Down with Every government earth!

Post Reply New Topic

At least the Commission of the European Union has here an other stand:

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/legis/20090101/index.htm

and is supported in this by the majority of the EU-Governments, the Court in Luxembourg and the EU-Parliament. If there would be no central institution to define what can be sold and what not and under which name and label, this would be left to local authorities and they would impose restrictions to protect their local industry.

Well, it depends on the nature of "local authorities". Shops are authorities, but they'll sell anything that they can get their hands on that will sell well. In any case, an local industry would have a problem supporting itself while being inefficient in the overall economy, if it has to support itself based upon local sales, which for most things would be a rather small pool. As such, the need to trade and exchange with the larger economy would likely push a small region into expanded trade, as efforts to prevent imports will also likely cause some issues for exports if we are assuming the actions of a small region.

I never saw shops as "authorities", but we have a lot of experience with local authorities and there protection of their own industries. More recent in the 1920s when the newly formed states on the territory of the former Habsburg-Empire had nothing better to do than to ruin their industries with protectionism or a bit more remotely when in Holy Roman Empire the authorities of the Free Cities protected and regulated their own industries to near-by-dead. It was for example common that only a certain numbers of backers were allow, and even those were restricted not to own an oven above a certain size and not use it more often than on certain days in week and not employ more than a certain number. You find similar regulations in almost each city for almost every kind of craft or industry. No wonder why England became an industrial powerhouse in 18th century, whilst Germany was a "bit sleepy".

If local authorities will given back the power to regulate, it is very likely that they will fall back in the well known patterns.

They are authorities to some extent, just on a different level. They are authorities over their own property, and I would see that kind of authority as better than any other sort.

If I had to guess, I would blame some cultural element for such behavior, but I have not done much research on the German cities. My instinct is that the idea is a holdover from the concept of guilds or perhaps some strong cultural ties, but guilds were more of a medieval concept, but I would think that something would have to account for why inter-city migration wouldn't have an impact upon policy.

In any case, I would think that international industry would be bigger than in the 20s, and that this would prevent such moves. As well, I would not put much emphasis on the notion of a city government either, as if you noticed, I did not emphasize city governments in dealing with your public goods problems. I would think that capitalistic order is currently big enough that it would be hard to overthrow in a particularly city.

An authority, acting in the behave of the sovereign, has by theory absolute and unlimited power on the property and live of its subjects, including owners of shops. The rights of an owner of shop exist only because the sovereign allows ownership. You can't choose your sovereign, but you can choose in which shop you like to buy thinks. Both are absolute different issues.



It was from the view pint of the city authorities absolute reasonable. This restrictions quarantined a stable society, and therefore a stable political environment. Everyone had his income, not a big one, but a certain one. But, there was no progress in society and economy - and if not Napoleon's soldiers destroyed this system within a few years they wouldn't had change, because it was so convenient .



More generally: Capitalisms works fine, if a free marked can be established. In such a set up the competition works. In areas where a free market can't be established (e.g. rail, public transport, other public services) it is for the state to intervene and sometime to run services on his own. The health system is here good example. The private health system in the US costs p.c. $ 6,347; the result is life expectancy at birth 75 year (f.) and 80 years (m.) and a child mortality of 8 of 1000. The state run health system in the UK costs $2,598 and has a result life expectancy at birth 77 year (f.) and 81 years (m.) and a child mortality of 6 of 1000. Here a state run system is, even with its bureaucratic overload, more efficient than a market. In the aera of telecommunication the privatisation showed the opposite results of better and cheaper services for all.

You had to always first into the nature of a particular service before you can make a statement how this service shall be provided.

Umm, I suppose that we are defining "authority" differently. As I was only defining it as a being that has significant perhaps very significant power to influence actions. I do not think your theory of authority is realistic, because the notion of absolute and unlimited power wasn't even fully successful under totalitarian rule(although it was the most successful there), thus it seems problematic to even use that as a conceptual framework. Ownership also will continue to exist no matter whomever is in charge, it is too deeply ingrained to get rid of, the issue is that ownership might move underground to the black market, but black markets certainly exist.


Well, if they all liked the set up, then why are we faulting them? They liked the set up, what higher end are we going to presuppose?


Let's see, I would argue that public goods problems are usually exaggerated, and that markets are more adaptive, and with public transport, I already argued that some of the ways that cities do it could be done by private organizations.

As for US healthcare, a major factor is really the governmental interventions in some of the regulations, some of which cost billions of dollars, and the governmental interventions that alter the environment for insurance, as insurance is known for insulating people from cost. As well, if we use an adjusted life expectancy measure, the US beats most other 1st world nations in life expectancy, it is just that other factors reduce life span beyond what healthcare can correct, other factors are likely also somewhat responsible for child mortality issues, given that I think the US has higher levels of teen pregnancy, which negatively impacts health. In any case, allowing government to control a growth industry and putting this under rationing also seems questionable to me.

As for the nature of a particular service, umm.... not really. The issue is that even if the service is currently best provided by the government, we cannot know how this service will be best provided in the future, and once the government takes control, it has difficulties ceding this control. Not only that, but markets have historically shown themselves to be more adaptive than a number of people think, and as such are hard to predict.

The concept of ownership is a political concept, an old one, one which can be find almost everywhere in the world, which is line with the state philosophy of the western democracies, but depends at the end on a political decision of the sovereign (eve it is The People).

The absolute and unlimited power of the state regarding his subjects is still the basis of any law. Even the Human Rights can be only granted because the state has the unlimited power to defend those rights.



This is the international competition: Because France developed in French Revolution a more effective system of government which could employ and raise resources far beyond the abilities of the German miniature states and their organisation and economy, France was able to whip to states within a few years out. Those miniature states did quite well to curtail Louis XIV and his absolute regime (e.g. in the War of the Palatine Succession), but were helpless against the forces the French Revolution developed.



