A/C in Action: The AP Case - Page 19

Exsubmariner · #**181** 10-31-2007, 07:43 PM

[ QUOTE ]
So how do you prevent people from soliciting companies that are outside your juristiction?

[/ QUOTE ]

By providing positive incentives for them to do business with companies located inside your juristiction. Alternatively you could also expand your juristiction until it covered everything.

[ QUOTE ]
Its not like AC works simply on the basis of market forces. There would probably be some form of privatized legal firms.

[/ QUOTE ]

ROTFL!!!!!

What part of the notion of anarchoCAPITALISM doesn't rely on market forces??

And probably doesn't cut it. Would those firms probably be able to enforce regulation?

Exsubmariner · #**182** 10-31-2007, 07:57 PM

[ QUOTE ]
That's a good choice. Now, for the sake of argument:

- How do markets "fail" with regard to pharmaceuticals? Sometimes a marketer of a drug fails to properly understand all the drug's potential effects on a perspective user. 
- How do governments "succeed" with regard to pharmaceuticals? The government succeeds in stopping the vendors of harmful drugs from selling them to people who will be harmed. The government also succeeds in facilitating a means of redress (lawsuits or jail time for company officials if malice is proved) for an individual harmed by a drug. 

I need to know what your view is on government pharmaceuticals before I can agree/disagree.

[/ QUOTE ]

Answers added to quote in Blue

Exsubmariner · #**183** 10-31-2007, 08:01 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
People care and assume that the government will do all their leg work for them, which has just as much potential to create "social damage" (however you want to measure that) as people making free choices. You're assuming that consumer irresponsibility is a natural condition, and government fixes it, rather than acknowledging the contribuiton of government promises to consumer irresponsibility.

[/ QUOTE ]

QF Strawman

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP

ianlippert · #**184** 10-31-2007, 08:05 PM

[ QUOTE ]
By providing positive incentives for them to do business with companies located inside your juristiction.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is AC. Providing positive incentives for companies to work within your legal preferences. If this includes FDA type mechanisms then so be it. The market for legal enforcement will probably include many consumer protections because its an issue a lot of people care about. The only reason the government does provide these services now is because a majority demand them, I dont see how this changes once you step into the free market.

[ QUOTE ]
Alternatively you could also expand your juristiction until it covered everything.

[/ QUOTE ]

So to prevent a few poker players from being ripped off you think we should have a world government?

[ QUOTE ]
What part of the notion of anarchoCAPITALISM doesn't rely on market forces??

[/ QUOTE ]

The market isnt one monolithic force of nature. The defense and legal market can have its say to what other markets within its jurisdiction can and cannot do, much like governments do today.

The point I was trying to make is that AC isnt neccessarily a passivist society. When aggressed against through fraud there is nothing within AC that says we arent allowed to send police to confiscate your servers. We arent just relying on the particular consumer market that the crime has been comitted. We are also relying on the legal market, but the two are seperate. Sorry, the way I used it before was an oversimplification.

[ QUOTE ]
And probably doesn't cut it. Would those firms probably be able to enforce regulation?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well hopefully someone else can jump in here since im not that well read on how privatized legal systems will work. But I'd imagine that people with the same preference for the particular legal systems would live in the same areas.

Honestly I believe that AC would look a lot more like decentralized city states. Each particular "government" would be only resposible for the protection of property, much like the minarchists envision. Take the founding of america and get rid of the federal government and your basicaly 95% of the way to AC. Beyond that who knows what true 100% AC would look like.

Money2Burn · #**185** 10-31-2007, 09:16 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
People care and assume that the government will do all their leg work for them, which has just as much potential to create "social damage" (however you want to measure that) as people making free choices. You're assuming that consumer irresponsibility is a natural condition, and government fixes it, rather than acknowledging the contribuiton of government promises to consumer irresponsibility.

[/ QUOTE ]

QF Strawman

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP

[/ QUOTE ]

Wasn't trying to knock down a straw man, I agreed that the government is partially responsible for the reason people are "lazy" in their decision making. I also get the impression that many posters on this forum think that somehow the government is needed to help consumers make the "right" decisions, which I strongly disagree with.

Copernicus · #**186** 10-31-2007, 10:50 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
To all who say this is a failure of the market to selfregulate,

If there had been heavy regulation in this industry by our government or any other government, for that matter, how long would it take in your estimation for this whole matter to be resolved and "adaquate" punishment delt to Absolute?

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, their license would be revoked for one, which means they couldn't operate under pain of jail time.

