How Immoral Are Laissez Faire Ideologues? Ask About Drones

[Hugh Johnson]

How Immoral Are Laissez Faire Ideologues? Ask About Drones. | naked capitalism

 

[ecstatichamster]

I doubt a collision with a drone would down a passenger jet.

 

[vulture]

They shall also regulate RC vehicles, a kid could drive one into the streets and cause a motorcycle or even a small vehicle crash.
I, coming from a socialist country, think excessive regulations are far more dangerous than fewer. Most regulated countries are a nightmare to live on, even for the most trivial things in life, the less regulated ones are usually shining in most of the aspects. Chile is one of the countries with more economical freedom in latinamerica, people from Venezuela, Colombia, Brazil love to come here, but Chileans rarely would even think living in those places, just maybe USA, Australia or an European country. Just my 2c

 

[Hugh Johnson]

They shall also regulate RC vehicles, a kid could drive one into the streets and cause a motorcycle or even a small vehicle crash.
I, coming from a socialist country, think excessive regulations are far more dangerous than fewer. Most regulated countries are a nightmare to live on, even for the most trivial things in life, the less regulated ones are usually shining in most of the aspects. Chile is one of the countries with more economical freedom in latinamerica, people from Venezuela, Colombia, Brazil love to come here, but Chileans rarely would even think living in those places, just maybe USA, Australia or an European country. Just my 2c

Nordic countries have many times more regulations. In fact, all rich countries do. There is also the concern of who the regulations are for, because the rich and the powerful want regulations to prevent market functioning so they can extract rents.

 

[sunraiser]

Nordic countries have many times more regulations. In fact, all rich countries do. There is also the concern of who the regulations are for, because the rich and the powerful want regulations to prevent market functioning so they can extract rents.

They also have far higher quality of life per person and less inequality.

@vulture
Regulation is in place to deal with the fact the free market doesn't cater for or consider human beings and their needs.

Calling chile a socialist country is not fair compared to Northern Europe ..

It sounds like you'd be much more at home in the USA - neoliberalism rules there.

 

[Hugh Johnson]

They also have far higher quality of life per person and less inequality.

@vulture
Regulation is in place to deal with the fact the free market doesn't cater for or consider human beings and their needs.

Calling chile a socialist country is not fair compared to Northern Europe ..

It sounds like you'd be much more at home in the USA - neoliberalism rules there.

USA has a lot more regulations than Chile. Somalia might be the country he is looking for.

 

[vulture]

They also have far higher quality of life per person and less inequality.

@vulture
Regulation is in place to deal with the fact the free market doesn't cater for or consider human beings and their needs.

Calling chile a socialist country is not fair compared to Northern Europe ..

It sounds like you'd be much more at home in the USA - neoliberalism rules there.

Never called Chile socialist.
Read again.

@Hugh Johnson I don’t ask a bunch of regulations, I’m not OK protecting local mafia-like companies that sometimes even exists just because the government is allowed to make laws to keep them alive. That’s why I rather governments unable to make laws to privilege them.

@sunraiser free markets do consider human needs, if you can’t find a human need to satisfy to freely trade in the market, no one is going to trade with you and you aren’t going to get other human’s resources, you would have to solve every aspect of your existence by yourself. This, which might not be impossible, would be really hard, specially for modern people.
This forum exists because it satisfies needs from its users, otherwise no one would waste their resources coming here and as computation takes resources it’s admin would end up closing it. What needs do you satisfy here? Not so easy to say for me.

Free markets aren’t a charity where you shall expect what you call “human needs” to be addressed by millions of selfless individuals.

I just don’t want the state to regulate and decide every aspect of my life, mainly putting their hands into my property: what I legitly earn everyday. If you want to participate into a educational program financed by lots of people, go on, Just don’t force me to

 

[vulture]

USA has a lot more regulations than Chile. Somalia might be the country he is looking for.

I would like to visit New Zealand, Liechtenstein, Australia and Singapore, AFAIK one of the most free and prosperous countries

 

[Hugh Johnson]

I would like to visit New Zealand, Liechtenstein, Australia and Singapore, AFAIK one of the most free and prosperous countries

Two declining social democracies, a dictatorship and a special case tax haven.

 

[vulture]

LOL
I rather living into a tax heaven than a tax hell like Argentina that is about to end up being the next Venezuela

Anyway, if you want to live in a country full of regulations I would suggest Venezuela, and staying away from Liechtenstein. I guess is hard to get hit by an airplane falling because of a dron, because there are almost no flights (except for the extremely wealthy and corrupt leaders/politics and their partners) and almost no one is able to buy a drone there, or eating Peaty, or maybe simply eating lol. But I guess I rather taking chances of getting hit by one at the tax heaven

 

[tankasnowgod]

Regulation is in place to deal with the fact the free market doesn't cater for or consider human beings and their needs.

Actually, regulation is in place to protect multinational corporations from competition from small and mid size businesses. It certainly isn't there to protect human beings. If you doubt this, notice how regulator staff comes from huge corporations, and fines are paid to regulatory agencies, not directly to individuals.

 

[milk]

Actually, regulation is in place to protect multinational corporations from competition from small and mid size businesses.

This.

 

[Hugh Johnson]

Actually, regulation is in place to protect multinational corporations from competition from small and mid size businesses. It certainly isn't there to protect human beings. If you doubt this, notice how regulator staff comes from huge corporations, and fines are paid to regulatory agencies, not directly to individuals.

That is known as regulatory capture. Besides the biggest interventions in the economy are regulations such as the corporate structure, property rights, banking and such

Those things have value, but they also have negative effects. Regulations protect those who have the political power in the society.

