UK government about to start monitoring personal data on social network sites

[Skybird]

Privacy in the digital age? Forget it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7962631.stm

All in the name of security, of course.

Freedom and security are antagonists. You can't have both.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Privacy in the digital age? Forget it.
Freedom and security are antagonists. You can't have both.

That is only true if the state is trusted to provide both.

[Respenus]

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

That is only true if the state is trusted to provide both.

The government is also considering proposals to store all communications data on a single database, which may be run by a private company.

Yes and the fact that the UK government has lost its data more times than I could count doesn't really help. Also don't forget they mentioned the data would be stored on private servers and not on government one's.

I dislike social networking sites and I believe they bring nothing good, yet I am against such blatant attacks on personal liberties.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

That is only true if the state is trusted to provide both.

Really?

If the state only deals with security issues, he necessarily can only do so at the cost of freedoms. It is a side-effect you cannot avoid.

If the state only is about guaranteeing freedom, security will be compromised, agaion as an unavoidable side-effect.

It does not matter whether the state is the only actor, or shares responsibility for both factors with some other player.

And who should that other player be? Private business...? If so, then help us God (if that is not a hidden irony in there...) Private business minds it's own interests only, that's in it's very nature in a capitalistic order. where it should provide security, you have business lobbies formulating future laws and regulations. you have security companies, from parkdeck-guards to mercenary corporations. And where business is seen as a function to influence culture and shape of a society for more freedom (ignoring for a moment how that freedom from a business-oriented perpsdeltive gets defined: the trade with rare African ores in civil war regions, or blood diamonds, also is understood to be liberal trade), business will necessarily try to ease security barriers in order to get a greater liberalisation of the market (and eventually it nevertheless will demand protectionistic measures to shield itself from unwanted competition reducing it's profits).

So I cannot see in what way your remark is relevant.

[SteamWake]

Wait a minute... what do you mean 'start' ?

Oh there just now publicly announcing it... I get it.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Really?

If the state only deals with security issues, he necessarily can only do so at the cost of freedoms. It is a side-effect you cannot avoid.

If the state only is about guaranteeing freedom, security will be compromised, agaion as an unavoidable side-effect.

It does not matter whether the state is the only actor, or shares responsibility for both factors with some other player.

You are too readily discounting the role of the individual in assuring his own freedoms and security. The state is required to provide some security, of course, but its' role should be as limited as possible to prevent the resultant damage of freedoms.

Originally Posted by skybird

And who should that other player be? Private business...? If so, then help us God (if that is not a hidden irony in there...) Private business minds it's own interests only, that's in it's very nature in a capitalistic order. where it should provide security, you have business lobbies formulating future laws and regulations. you have security companies, from parkdeck-guards to mercenary corporations. And where business is seen as a function to influence culture and shape of a society for more freedom (ignoring for a moment how that freedom from a business-oriented perpsdeltive gets defined: the trade with rare African ores in civil war regions, or blood diamonds, also is understood to be liberal trade), business will necessarily try to ease security barriers in order to get a greater liberalisation of the market (and eventually it nevertheless will demand protectionistic measures to shield itself from unwanted competition reducing it's profits).

So I cannot see in what way your remark is relevant.

You miss my point, entirely. I am not advocating the empowerment of private corporations to decide issues of security and freedom. I only support the freedom of such firms and the freedom of consumers to choose amongst them.
You too readily discount the fact that the state also minds its' own interests, entirely. You even mention how business uses the state, and yet you fail to see the harms of the state.

The powers of the state in any regulatory capacity must be very strictly limited, and must also be subject to public scrutiny. Where you see the state an opponent to private intersts, I see a dangerous corroberation.
The free market cannot be stopped. It will always exsist. Where the state interferes, it will seek advantage. Where the state destroys it, it will simply resurface outside the authority of the state. When either of these things happen, the rest of us suffer, because we are denied a choice in the market.

Since the market cannot be regulated much without causing undue economic duress, the state must be regulated . It must be prevented from interfering with and cooperating with the market.

The goal should be the preservation of individual freedoms. True, some people make the wrong decisions and suffer, but it is only their own doing and it affects only them and those who choose to aid them. When the state chooses wrong, or worse, when business chooses wrong and the state is in its' employ, everyone suffers.

