....it was an ideal world that would NEVER exist. Those are different. Then I asked for your thoughts on what the ideal (left out "realistic"....but certainly inherent in such a question) process would be to get from where we are now to the ideal world that has never existed. That's the difference between philosophical skylarking and actual sociological and economic action.

My recent struggle with idealistic libertarianism recently has been that it makes a lot of assumptions about the "humanity" and "rationality of people.....how they would act in a anarcho-libertarian society. Many of those assumptions have recently struck me as pretty naive and unrealistic.


"There's a difference between philosophical skylarking..."

What can I tell you? I'm a philosophical skylark. How to get from here to where my skylark fantasies take me? I have no idea. But I know if I take the pragmatic approach it not only won't happen, but it can't. Accepting that my ideas are frowned upon by the vast majority comes with the territory. All I can do is suppress my cynicism and keep plugging along. I'm well aware that my side is losing the debate. So what do you suggest? That I give up?
 
  • Like
Reactions: CowboyJD
You're asking a trial lawyer this? Do you have any idea the abuses big business has perpetrated when they can get away with it? I can keep you on here until tomorrow telling you of abuses big business has done. Have you ever heard of the Sherman Act? What railroads were doing to this country? This call was made in the 1800's.

By chance, who do/did you work for to have such a non "naive" view of big business?

Please apprise me of the abuses the railroads perpetrated on the public without the protection of the government. You don't need to keep me until tomorrow, just a few minutes exposing how the railroads abused the public on their own.
 
There ya go. Pretty bad, starting 1/4 down.

1/4 down? How about right from the start? You know, the part where the R/R companies jumped in bed with the government to obtain the lucrative contracts the government was handing out? Where the government subsidized the greed and avarice? Are we just supposed to gloss over that part? Where the companies wouldn't build some of the lines without government money? Is that your idea of a free market? If so a rational conversation is not possible.
 
"There's a difference between philosophical skylarking..."

What can I tell you? I'm a philosophical skylark. How to get from here to where my skylark fantasies take me? I have no idea. But I know if I take the pragmatic approach it not only won't happen, but it can't. Accepting that my ideas are frowned upon by the vast majority comes with the territory. All I can do is suppress my cynicism and keep plugging along. I'm well aware that my side is losing the debate. So what do you suggest? That I give up?

Fair enough. Nothing wrong with being a skylarker.

Certainly wasn't suggesting you give up. I really do admire idealists. I just don't have it in me anymore.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT