[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by Skybird

@ Lance, 1 of 2
Through elections and a legally binding system of checks and balances, that's what power regulation in a democracy is about.

And it is obviously working wonders. What have checks and balances done to properly administrate either of our governments? Do they both not overreach and expand their power every year? Why do you think everyone hates politicians? It's because they lie and work around the checks and balances system to push their own agendas.
Don't get me wrong, checks and balances are needed, but they work a lot better if the state's power is so limited and clearly defined that there is little to be gained from circumventing them.

But try to vote a monopolistic corporation out of power - it does not work. Try to get riod of one of the "bosses" - many names plagueing German ecomy on my mind, and you cannot and cannot get rid of them and they still sit on their chairs and open the hands for more. In some cases this goes for many years now.

What? Monopolistic corporations can be and have been voted away frequently, both by legislation and consumer choice. Just look at the U.S. auto industry, or AT&T before them, or Standard Oil, U.S. Steel, Pullman Railways, General Electric, IBM, etc. etc.
If the "bosses" of a company continue to keep their chairs it is either because enough consumers still want their products or because the state keeps them there. Perhaps the boards of these companies earn obscene wages, but it is a drop in the bucket compared to the wealth and jobs such ventures create. And if they fail utterly, as American Airlines did for example, it isn't the market that keeps them in their place, it's the state.

The state is a monopolist in certain areas, yes,

I'm not disagreeing with the fact that the state must have something of a monopoly on power, I'm saying we should be especially wary because of it. And even though the state must have some power monopolies, these can be diffused by reserving power to sub-states, amongst which the populace and industry are free to choose. The U.S. Constitution attempted to do this, but the total monopoly of the Federal state managed to find ways around it. At least it took them a long time.

An economic enterprise having such powers essentiaolly would be oputside the checks and balances, and would try to keep it that way so that it can have it'S ways for the sake of it'S maximising of profits. Beyond a certain scale of such companies, market regulation does not affect them so much anymore - usually the more the more they reach their goal of establishing monopoles.

Even if there ever had been a successful monopoly on any industry since the East India Company, they can be easily broken up by even a severely limited state with anti-trust powers, assuming they don't just piss everyone off and run themselves into the ground like AT&T or American Airlines.
The real danger is wealthy corporations buying state power to shut out competitors, something which has been done very frequently and is still rampant today.

And where market regulation comes into play - I do not say that it never works - , eventually it may work too late and too slow, and only at the price of too much damage being done until then.

I assume you're talking about self-regulation here. The market only very rarely works too slowly, and when it does, fraud is usually involved. Take the example of U.S. fuel prices. Within a week of the announcement of legislation being planned (not even written or enacted!) to tap domestic reserves, fuel prices dropped dramatically. All of the speculators dumped their fuel commodities in anticipation of a market glut. When Enron was exposed, the company fell to pieces in a heartbeat.
The power of the market comes from hundreds of millions of investors and consumers who react immediately to even the smallest change in the economy. It can be as simple as one housewife deciding not to buy a can of vegetables because the price has gone up(maybe because a CEO is doing something unscrupulous). That decision, multiplied over millions of consumers thinking the same thing, will make the product more affordable again. The producer must streamline or increase production or do something and do it fast or they lose money.
The state, in the same situation, interferes with this process. Agricultural subsidies or taxes artificially affect the prices based solely on the judgement of out-of-touch legislators. Perhaps they see the decline in the product's sales and rush to save the jobs of their constituents with subsidies. Now, rather than the industry being forced to become more efficient, it remains competitive to the tune of millions of taxpayer dollars. Thousands upon thousands of hours of productivity out the window, doing nothing. But the harms of state do not stop there. That money has to come from somewhere, either in taxes, printing or loans. The former directly removes money from productive use, and the latter two inflate the currency, with the last also being victim to compound interest, resulting in even more inflation.
The market is a lot faster and more effective than the state in most cases. The state is better suited to penalizing fraud and enforcing limited anti-trust regulations.

Environment-related contexts may serve as less harmless examples. I am not satisfied to leave it to nrepair the damge once it has been done. I'm about preventing it so that the need for repairs falls to a minimum.

If there is one thing we will probably disagree on forever, this is it. I can respect your concern for the environment, and I do not have a be-all end-all argument against such concern. I was quite the environmentalist at one time, believe it or not
However, I lean towards less environmental regulation because of what the state has done with it. Here in the U.S., the EPA is infamous for excessive regulation and even outright brutishness in some cases. The town of Aspen Colorado attracted their scrutiny a few decades back because it was once a mining area. They feared the soil was contaminated with lead, and wanted to declare the entire area as a "hazard-zone", which would destroy the town. In case you are not familiar with the town, it is a very wealthy community, so the citizens could afford lawyers to fight in court. Even then, it took 3 (or maybe five, I can't remember) years of court battles before the court finally permitted soil testing (which the EPA fought against). They found that Aspen had below-average lead content. Many other towns were not so fortunate as to be able to afford such costly legal battles, and no longer exsist.