The one question that continually irks me is; who do you trust to decide these policies, if not the conflicting wills of billions of individuals? Which group amongst them should be given the power to govern? How will such a group prevent harms that are not inherent in the system, if not exacerbate them? It is one thing to have an intelligent outlook on things, it is quite another to devise a reliable sytem of realizing it.
History has proven time and again that the state is not the answer, so what is your answer?

[Skybird]

You need to balance both the interests of the community (as being represented by an elected government with the power to regulate the market) and freedom for markets.

If you leave it to a self-regulating state, you have a dictatorship by politicians turning into tyrants. If you have an economy regulating itself, you have a tendency to slavery, monopolism, and economic anarchy driven by unlimited selfishness - the total and nihilistic materialism you get additional and for free, then. Therefore, you need both as lomng as you do ot live alone on the planet. Business and community are antagonists. Social community wants business to serve it'S interests. Business wants community to serve it's interests. In a capitalistic order, you have to add: business wants no competition, but monopolism. The stronger your monopole, the more power you have to enforce your profit interests onto the community. the more competiton, the more compromise oyu have to accept, at the cost of your profit interests. In such a setting, the demand for selfregulating markets has nothing to do with freedom anymore. Monopolism prevents freedom, including the freedom of choice. You have seen that in the five-year-plan economies of the european East. Here, the state was political tyrant and economic monopolist at the same time.

As little regulation as possible, so that business can unfold and be creative, and can compete. As much regulation as needed to prevent monopolism and lacking competition, and protect the interests of the community from being thrown over by interests of the economy.

The idea of unregulated markets is dead since the current crisis at the latest. No matter what attempts there are in argument to blame other factors, the primary problem has been a financial system that has been left to itself to regulate itself - everything else is just an excuse attempting to avoid putting this holy golden cow of "self-regulating markets" into question. Unlimited greed, total lack of sense of responsibility, and maximum, criminal egoism has been the result. It simply does not work that way. It only works that way at the cost of the community, when the many have to repair the damage, and compensate for it, that is done by the few in the name of their own egoism. Self regulating market - that would only work if man would be a reasonable, altruistic being by nature and essence. But in fact, man is unreasonable, driven by irrational emotion, and a born egoist. we are Homo Sapiens - no rational Vulcans.

But all this and what you said has nothign to do with the basic principle of that statement: the more security, the less freedom - the more freedom, the less security. The more anti-terror-laws, the more limiting of basic rights. The more basic rights, the less prevention against terrorism.

You can't have both. you need to find a balance that you can live with. That means to not look at the individual event (or lack of), where the probabilities already have sprung to either 100 or to 0%, but to find a balance where the overall general probablities are such that you can accept the resulting ammount of limitations to your freedoms, and the remaining threats of terrorism.

That is the price of having an open society basing on the individual, instead of having a totalitarian one, where the state is all and the individual counts nothing.

[Kapitan_Phillips]

Yeah, havent you heard? Terrorists put "Occuptation: Terrorist" on their Facebook pages now.

[SteamWake]

Originally Posted by Kapitan_Phillips

Yeah, havent you heard? Terrorists put "Occuptation: Terrorist" on their Facebook pages now.

What was your first clue?

http://gawker.com/5183688/teen-slay-...c-myspace-page

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by Skybird

As little regulation as possible, so that business can unfold and be creative, and can compete. As much regulation as needed to prevent monopolism and lacking competition, and protect the interests of the community from being thrown over by interests of the economy.

Well we are in agreement about this much, at least. I suspect that we disagree on how much regulation is needed, however.

The idea of unregulated markets is dead since the current crisis at the latest. No matter what attempts there are in argument to blame other factors, the primary problem has been a financial system that has been left to itself to regulate itself - everything else is just an excuse attempting to avoid putting this holy golden cow of "self-regulating markets" into question.

Are you certain that you considered that opinion objectively? First amongst the many arguments against regulation is that it often causes the problems to begin with. In terms of the current crisis, one cannot make the case that the U.S. financial markets were unregulated, or even minimally regulated. How many pages of pre-crisis financial regulations would you like me to find for you? 1000? 10,000? 100,000? The Library of Congress has an extensive database.
When confronted with that type of regulation, in addition to heavy taxes, and the army of expensive lawyers required to comply with those regulations, is it any wonder that so many institutions seized upon the opportunity to use government-created initiatives for profit? Even then, the regulations and regulators failed in their task, obviously.

The idea of the unregulated market cannot exsist, (if it ever really did) you are correct in that, imo. But very minimally regulated markets make billions of unregulated transactions every day without fail. They are regulated only by supply and demand. And when the market does fail, we have recession, but recession is a good thing. It adjusts the market quickly and effectively.

