[UnderseaLcpl]

[quote=Skybird;1073413]@ Lance, 2 of 2

For me, the market format, including "free market", is not the goal, but only a tool to acchieve other goals. And that competition alone does not harnass man'S flaws, we just have seen. 2008 alone it costed us 38 trillion dollars that got burned - and that are just the known numbers. In capitalism, you have the never disapperaring trend towards monopolism, because the less competition there is, the more power you have, and the more you can enforce conditions that increase your profits. Capitalism leads to monopolism - and the destruction of "free markets".

And the state just skips the whole process and goes straight to monopolism. You can always legislate the break-up of a company, but how do you break up the state monopoly?
As far as the 38 trillion goes, most of that was fiat currency that didn't exsist in the first place, only in the ledgers of the Central Bank. It would have been good to lose that inflated currency, but the state is currently ensuring that we get it all back in their attempt to "fix" the economy.

I think you ignore, and I should have mentioned earlier, one major quality: scale, size. much of what you say, as well as the basic idea of democratic participation, works nice and well - as long as the community does not exceed a certain size. basic democracy.......

That's true, for democracy I guess. Fortunately, the market knows no limitations of scale or size and it does not need to. The proof is all around us. Billions of transactions every day determine the prices of goods and the rise and fall of companies. You can even watch it in real-time courtesy of stock-tickers and commodities values. Everyone votes, and all the votes matter.

maybe that is with regard to the thieve in your house. but leave anti-terror-strategies and military planning to your population and private people, and you are screwed.

I mentioned the freedom of private interests to puruse their own security affairs. That would include private security firms, which would be suited to those roles. Obviously the state still has a role to play, but private firms could perform certain jobs better, especially when company interests are at stake. Airport security would be a good of example of a role I believe they would perform better.

Even more helplessness you discover when considering this enormous white consumer's demand for drugs .......
......The DEA already fights a lost war here, and is outclassed in ressources and capabilities. How much more security do you hope to achieve by the freedom to carry arms?

I'd go a step further and remove state prohibition of drugs, but that's another discussion in itself isn't it? It is a good example of the failure of the state to perform adequately against the market, however, even when endowed with vast resources.

Or consider Islamic terrorism. A possible military threat - that currently there is none does not mean there enver will be any again. organised crime. Corruption of authorities. Lobbyism in legislation, damaging community interests for the sake of corporation interests.

As I said above, private firms could have a role in combatting terrorism. Combatting crime is a state responsibility I recognize, though at a limited extent on the Federal level. Still, it helps to have a gun when threatened by a criminal, whether he is organized or not
The last three there can be most effectively combatted by limiting state power. I have no doubt that the state will abuse any power it has to some extent, but limiting that power severely can also limit the damage they do.

This is not high Noon on Main Street and you do not establish law and order in Dodge City by walking down to the saloon with a colt in your hand and making a grim face.
I can't see all that being solved - or even adressed - by your remarks. i also see my claimed antagonism and polarity of freedom and security being present in all these examples. In the end it does not matter whether security is pushed by the state, or the private man. you want more security - you limit your freedoms and that of others. Want to raise these freedoms: not without going at the cost of reduced security. security always goes towards greater restriction, and freedom always goes towards lesser restriction. That's how it is.

I fail to see how using a firearm to defend oneself if attacked and the employ of a modern security firm fail to provide security without sacrificing liberty. I also fail to see the Dodge City comparison, but I assume you thought I was talking only about private gun ownership.

In the ideal case of the textbook democracy, the state and it'S representative is being held accountable, too - at the next elections at the latest.

The nice thing about private firms is that you don't have to wait that long, and all the people concerned actually vote (with their purchases and investments)

Take the example of the economic crisis. national communities (tax-payers, employees), and national economies suffer severly, through no fault of their own, because the banking sector and financial market was entrusted with adminstering itself and regulating security protocols, and failed.

Well, you already know how much of that I blame on the state. So in that way I see it as being the same as the 9/11 comparison. The fox is guarding the henhouse.