On a more contemporary note, let's look at Global Warming, or climate change or whatever. The globe is cooler now than it has been on average. It has been ten thousand years since the last ice age (much longer than usual) We're also facing a purportedly impending swap of magnetic poles.
What purpose does economically-damaging "green" regulation serve in all this? It won't stop an ice age or a natural heating of the globe. It just wastes money that could be better spent in economic development, which in turn generates prosperity that affords us the luxury of dealing with such issues should they arise.

The market needs limitations. The whole Anglosaxon idea of economic globalization has gone very wrong for those having the idea - us, europe and North America. We have lost the lead in technologies we once had. We have exported our jobs to other nations. Capital of companies avoid taxation in our countries, although our countries pay for their rise, and compensate for their eventual losses. Profits gets exported to outside places. Rivals got strengthened. Home economies got weakened.

Only the state can be blamed for that. Let's start with WW1, a completely useless war that can only be blamed upon states (mostly England and France, imo) that resulted in WW2. WW2 destroyed what remained of the European empires. After that came the post-war Socialist movement, which generated the taxes you speak of, leading to mass outsourcing of industry. And did those taxes buy you a more prosperous or free society than free-market nations? Even Germany, Europe's centerpiece, only barely keeps pace with the Southeast Asian "Tigers", all of which have very free-market economies(and are nearly devoid of natural resources, I might add)
Once again, the fault lies with the state. What was supposed to be a responsible social-market economy became socialism, which is just a friendly word for "statist economy"
The U.S. has been slowly adopting the same path, and the consequences will manifest themselves soon, if they aren't apparent to you already.

I understand that you do not support such reckless statist policy, but that is what you get when you do not limit the power of the state very strictly. Even then, I have no doubt that the state will overcome its' limitations eventually. One can only forestall its' progress as long as possible before a foced reversal is necessary.

Next month there will be a new mammoth conference at the UN, demanding this madness to continue and making it even more mandatory for western nations to drive it. I'm sure that China again will get plenty of "developement aide", for it is economically so weak and depending on our help. . On the one hand it is said that we should have a competing economy. On the other hand we cripple ourselves. The last thing one could say is that this is a contradictory thing. But okay, it's the UN, so no surprise.

Hell, years ago I wouldn'T have imagined that I ever would turn so extremely hostile to the UN. Maybe we can agree on that!?

I share your hatred of the U.N. to some degree. More than anything, I hate that my nation is a part of it. I'd prefer an isolationist policy for the U.S., and I suspect most of the world would as well.
However, the U.N. is a good example of my point.
It is a state body, comprised of people who profess only their intentions to benefit humanity, that ultimately harms us all and absorbs power at the expense of the productive taxpayer. Of course, they do not intend to harm anyone. They just need a little more power to fix this or that. And when that fails, they just need a little more, and they will make it right.
It's a state power monopoly for the whole world, and it is only a matter of time before it becomes more appealing to greedy liars than business or national government.

Help-Help!! Please do not leave national and communal security interests to private economy. It will compromise them, and making the understanding of "security" an item of profit interests of private parties. Unacceptable. As unacceptable as the outsourcing of military capacities to private enterprise, in the form of mercenary corporations. We have had that in europe, over centuries. It did a lot to make wars lasting longer, happening more often, since a status of peace was ruinous for such companies. A conditions of relative security would be ruinous for security companies today, too. therefore, they would push, invent, redefine "threats", to secure their profits and make sure they always will be considered to be needed.

Now now, I said they could be useful in certain roles. Security roles are perfect for them because there will always be a need, and as long as state power is limited, they can't create markets where there are none. Who's gonna pay for it?
I also disagree with your assesment that mercenary corporations created or prolonged conflicts in Europe over the past centuries. I will give you ten examples of blatant state aggression for every one you can show me of unwarranted mercenary aggression, starting with Prussian feudal states.

The American defence industry already works that way very much, and tries to maike itself indispensable by spreading it's proleductions to a smany states as possible, so that in case of cuts jobs would be lost in many states - which would bring a lot of governors wanting to be reelected on the side of such companies.

Well now, if the state's power were limited, and they had less money, they wouldn't have the luxury of endorsing such contracts, would they?
What do you propose? A state arms industry? That's a monopoly without peer and it would produce inferior goods at inflated prices, not subject to market regulation. Even with a supposedly "competitive" bidding process, the state manages to contract for weapons that are not worth their ridiculous expense.
A private ancillary to the military would perform much better since it would have to remain profitable, and would raise the standards for the state military, lest it incur public outcry.