At this point, I have a hard time arguing anything further because I don't know what kind of regulations you would like to see, and who should execute them and how. It is one thing to say that business should accept responsibility for community affairs outside of what is inherent in market dynamics, it is quite another to say that agency A should pursue policy B overseen by C to achieve effect D.


I'm sure that both of us would agree that strong anti-fraud regulation is required, provided that it is not overly expensive to maintain or too pervasive. I would favor a system of very harsh penalties for clear cases of fraud. We can agree on that, yes?
I feel the best system would simply be to implement harsh penalties for fraud that is exposed and reported, rather than detailing (and trusting) the state to deal with cumbersome and costly preventative investigation.
That is the main form of regulation I would support. I would even go so far as to agree that some (limited) anti-trust regulation could be used, to foster competition.

Unlimited greed, total lack of sense of responsibility, and maximum, criminal egoism has been the result. It simply does not work that way. It only works that way at the cost of the community, when the many have to repair the damage, and compensate for it, that is done by the few in the name of their own egoism. Self regulating market - that would only work if man would be a reasonable, altruistic being by nature and essence. But in fact, man is unreasonable, driven by irrational emotion, and a born egoist. we are Homo Sapiens - no rational Vulcans.

The same could be said of the state, with a lot more empyrical proof. Even at the worst of times, most free-market states tend to suffer less.
And Vulcans would make terrible businessmen.
The key to the free-market is harnessing man's flaws through competition to provide the best result for everyone.

But all this and what you said has nothign to do with the basic principle of that statement: the more security, the less freedom - the more freedom, the less security. The more anti-terror-laws, the more limiting of basic rights. The more basic rights, the less prevention against terrorism.

You can't have both. you need to find a balance that you can live with. That means to not look at the individual event (or lack of), where the probabilities already have sprung to either 100 or to 0%, but to find a balance where the overall general probablities are such that you can accept the resulting ammount of limitations to your freedoms, and the remaining threats of terrorism.

That is the price of having an open society basing on the individual, instead of having a totalitarian one, where the state is all and the individual counts nothing.

Once again, you too easily discount the effectiveness of private interests in security roles. One must employ the selfish nature of man to create security without the sacrifice of freedom. An armed populace, and the freedom of private interests to manage their own security affairs will create a superior system that harms neither liberty nor safety and is regulated only by the direct choice of the people.

Unlike the state, private industry is directly accountable for any failures. Take the example of 9/11. Airlines suffered for years, through no fault of their own, because the state was entrusted with administering and regulating security protocols, and failed. However, the state ballooned after its' failure, to the tune of billions of dollars of taxpayer money, and remains not only ineffective but vexacious as well, in the form of the TSA and the Department of Homeland Security.

To give or fail to strictly limit power to the state will always yield similar results in due time and always has. I think we agree on some basic principles, but until you provide some superior system of keeping the state in check and avoiding the occasional harms of the market, I can't say whether or not I can agree with you.

[Skybird]

@ Lance, 1 of 2

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

Well, we are in agreement about this much, at least. I suspect that we disagree on how much regulation is needed, however.

Are you certain that you considered that opinion objectively? First amongst the many arguments against regulation is that it often causes the problems to begin with. In terms of the current crisis, one cannot make the case that the U.S. financial markets were unregulated, or even minimally regulated. How many pages of pre-crisis financial regulations would you like me to find for you? 1000? 10,000? 100,000? The Library of Congress has an extensive database.

When confronted with that type of regulation, in addition to heavy taxes, and the army of expensive lawyers required to comply with those regulations, is it any wonder that so many institutions seized upon the opportunity to use government-created initiatives for profit? Even then, the regulations and regulators failed in their task, obviously.

You just said it yourself, we disagree on the ammount of regulation needed. Europe was battling for years, namely Germany, again the Anglosaxon "cartel" that prevented monitoring, transparency and a supervision of rating standards. From our standards, what you considered regulation of the finance market - was a bad and lame joke. Yesterday, the government zizagged again (after first having agreed to european demands, then indicated it was ruddering back). Now Geithner currently says again that more regulation is needed. Even the once untouchable Hedge fonds he wants to put on a very short line. I wpould ban them alltogether, but okay, if the line is so short that they need to fight for their breathing air, that could be a compromise.