Simply not true: On the top of the list you will find Andorra and of the larger nations semi-socialist Sweden. The USA are on position 45 - behind Jordan. There are a very few developed countries with lower life expectancy than the USA:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... expectancy

If it comes to child mortality the numbers are even worst:

http://www.who.int/countries/en/



The UK has even a kind of epidemic of pregnancies, without such an effect. The main different is that anyone in the UK has access to a health system, which has its bureaucratic shortcomings, but provides a reasonable service to anyone without costs (except for the taxpayer).

Let's talk about costs: Who gets a better price: If the NHS buys 10 Mio. packages of a particular medicine or hospital XYZ orders 125?

There is also an other issue: A working market needs an informed consumer. I am not a health professional. How I make here a reasonable decision? The whole concept of market self regulation does not work.



Except from a very few infectious diseases (e.g. tuberculosis) no one is forced to use the service of NHS. You can always go private and pay private.



A private company, which does not act in a working free market will act like any government agency, even worst. The reason why private companies work efficient is to see in the competition of transparent and open market place. Such a market place was able to establish in the area of telecommunication by new technologies and in the recent twenty years all state monopoles on telecommunication ended in Europe. Here the market works and the consumer got better service for less. If the mechanism of free market do not work, than you better off with government controlled service.

Look for example the railway system in Switzerland, which still government run, and in the UK.

Well, it depends on definition, but this does not presuppose government, this presupposes accepted lines of judgment. I mean, one can resolve property disputes without involving government, and it happens on multiple occasions.


There are many theories of legal authority that reject this, such as views involving natural law, which stem back to Augustine, and were influential in setting up the governments of many nations. Not only that, but "unlimited power" is just a nonsensical concept, even invoking it other than as a particular theoretical underpinning is ludicrous, and to reify a theoretical underpinning seems even more ridiculous as it seems a point of contention.


Ok, but the only thing is that it seems rather pointless. I mean, I think I already addressed why I thought that wars would not be very common. All of our recent ones have shown the ability of guerilla fighters to undermine conventional forces, so I do not see how it could be very beneficial, so I do not see why international competition is something to be concerned about.


Umm.... I said "adjusted".

http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2007/11/bey ... rs-us.html

A study showed that using a standardized mean, that the US beat 15 other nations, including Sweden. If we do not account for adjustments, then the numbers are problematic to use.


Use bulk salers and distribute through that, you have a middle man, but the NHS is a middle man in your situation anyway.


You don't have to be a health professional, you just have to be able to get access to an outside source judging these matters, and work off of that. You can argue that it may be a guess, but it is either you guessing or the regulator doing the same, and there are instances where regulators do piss-poor jobs, so without an illusion of regulation we might get better knowledge. I mean, it is certainly true that information about a problem can disseminate.


However, the creation of an NHS by its nature will push out other providers. It isn't giving you a health voucher last I heard.


Well, that is a point of debate. People argue either way about a monopolistic company vs a government agency, the issue is that monopolies still have to respond somewhat to consumer demand and coming economic changes while government agencies do not have to do so. The reason why private companies do a good job is actually because they are motivated to seek the relevant information to do a good job, and and a number of monopolies have been efficient in improving industries and cutting costs, although these might arguably not be natural monopolies. You cannot tell when the free market mechanism will not work, and it will always do something, as the mechanism isn't just competition but also just profit seeking actions in general.

Ok, but it does not have to be government run, and when the government runs a company it starts getting divided interests in regards to it.

Well, it depends on definition, but this does not presuppose government, this presupposes accepted lines of judgment. I mean, one can resolve property disputes without involving government, and it happens on multiple occasions.


There are many theories of legal authority that reject this, such as views involving natural law, which stem back to Augustine, and were influential in setting up the governments of many nations. Not only that, but "unlimited power" is just a nonsensical concept, even invoking it other than as a particular theoretical underpinning is ludicrous, and to reify a theoretical underpinning seems even more ridiculous as it seems a point of contention.


Ok, but the only thing is that it seems rather pointless. I mean, I think I already addressed why I thought that wars would not be very common. All of our recent ones have shown the ability of guerilla fighters to undermine conventional forces, so I do not see how it could be very beneficial, so I do not see why international competition is something to be concerned about.


Umm.... I said "adjusted".

http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2007/11/bey ... rs-us.html

A study showed that using a standardized mean, that the US beat 15 other nations, including Sweden. If we do not account for adjustments, then the numbers are problematic to use.


Use bulk salers and distribute through that, you have a middle man, but the NHS is a middle man in your situation anyway.


You don't have to be a health professional, you just have to be able to get access to an outside source judging these matters, and work off of that. You can argue that it may be a guess, but it is either you guessing or the regulator doing the same, and there are instances where regulators do piss-poor jobs, so without an illusion of regulation we might get better knowledge. I mean, it is certainly true that information about a problem can disseminate.


However, the creation of an NHS by its nature will push out other providers. It isn't giving you a health voucher last I heard.


Well, that is a point of debate. People argue either way about a monopolistic company vs a government agency, the issue is that monopolies still have to respond somewhat to consumer demand and coming economic changes while government agencies do not have to do so. The reason why private companies do a good job is actually because they are motivated to seek the relevant information to do a good job, and and a number of monopolies have been efficient in improving industries and cutting costs, although these might arguably not be natural monopolies. You cannot tell when the free market mechanism will not work, and it will always do something, as the mechanism isn't just competition but also just profit seeking actions in general.

Ok, but it does not have to be government run, and when the government runs a company it starts getting divided interests in regards to it.