Statism, AC, and Corporatism- The End Result is the Same

[Mempho]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am virtually locked out of the air travel business because of barriers to entry.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know if I would consider "no bank in their right mind will loan me the money I need for my crazy scheme" to be an unfair "barrier to entry" in the market.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, in other words, I have to explain the idea that I won't tell anyone in order to prove it's not a crazy?

[/ QUOTE ]
Only if you have the desire to have it implemented. But, it's a free country, your idea can go to the grave with you if you wish. But to call your decision not to pursue it a "barrier to entry" is a little lame.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I would have to either buy an airline or I would have to get in league with an airline exec or board member to make this happen. The barrier to entry is that I am very unlikely to ever be in a position; financially, politically, or socially to make this happen. It's not impossible but it is just a realistic evaluation of the probability of such a thing occuring.

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, I would have to either buy an airline or I would have to get in league with an airline exec or board member to make this happen. The barrier to entry is that I am very unlikely to ever be in a position; financially, politically, or socially to make this happen. It's not impossible but it is just a realistic evaluation of the probability of such a thing occuring.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you would need to borrow lots of money and work hard to make it happen. The necessity of assumption of risk is not a barrier to entry. It is a component of free markets.

[Mempho]

[ QUOTE ]

Government is meritocracy subverted by definition. Things are not allocated by "merit," but by politics.

[/ QUOTE ]

I certainly won't argue with this. How do we prevent someone from ending up "with all the chips" so that the truly great ideas that increase everyone's slice of the pie come to the forefront? This is what keeps me from being AC. I'm not saying that our current situation is any better...it's certainly not. I am saying that I fear that AC is, by its very nature, transient.

Although a perfect meritocracy is impossible, how can AC provide anything but a transient meritocracy that eventually becomes a subversion of the free market process?

[Mempho]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A government must be carefully constructed so that it promotes meritocracy as much as possible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Indeed, either the people promote a meritocracy with deliberate intent or wait for the "free market" to generate one spontaneously while existing wealth politely stands by and allows itself to by curtailed.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is my fear. It's not that AC is a bad system. No, it's a great system but it ignores the fact that some will not sit idly by and watch their power go down to good ideas that better society. The people that use their power to squash such ideas are exactly the ones that we don't want in control either. In other words, the money moves around from capitalist to capitalist until one of them with enough money decides that he's not going to cede his power for the betterment of the people. Then, he owns what is the government (even if it is not known as government).

[Mempho]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


What was your point, again?

[/ QUOTE ]

My point is that any extreme ends poorly. A government must be carefully constructed so that it promotes meritocracy as much as possible. Even then, it will probably eventually be subverted.

[/ QUOTE ]


Institutionalized violence sounds pretty extreme to me. Even uninstitutionalized violence sounds extreme to me. Why are you supporting it?!?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not supporting it. What have I said in support of violence, either institutionalized or uninstitutionalized?

[Mempho]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well, I would have to either buy an airline or I would have to get in league with an airline exec or board member to make this happen. The barrier to entry is that I am very unlikely to ever be in a position; financially, politically, or socially to make this happen. It's not impossible but it is just a realistic evaluation of the probability of such a thing occuring.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you would need to borrow lots of money and work hard to make it happen. The necessity of assumption of risk is not a barrier to entry. It is a component of free markets.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm willing to assume risk. I would gladly do so. Now, who wants to loan me money based upon my meager collateral?

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm willing to assume risk. I would gladly do so. Now, who wants to loan me money based upon my meager collateral?

[/ QUOTE ]

No one who believes that the risk of your investment is too high relative to the anticipated returns. Welcome to the market.

[Poofler]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am virtually locked out of the air travel business because of barriers to entry.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know if I would consider "no bank in their right mind will loan me the money I need for my crazy scheme" to be an unfair "barrier to entry" in the market.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, in other words, I have to explain the idea that I won't tell anyone in order to prove it's not a crazy?

[/ QUOTE ]
Only if you have the desire to have it implemented. But, it's a free country, your idea can go to the grave with you if you wish. But to call your decision not to pursue it a "barrier to entry" is a little lame.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I would have to either buy an airline or I would have to get in league with an airline exec or board member to make this happen. The barrier to entry is that I am very unlikely to ever be in a position; financially, politically, or socially to make this happen. It's not impossible but it is just a realistic evaluation of the probability of such a thing occuring.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess I don't understand the point. There are countless ideas out there that can't find risk-taking financial backing. Some do. Some of the ones that do, fail. Some of the ones that don't, might have succeeded. It's a basic market aspect of statism and AC. How do you invent a system that allocates capital more efficiently?

[Skidoo]

Exactly, only a fruitcake actual wants government for its own sake. Everyone prefers freedom. The quote by Thomas Paine I alluded to earlier is apropos.

"Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer. Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built upon the ruins of the bowers of paradise. For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this he is induced to do by the same prudence which in every other case advises him, out of two evils to choose the least."

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Government is meritocracy subverted by definition. Things are not allocated by "merit," but by politics.

[/ QUOTE ]

I certainly won't argue with this. How do we prevent someone from ending up "with all the chips" so that the truly great ideas that increase everyone's slice of the pie come to the forefront? This is what keeps me from being AC. I'm not saying that our current situation is any better...it's certainly not. I am saying that I fear that AC is, by its very nature, transient.

Although a perfect meritocracy is impossible, how can AC provide anything but a transient meritocracy that eventually becomes a subversion of the free market process?

[/ QUOTE ]

And how exactly does that occur? Vast fortunes are only accumulated in the free market via entrepreneurialism, i.e. providing more and better for one's fellow man. pvn has linked before to studies that show that inherited fortunes, if not maintained by the same process, are largely dispersed after 3 generations.

The only way that the wealthy can hold onto their wealth via coercion is if there is an apparatus of institutionalized coercion in place for them to buy access to, and for the mass of the public to erroneously believe it should exist and is somehow "good" for them (the public).