The idea of the unregulated market cannot exsist, (if it ever really did) you are correct in that, imo. But very minimally regulated markets make billions of unregulated transactions every day without fail. They are regulated only by supply and demand. And when the market does fail, we have recession, but recession is a good thing. It adjusts the market quickly and effectively.

1st, the current thing we have is NOT a good thing, it is a desaster of first class quality. It is a threat to us all. 2nd, for example most nuclear powerplants work flawlessly and do not require to switch to emergency protocols, nevertheless these protocols get developed and are being hold at the ready, for just one nuclear desaster on great scale can not only ruin your day, but the coming years and decades. Regulation is not the state deciding on every transaction. It is about obligatory set of rules to which all much submit, no matter whether they want it or not, to guarantee the transparency, the responsibility, the robustness of rating standards that are needed to reduce the likelihood of worst case accidents as we currently have it, and to hinder the criminal and selfish, greedy behavior of the few doing damage for the sake of their private banking account at the cost of the many. The human factor has been ignored so far, or better: it got nice-talked, saying the egoism of the few means benefit for the community as well. That has been proven wrong. It paved the way into self-expanding anarchy, pushed by the dinosaur with the greatest claws and teeth.

At this point, I have a hard time arguing anything further because I don't know what kind of regulations you would like to see, and who should execute them and how.

I have said that several times in various postings to you now, Lance. It is not about the state taking decision command in making internal policies of private institutions. It is about establishing new mandatory rules for all. the state is no too competent businessman, especially not with political parties rivalling for power by making gifts to the voters and eroding democracy and turning it into a form of oligarchies or plutocracies, with the difference between both more and more disappearing. And from Germany we know that especially the banks we call "Landesbanken" over here (that are one bank per federal state directly supervised by a board of non-experts but politicians who use them to make a personal income, you could say these are state-run and state-owned banks), were the first showing their dilletantism, and being the first to show major damage caused by incompetence, before any of the private banks did. I have argued against the state governing all decision-making in economy often enough,I think, I do not argue in favour of a state-run economy. but we need better, tighter rules by which business must run, and we need an office monitoring that these rules are being followed, and these offices must be strong enough in ressources and power that they can do the job. The monitoring systems we have had so far have failed miserably both in the Us and Germany - in one aspect they did so last but not least because they based too much on the too unsolid standards of rating agencies, and trusted the market too much - for no good. the greater the chance that lies will be discorvered, the smaller the probabuiliuty that somebody will lie, and the smaller the overall number of acvtual lies indeed. Trust is kind. Control is MUCH better. When it comes to money, my trust in the good of man comes to a sudden end. people kill each other for ten dollars. what do you think people are willing to do for an income of ten million dollars? Laws and control are for making sure everybody behaves.

I'm sure that both of us would agree that strong anti-fraud regulation is required, provided that it is not overly expensive to maintain or too pervasive.

Too pervasive? It has to do the job, if communal interest of sufficient critical quality and quantity are at risk. Let it be as pervasive as needed to acchieve that. Salus Publica Suprema Lex.

I would favor a system of very harsh penalties for clear cases of fraud. We can agree on that, yes?

Maybe not. For me, an ethical quality is included in the definition of crime, and cannot escape to be so. From that perspective, I personally rate the shameless behavior of a banker who failed, whose bank lost billions, causing existential crisis for many private people, but still taking his million-heavy boni, even demanding them, even going tom court to get them (as happened) - as fraud. The current legal situation says that while they behave unethical, they are legally correct. I do not accept that status.

I feel the best system would simply be to implement harsh penalties for fraud that is exposed and reported, rather than detailing (and trusting) the state to deal with cumbersome and costly preventative investigation.

That is the main form of regulation I would support. I would even go so far as to agree that some (limited) anti-trust regulation could be used, to foster competition.

that is the classical mistake - to assume the wanted effect gets acchieved by arguing for higher penalties. But that alone is not enough. You need the quality, the power, the option, the possibility to reveal, to discover, to pursue the wrong-doing where it takes place. Laws against burglary help you nothing if your police is too weak to patrol in the streets. I also insist on changing business rules in a way that makes certain ways of doing business, certain "products", a forbidden option. Some of the finance products being developed by - sorry- American banks and then introduced and spread over the global finance markets were so sick and problematic from the very beginning that they never should have been allowed to be used and sold, for example, like in Germany for example you are not allowed to operate your car if it fails to pass a technical checkup every four years that checks the vital, security-relevant marks. Items not passing must be repaired immediately, or they sack the operation licence for that car - you do or you lose, period. Or when the weather gets too cold and you still ride on summer tires and run into a traffic control or worse: cause an accident, you not only could lose part of your insurance protection, but you commited a legal violation, and must pay a penalty. It can be quite hurting.