You are talking about a pure element of plutocracy when giving up the state monopole for the executive, in parts or in full. If the idea of a "tyrannis" in ancient understanding is okay for you, fine, just remember that that form of government is neither free and liberal, nor democratic. If the tyrant you have (in ancient understandingk, which id different to that context in whhich we use the term tyranny today) is a good and reasonable one, you'Re fine, eventually. If he is not, you have a problem. The same problem you have with feudal systems and monarchies - and democracy, too (being elected does not say anything about your competence and character. Maybe you got elected becasue your rotten character helped you to make them vote for you).

Oh-ho! It is not me who is supporting tyranny. The market is about choice. The limitation of the state is about choice. Was it not you who postulated that elections were part of the regulation of a democratic government? And now you say that being elected says nothing about one's competence or character? How then, can you trust the state with power? How can it be regulated? More on this in a moment....

So, as long as you want to defend the basic ideas behind why people came to the idea of a democracy, at least in theory, then you are on a wrong track. I said myself that I cannot imagine democracy working well in too huge communities, and that kind of a feudal order maybe works the better the bigger the community is. Problem is, for a feudal system you depend on good personnel forming the leading feudal class, and we do not have that, and it often worked erratic in past centuries. Like democracy depends on reasonable people and good personnel being electable, too - we suffer the same lack today. Both systems are answers to one and the same problem: how to secure that only "good" people lead the rest, and their irresponsibility or selfishness can do only limited damage? turning to a profit-driven plutocracy cannot be the answer. we already have that, especially in the US it is a few very rich family clans projecting an incredible ammount of power and influence over all the remaining political scene. It really is some kond of a hidden new feudal class, isn't it. In europe, that part is taken over by the parties, in Germany at least.

I do not recall ever defending democracy. Democracy is tyranny of the masses and is to be avoided. I only advocate the defense of personal freedoms to the maximum extent possible. I am in favor of a constitutional republic that severely limits the powers of state, as the U.S. once was.

Your assesment that a few powerful families project most of the power is also incorrect where the state does not apply. Whether it is the Rockefellers or the Kennedys or whoever, I have the freedom to choose whether or not I work for them or buy their products or believe their beliefs or listen to them at all. It is not some kind of neo-feudalism until the state gets involved, which it has. The state restricts choice, it forces politically correct behavior, it teaches its' own ideology through the state education system.

the interests and powerplays of political parties today dominate all and everything, and if that goes at the damage of the nation and the German people - so be it.

And I say; "To hell with that!" A million people looking out for their own interests but restrained from infringing upon the rights of others is better than one person overseeing the interests of a million. Why should Germany, or any nation, be subject the whims of the state? The modern state is supposed to serve and protect freedoms, not dictate them.
It isn't a hidden feudal class, it's the same damn class we've been seeing for millenia; *******s who take power for our own good!

due to the socially and economically damaging effect of drugs, it would be suicidal to allow them. You would remove state prohibition. I would make a list with drugs, and brutally execute everybody consuming these, owning these, trading with them, no matter the quantities. the small street vrtrader, the big fish in the background: it does not matter, delete them both from the screen of communal influence. Exceptions i only would make with very young people, that follow the youth's drive to experiment. Nevertheless: only if they get caught for the first time, and even then I would give very, extremely harsh penalties, but not execution. All second-time offenders, as well as all older ones: if you have contact with drugs on this official ban-list, your existence will end. In SE Asia some nations practice "draconic" prison sentences, much more exessive than we do in the West. They have made quite some good experiences with it. If you reduce the number of people on the street having access to drugs, and being in contact with them, you increase the difficulty to get access to them. Execution I understand as a means of fighting drugs, not as a "death penalty" here. It neither is about penalty, nor about revenge, but about national and communal self-defence. After long time of thinking about it, I also have found my position on whether or not soft drugs should be legalised, and I came to a determined "No". While psychologically in single cases it may make sense, it opens a lane to acceptance for a drug culture, that in the end is self-damaging to the national community.

Didn't I say that this was another discussion? We can argue the point if you choose, but make another post or thread about it. I assume my walls of text are insufferable enough.

I am aware that my draconic suggestion generalises a bit and ignores the single individual cases where people sometime chnage their minds and get away from drugs again. This possibility has to be weighted against the enormous damage done to the community by the immense drug trafficking taking place, and the vital threat it puts to our nations. Since I do not take it easy to demand such a draconic action, I also cannot compromise communal interests to the suicidal levels we currently have. It is a hard call in both cases.

I think you mean to say "draconian", and yes, it generalizes and creates significant harms, to boot. But that's another discussion.

It is called "war" on drugs. Then start to behave accordingly: start to kill. Else the term does not make any sense at all.

You've never been to war, have you?

We do not come together in our different assessments here. It appears to me that here and in later parts I used the term "security" both in your understanding - and a wider context as well, surpassing yours.

I disagree. My context surpasses yours
What harms has the state wrought? Hundreds of millions dead, tortured, imprisoned, oppressed, in this century alone, if not billions. Compare what those few examples of "malicious" private industry have accomplished in comparison.