To be honest I can't imagine a scandal like this even happening under modern gaming regulations, such as those in the UK. There's too much to lose and too much oversight. Even if it did, the site would be shut down and/or forcibly have a transfer of ownership.

[/ QUOTE ]

The license wouldn't be revoked right off the bat, there would have to be an investigation done, subpeonas issued, depositions listened to, audits performed. These things take substantial amounts of time.

[/ QUOTE ]

and under US gaming regulations operations can be suspended until the investigation is complete

Copernicus · #**187** 10-31-2007, 10:56 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That's a good choice. Now, for the sake of argument:

- How do markets "fail" with regard to pharmaceuticals? Sometimes a marketer of a drug fails to properly understand all the drug's potential effects on a perspective user. 
- How do governments "succeed" with regard to pharmaceuticals? The government succeeds in stopping the vendors of harmful drugs from selling them to people who will be harmed. The government also succeeds in facilitating a means of redress (lawsuits or jail time for company officials if malice is proved) for an individual harmed by a drug. 

I need to know what your view is on government pharmaceuticals before I can agree/disagree.

[/ QUOTE ]

Answers added to quote in Blue 

[/ QUOTE ]

tsk tsk, now ALaw wont read your response

mosdef · #**188** 10-31-2007, 10:57 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
People care and assume that the government will do all their leg work for them, which has just as much potential to create "social damage" (however you want to measure that) as people making free choices. You're assuming that consumer irresponsibility is a natural condition, and government fixes it, rather than acknowledging the contribuiton of government promises to consumer irresponsibility.

[/ QUOTE ]

QF Strawman

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think my comment was strawman at all. Phil is clearly making a case for government intervention on the basis that some people are too dumb and pick the wrong thing when smart people don't limit their choices. Pointing that out isn't a strawman.

mosdef · #**189** 10-31-2007, 11:09 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That's a good choice. Now, for the sake of argument:

- How do markets "fail" with regard to pharmaceuticals? Sometimes a marketer of a drug fails to properly understand all the drug's potential effects on a perspective user. 
- How do governments "succeed" with regard to pharmaceuticals? The government succeeds in stopping the vendors of harmful drugs from selling them to people who will be harmed. The government also succeeds in facilitating a means of redress (lawsuits or jail time for company officials if malice is proved) for an individual harmed by a drug. 

I need to know what your view is on government pharmaceuticals before I can agree/disagree.

[/ QUOTE ]

Answers added to quote in Blue 

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks Ex.

A couple of points:

[ QUOTE ]
Sometimes a marketer of a drug fails to properly understand all the drug's potential effects on a perspective user.

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't really a "market failure". It seems that if you allow people to sell anything to anybody there is a risk the marketer fails to properly understand all potential effects of that thing on a perspective user. This is not a situation created by the market, so you can't say this is an example of market failure.

[ QUOTE ]
The government succeeds in stopping the vendors of harmful drugs from selling them to people who will be harmed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough - if the government knows something is bad (for the sake of argument let's assume there's such thing as a 100% bad consumer product) where the seller of it does not, then if the government bans it that will stop some bad things from happening. But the only situation where this applies is when the product in question is 100% bad and the government knows it but no one else does, which seems a little far fetched to me.

[ QUOTE ]
The government also succeeds in facilitating a means of redress (lawsuits or jail time for company officials if malice is proved) for an individual harmed by a drug.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, limited liability laws encourage investment in such firms. Regardless, if contract law rules (meaning that the honoring of mutually agreed upon contracts is the standard of arbitration rather than 3rd party universal government law) then there is no reason to expect that contracts with drug companies won't contain clauses allowing people to sue when damaged.

Exsubmariner · #**190** 11-01-2007, 01:22 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Wasn't trying to knock down a straw man, I agreed that the government is partially responsible for the reason people are "lazy" in their decision making. I also get the impression that many posters on this forum think that somehow the government is needed to help consumers make the "right" decisions, which I strongly disagree with.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think your first sentence is essentially correct. In my thinking, people want government because it allows them to be lazy about certain things. As I have previously stated, I think government exists as a giant cost externalizing vehicle.

It's the fact that you went on to state someone elses assumptions in your second sentence that I think is the strawman.

As to your quote above, personally, I essentially agree with government intervention on an ethical basis. Ethics being defined as action taken to prevent harm from coming to the citizens of that government. The line where that charge comes into conflict with individual rights is debatable. I am not in favor of preventing anyone from willfully doing anything. If it harms them and they know going in of that potential, than what happens is their responsibility.