Without such controls, and the ressources needed to maintain and guarantee them, such standards could be ignored too easily. Controls need to be pervasive to a certain degree, else they do not work.

The same could be said of the state, with a lot more empyrical proof. Even at the worst of times, most free-market states tend to suffer less.

There is a difference. It has been repeatedly argued, and even is admitted by American economists, that Germany with it'S much better social security web than America in a crisis like this by this major structural difference produces a higher economic request that helps to boost the economy to a certain degree, than it is the case in america. That's why the sh!t hits us with a delay. Of course it compensates to a certain degree only, and not beyond. Point is: free market economy is not the same like free market economy. Your American ultra-liberal market economy is different than our social market economy. what you Americans often mock us for - so far has worked to our advanatge in this crisis. It is an additonal stimulus automatic.

And Vulcans would make terrible businessmen.

Or they would make formidable business man. For example not sawing off the branch on which they sit, but running an economy by sustainable management instead of accepting longterm desaster for the short-termed profit. That way you also make yourself less enemies at whose cost your acting has been. The ego is the worst of all tyrants.

[Skybird]

@ Lance, 2 of 2

The key to the free-market is harnessing man's flaws through competition to provide the best result for everyone.

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".

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 is a thing for small villages, but not for metropoles and nations with hundreds of millions of people. When you live in an environment where the one knows the other and both have grown up together, you see good will and lacking regulation working easier, than in communities of such a size that their structure cannot be overwatched anymore. Here, the principle of voluntariness must be replaced with that of legally binding, obligatory nature. This I think is true for what has been said so far, and is true as well for what you said later regarding "security". Seen that way, I think you argue with an archaic world in mind - that of the founding phase of america, with limited population, small communities and neighbourship that was both limited in availability and vital in mutual support. but the world has changed, and is no more like that. If it has changed for the better, can be argued. Regarding the injection at the dentist, it certainly has.

Once again, you too easily discount the effectiveness of private interests in security roles. One must employ the selfish nature of man to create security without the sacrifice of freedom. An armed populace, and the freedom of private interests to manage their own security affairs will create a superior system that harms neither liberty nor safety and is regulated only by the direct choice of the people.

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. Local militias, both of policing or paramilitary nature, worked fine in the wild west with Indians and the British empirial army still being a threat, and the often debated freedom to carry firearms must be seen in that context, and only makes sense in that historical context. but the world has changed. Neighbours patrolling the street at night will not do anything against terrorism. The militia of northern virgina will help nothing to impress the Chinese over resource fields in the Chinese sea. Even more helplessness you discover when considering this enormous white consumer's demand for drugs - which lets both official and private efforts to wage a "war on drugs" (hahaha) running straight into nirvana. Some days ago I saw this very good movie, "Traffic". At the end, Michael Douglas says something like "for many of us americans, fighting the war on drugs means to fight a war against one or more members of our own family (he thought of his addictive daughter, while he himself ran for the nation's top job as anti drug official). But how do you do that - how do you wage war within your family?". 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? 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.

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.

Unlike the state, private industry is directly accountable for any failures.

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.

Take the example of 9/11. Airlines suffered for years, through no fault of their own, because the state was entrusted with administering and regulating security protocols, and failed.

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.

However, the state ballooned after its' failure, to the tune of billions of dollars of taxpayer money,
so does the boni and the incomes of top level managers and top bankers - also to the tune of billions of taxpayer'S dollars.

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.

To give or fail to strictly limit power to the state will always yield similar results in due time and always has. I think we agree on some basic principles, but until you provide some superior system of keeping the state in check and avoiding the occasional harms of the market, I can't say whether or not I can agree with you.

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. Examples are the German HRE, the greatest mess we have over here, or the american AIG, as I see it. Opel and GM are not such cases, to give a counter-example. The state is not in the business of managing private economy companies. But although our states and governments are seriously messed up and are rotting from within due to corruption, lobbyism and politicians no longer separating themselves from accepting payed jobs in the private economy and vice versa (which is the classical conflict of interests: comnpany versus public community), I see no alternative to the state running the executive and defining the legislative. Courts do not leave the assessing of a penalty and the interpretation of the law to the accused offender, and for good reason. Leaving the market to itself, and legislation influenced by lobby-interests by private economy, is not a reasonable alternative.