For example tea in England used to be cut with dog crap before food safety regulation. Such things create massive damage to society and prevent the proper functioning of the market.

 

[vulture]

Actually, regulation is in place to protect multinational corporations from competition from small and mid size businesses. It certainly isn't there to protect human beings. If you doubt this, notice how regulator staff comes from huge corporations, and fines are paid to regulatory agencies, not directly to individuals.

Nailed it.

For example tea in England used to be cut with dog crap before food safety regulation. Such things create massive damage to society and prevent the proper functioning of the market.

If you buy tea and it states that it’s ingredients are tea and they are tea and dog crap, you could sue them and if several others do, they are gonna end up without money or even huge debt.
You don’t need a massive state with tons of regulations for that, just a functional justice system. In the other hand if you sell tea with dog crap and state it, then the people is going to chose if they rather drinking tea or craptea

 

[ecstatichamster]

government is always, always used by the powers that be, taken over and directed to their profit and advantage. It doesn't matter if it's communist or not, it's always the same. Thoreau said government is best that governs least, and this is 1000% correct.

Since around 1880, "progressivism" has taken over and there is nothing else. Progressive "democracy" leads to more and more controls over all of us and less and less freedom.

Thankfully in the US we can still get drugs from India and they don't stop them in customs. Many countries aren't as accommodating.

Drones should be 100% legal and unregulated, and people causing problems with drones held accountable. That can be done under tort law, but in this day and age everything is criminalized.

 

[sunraiser]

Actually, regulation is in place to protect multinational corporations from competition from small and mid size businesses. It certainly isn't there to protect human beings. If you doubt this, notice how regulator staff comes from huge corporations, and fines are paid to regulatory agencies, not directly to individuals.

You're talking about corruption in the context of regulation , not regulation as a principle.

I'm not saying corruption doesn't exist, I was just stating why regulation is necessary.

Minimalised government (modern conservatism) and individualism are what create the highest level of income equality and these are the absolute enemies of widespread quality of life and social cohesion in society. That's pretty well documented and easily observable.

I'm surprised so many here are right wing! I don't know why but I'd expect it to lean the other way as there's a lot of counter culture. Or maybe you're anarchists?

 

[tankasnowgod]

You're talking about corruption in the context of regulation , not regulation as a principle.

I'm not saying corruption doesn't exist, I was just stating why regulation is necessary.

Minimalised government (conservatism) and individualism are what create the highest level of income equality and these are the absolute enemies of widespread quality of life and social cohesion in society. That's pretty well documented and easily observable.

I'm surprised so many here are right wing! I don't know why but I'd expect it to lean the other way as there's a lot of counter culture. Or maybe you're anarchists?

I'm talking about regulation as it works in the real world, not some theoretical principle.

I guess the reason that so many here are considered right wing is because the left has completely given up on the concept of freedom and individual thought.

 

[sunraiser]

I'm talking about regulation as it works in the real world, not some theoretical principle.

I guess the reason that so many here are considered right wing is because the left has completely given up on the concept of freedom and individual thought.

I think you edited your post as it mentioned something about proving the income inequality point... It's useful for reference anyway. The only easily accessible graphical format I could find is here:

Here's what income inequality looks like around the world

If you scroll down to the graph you can see all the lowest income inequality countries are mixed market social democracies - very far from the right wing. They're also some of the countries considered to have the highest quality of life in the world.

My confusion stems from the fact this thread is talking about right wing ideas at the same time as highlighting the corruptions of governments and corporate entities working together. Consistently, right wing governments are FUNDED by corporate entities and industrial lobbyists because they're willing to create policy to benefit said corporations.

If a corporation is getting what it wants then that's the opposite of what a human is going to want.

To highlight an example of useful regulation, we have a minimum wage here in the UK that stops many from living in abject poverty. It's still not really high enough but my point is regulation should be a force for good. If this was left to the market then poverty would be far higher, alongside crime and all the other domestic and social issues that results from poverty. These issues do not just affect those directly involved, they echo across society (I know that's stating the obvious but not everyone conceptualises beyond an individual level).

There are many examples of useful socially beneficial regulations, namely in those countries with highest qualities of life, so not all governments are purely corrupt.

It's weird because we effectively agree that those corruptions are an awful thing, and yet you're leaning towards the very sections of government that actively support those kinds of corrupt regulation.

 

[milk]

To highlight an example of useful regulation, we have a minimum wage here in the UK that stops many from living in abject poverty.

the original purpose of minimal wage laws was eugenics-related. killing off the "genetically inferior" poor by excluding them from the workforce. setting the "minimal wage" high enough that employers would not want to pay that kind of money for the kind of work these people are able to perform.

it's a form of state interventionism. price regulation always has bad consequences. it was when maduro a few years ago started fixing the prices of food in venezuelan supermarkets in a crusade against "unfair prices" that the country began its plunge towards socialist hell. venezuelans are now eating street dogs. those who plunge us into hell always claim the best humanitarian intentions.

price is organic. supply and demand. the price of goods and services emerges organically. it's impossible to predict prices, it's impossible to control economies. all attempts at government-controlled economies have failed dramatically. the socialist leaders know this, and that is why they allow a small degree of de facto capitalism in their economies.

 

[cats]

price is organic. supply and demand. the price of goods and services emerges organically. it's impossible to predict prices, it's impossible to control economies. all attempts at government-controlled economies have failed dramatically. the socialist leaders know this, and that is why they allow a small degree of de facto capitalism in their economies.

All attempts at totally unregulated economies have failed, the libertarian leaders know this, and that is why they allow a small degree of regulation in their economies.