I have a principal issue with such insane payments in general. Let the span between the wages for the lowest w0rker and the top boss be something in the range of a factor of let's say 20. fine. But 800 bucks compared to 1 million bucks and more, and success boni when failing? sorry, the logic and reason that I use to use has no category to calculate this madness. I honestly thinks it cripples people's character. For whom enough is not enough, it will never be enou8gh, and he wants always more, and more, and more.

As I said in part 1 of this post, I think competition should help fix that. Nothing you can do about it without damaging incentive anyways. Why start a company here to make half a million a year when you could go somewhere else?

For the x-th time, i am not about the state running private business. This can only be an option in cases of banks that are so-called "system-relevant", whose fall would cause a whole rat-tail of collapses following in their wake, with the survival of the functioning of the state and the nation being at risk as a final result of that. This can be a nation-crushing chain reaction, the meltdown of the core, the absolute and total worst case event - and it must be prevented, no matter how, no matter the costs.

I'm sorry if I have implied that you favor a state-run economy. My main point is that you will end up with one if the power of the state is not strictly limited. Even legislation as strong as the U.S. Constitution only weathered the advances of state for about 150 years.

It is about establishing new, tighter rules for greater safeguarding against the unintended failing or the intended egoism of the few, against fraud, and against prevention ofas much transparency as possible. And it is about the tools and offices to see these rules through and monitor that players play by these rules, and violators get identified as soon as possible and being held responsible - hopefully before they have spelled global desaster again.

This answer leaves me with the same question; What system do you use to do all this? How are these companies regulated? Who drafts the regulations? Who regulates the regulators? How is fiscal responsibility ensured? How do you stop the regulation from becoming invasive to the point of damaging competitive ability? What kind of taxes would be needed to pay for such a tremendous undertaking.
Imo, it has perpetually expanding state written all over it, leading to the harms you describe above.

And last but not least: it is about america learning to reasonably manage the balance between what it consumes - and what it can afford to consume and produce itself. This endless leasing of money and living on tick must end. It has been one of the most major reasons for the mess the global economy now is in. I repeatedly compared to the money-cheat in Sim City. Early versions had one cheat-code to enter, that gave you a certain ammount of money, but not more, it was no infinite (let'S ignore hex-editioing and such). You used the cheat, to be used once only, and started to build and to construct, and what a wonderful city you built! And then came the time when the money was gone, and no more reserve to pay for the running costs. Soon you realised that it all was just unsolid facade, not able to maintain itself, for your econonomy was not build on healthy principles, but was ignored, since oyu had money to pay with and thoiught you do not need to shape a healthy economy. You build more and established more city service than your economy could support. And now: things start to rot. Streets do not get repaired. Crime rate climbs, buildings turn into ruins, people move away, increasing the trend of the general fall. your match is ruoined, your nice city - was unable to last. Currently, and in the past, Obama and his predecessors just entered another of their money cheats. Still no reasonable managing of the economy, still spending more on construction than the economy could support for financial maintenance, still consuming more than one could afford. Now consider you have used up all available money cheats, there is no more.

This much we can agree on, although I will say that the biggest culprit is still the state. America doesn't have 12 trillion dollars in private debt that goes straight to the taxpayer and the inflation of currency. The companies that sustain the economy still make a profit. Even when they outsource factories and the like, they still own the factories and the revenue still comes here.
I do not believe in a sustainable system of economic prosperity for the entire globe in the forseeable future. Imo, the best policy for Western nations would be to relax restrictive economic policy and lure companies(not factories or whatever) back to our nations with business-friendly policy. Who cares where the factories are if we own everything? An auto worker can just as easily become a retail manager or work in some other non-exportable industry.
Then we transition from a service economy to a corporate economy, the next step up the ladder. Some say it wouldn't happen that way, but they forget the lessons of the industrial revolution and the computer age. For all the industry we have exported, America's GDP per capita has been on a steady rise since those times. Excepting the probable results of the current crisis, people live better now, and there are more of us, and we live longer.

Of course, all of this requires that the state keep its' over-taxing, over-regulating, over-spending nose out of business and not go wild with its' fiat money. That means limiting the state, whether in business or security or whatever.

We can have freedom, and security, and prosperity, but the state has proven time and time again that it cannot be the agent.