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.


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.

Go figure.

As one biologist once said to me: organisms and ecosystems growing slowly usually do not do much harm, often not any harm at all, but too fast growth - that does a lot of damage indeed, and sooner or later can kill the organism or ecosystem.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by Skybird

@ Lance, 1 of 2

1st, the current thing we have is NOT a good thing, it is a disaster of first class quality. It is a threat to us all.

Yes, but that is because of the measures the state is taking. Just like they did in the 30's and in the 60's and then the 70's, the state steps in with a bunch of new legislation and massive spending. The money supply relative to the GDP increases tremendously, causing stagflation, and then we're in a much worse spot than we would have been if we'd left everything alone.
Everytime this happens, it gets a little worse, because the state does more and more.

2nd, for example most nuclear powerplants work flawlessly and do not require to switch to emergency protocols, nevertheless these protocols get developed and are being hold at the ready, for just one nuclear desaster on great scale can not only ruin your day, but the coming years and decades.

That analogy is invalid. The market cannot function without periodically "failing". Recession renews the market along more productive lines, assuming the state doesn't step in and inflate the currency and strangle innovation and competitive ability. That is where the problem lies. The state is always trying to develop expensive and invasive recession failsafes that then simply fail themselves.

Regulation is not the state deciding on every transaction. It is about obligatory set of rules to which all much submit, no matter whether they want it or not, to guarantee the transparency, the responsibility, the robustness of rating standards that are needed to reduce the likelihood of worst case accidents as we currently have it, and to hinder the criminal and selfish, greedy behavior of the few doing damage for the sake of their private banking account at the cost of the many.

We already have regulations like that, but you claim they are not enough so;
Easier said than done. For one thing, the prime culprit in the U.S. is the Central Bank, not the private ones. Their ability to fiat currency into exsistence is a big part of what makes these bubbles form. Unlike private banks, they are not required to maintain a set reserve of currency. However, they do lend to other banks, as well as everyone else.
When the market is hot and everyone wants in, the Central Bank creates a lot of capital out of thin air, and it works for a while, until the market adjusts. Then it all comes crashing down.
Private institutions without a fiat currency from a central bank couldn't do that. Borrowers would have to compete for loans, slowing the growth rate, which I agree is a good thing to an extent.

Secondly, how much would it cost to put all those regulations and the enforcement in place. It is not so easy as "show us your books". There is a major sector of the legal industry devoted solely to finding ways around business regulation, and the reason it exsists is because even expensive lawyers are cheaper and less strangulating than the labyrinthine state regulations. Ironically enough, their favorite loopholes come from previous or obscure regulations. You'd have to rewrite the legal code as well (which I think needs to be done)

The human factor has been ignored so far, or better: it got nice-talked, saying the egoism of the few means benefit for the community as well. That has been proven wrong. It paved the way into self-expanding anarchy, pushed by the dinosaur with the greatest claws and teeth.

It has not been proven wrong. This one recession does not disprove the comparitively positive record of lightly regulated capitalism, and it does not change the fact capitalism has fueled the most successful nations and the greatest advancements in the world, especially in the past 200 years.
There is also the heavy involvement of the state in this matter. It is not just the Central Bank, it is also sub-prime lending regulations, state-inflated energy prices, and soon, the effect of the government dumping 2 trillion dollars (in this year alone, more to come) into the money supply, to say nothing of the future interest on that and the unsustainable programs it will create.
The egoism of the few still creates jobs and realizes industrial opportunities, no matter what harms it is accused of. And the fact remains that the state is not capable of creating a net gain in wealth.
I think quite the opposite of your statement is true. The "beneficiaries" of the community are just as, if not more guilty than any corporate fat cat, and they can do much more harm.

I have said that several times in various postings to you now, Lance. It is not about the state taking decision command in making internal policies of private institutions........

My fear is that the state will ultimately reach that point, something that is happening here right now. Show me a state that has willingly surrendered more power than it has gained over any significant period of time, and I could see your point more clearly.

I have argued against the state governing all decision-making in economy often enough,I think, I do not argue in favour of a state-run economy. but we need better, tighter rules by which business must run, and we need an office monitoring that these rules are being followed, and these offices must be strong enough in ressources and power that they can do the job. The monitoring systems we have had so far have failed miserably both in the Us and Germany - in one aspect they did so last but not least because they based too much on the too unsolid standards of rating agencies, and trusted the market too much - for no good. the greater the chance that lies will be discorvered, the smaller the probabuiliuty that somebody will lie, and the smaller the overall number of acvtual lies indeed. Trust is kind. Control is MUCH better. When it comes to money, my trust in the good of man comes to a sudden end. people kill each other for ten dollars. what do you think people are willing to do for an income of ten million dollars? Laws and control are for making sure everybody behaves.

Laws are more dangerous than money, my friend. They carry the threat of violence more surely than any street thug, and certainly more than any bank. You say yourself that the previous regulations failed, so who makes the new ones? Do you have access to an altruistic body of competent lawmakers?
The market provides the control you seek better than the state ever could. The voice of every consumer is directly represented by their money and how they choose to spend it. If you start with basic, but strong, anti-fraud legislation and have even a moderately educated populace, industry is kept in check. It must produce and satisfy or it fails.
The state, even in the limited (but not enough) capacity you describe obfuscates the truth of the market. It plays havoc with the ratio of capital to products, it interferes with legitimate business operations as readily as illegal ones, it stifles competition as entrepeneurs wait months or years to get approved for this or that license and pay hefty fees to obtain them.

Too pervasive? It has to do the job, if communal interest of sufficient critical quality and quantity are at risk. Let it be as pervasive as needed to acchieve that. Salus Publica Suprema Lex.

Imo, it doesn't need to be very pervasive to achieve that. It needs only to punish the frauds that the market, the media, and the populace expose on an almost daily basis. What I would like to see, is some longer prison terms for blatant offenders. Keeps them off the market, so to speak.

The current legal situation says that while they behave unethical, they are legally correct. I do not accept that status.

So what do you do then? People run their businesses into the ground every day, to the detriment of their employees and investors. Should they be accountable as well? What's the threshold?
In any case, as much as I disapprove of the shameless actions of these people, they didn't intend to collapse their companies. I'll admit that the question of how to handle them is not one I have the answer to.
However, incompetents like them get into those positions (and stay there) because there is not enough competition. The boards of many companies can afford to use company assets to play the "inflate the stock" game because their companies have security in their position thanks to a web of state legal protections that keeps up-and-comers down. That's why businesses lobby so hard for the regulation of their own industries.

that is the classical mistake - to assume the wanted effect gets acchieved by arguing for higher penalties......

....Without such controls, and the ressources needed to maintain and guarantee them, such standards could be ignored too easily. Controls need to be pervasive to a certain degree, else they do not work.

I have no doubt that strong anti-fraud legislation would not solve the problem itself, but it would help to stick it to the bastards who get caught and would have a deterrant effect, nonethelss.

I might agree with the need for the controls you described if I believed that the state would not expand its' power further and could maintain some semblance of fiscal responsibility. Unfortunately, it never does.
The more responsibility you shift to the government, the more crooked businessmen become politicians instead.

There is a difference. It has been repeatedly argued, and even is admitted by American economists, that Germany with it'S much better social security web than America in a crisis like this by this major structural difference produces a higher economic request that helps to boost the economy to a certain degree, than it is the case in america. That's why the sh!t hits us with a delay. Of course it compensates to a certain degree only, and not beyond. Point is: free market economy is not the same like free market economy. Your American ultra-liberal market economy is different than our social market economy. what you Americans often mock us for - so far has worked to our advanatge in this crisis. It is an additonal stimulus automatic.

I'd have to know exactly what Germany's protocols for a situation like this were to offer an educated opinion, and I've devoted most of my time lately to studying the American Government.
However, it could be noted that amongst U.S. states, the ones with the most liberal economies have suffered the least. Something of a similar effect but it doesn't cost a penny and there is no overbearing state to eventually mess it up.

[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.

[Skybird]

@ Lance, 1 of 2

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?

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

The state is a monopolist in certain areas, yes, and he has to be, else the idea of state and nation does not make any sense. For example the state in Europe is demanded to hold the monopole of the executive, and a monopole of force. It's the only way how the people can execute a legally guaranteed ammount of countercontrol over tools of such force, police for example. at least that'S how it should be. 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.

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. Microsoft is a harmless example. 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.

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.

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. 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 mentioned the freedom of private interests to pursue 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.

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. 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.

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).

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. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.