(british) healthcare

[Epinephrine]

the fascination with government mirrors the inner human desire for control and power, and people tend to fear the unplanned. it sounds crazy, but if you let people just exist in society, they'll find a way. i believe that's some law of thermodynamics. you don't have to believe in it... but that doesn't mean it's not real and it doesn't affect us.

Yes there is a law. Please see the second law of thermodynamics:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_...thermodynamics

I have no idea how this helps your position though, because it states in simple terms that in any closed system (i.e. the earth), if you leave things alone, the amount of chaos will increase as time goes on.

[Epinephrine]

How many will die because of tainted blood or poorly manufactured or designed pharmaceuticals? It took Thalidomide 5-6 years to cause 10,000 birth defects in the US alone.

It's sort of funny how Jerome will conveniently ignore China. Although supposedly 'communist', it's probably a much more capitalist place than most of the world, with FAR FAR FAR fewer regulations and enforcement abilities available. And just as such, we hear daily reports of companies who in order to save a buck will do various dubious things like put poison in pet food, or in drugs just because they know that even if they were found out, no one would do anything and as long as the owners got rich off it and could cash out, they could care less if they lost business after being found out. Who cares about the long-term viability of your business as long as you got rich off your scams while they were going on?

[Zerzera]

I think all systems will be equally bad. Lives are lost, people are enslaved and the value of people is expressed in currency.

We like to think that we as human beings control our own environment, but we don't. We are placed in it, and we don't have a clue what we are doing here.
Maybe ants have this sense of supremacy too when they built a kick-ass nest, or beat another nest?
The best thing we came up with is that this life on the planet is only a waiting period to get our souls into a place called heaven. But does that make sense to us? If we are just ignorant enough, at least we can feel happy.

[Galleleo]

When I get home from Uni later, because I have some stuff I need to finish right now, I am gonna make a kick ass post. So.. STAY TUNED!

[Zerzera]

I don't think you can live up to the expectations. It will be like Wilders' "movie".

[Jerome Scuggs]

they probably also don't want peace and sustainability that comes along with having a government.

"We have been through some hard times, but the worst was when we had a government. Once there was no government, there was opportunity."

-Abdirizak Ido

so... you're right.

[Jerome Scuggs]

It's sort of funny how Jerome will conveniently ignore China. Although supposedly 'communist', it's probably a much more capitalist place than most of the world, with FAR FAR FAR fewer regulations and enforcement abilities available. And just as such, we hear daily reports of companies who in order to save a buck will do various dubious things like put poison in pet food, or in drugs just because they know that even if they were found out, no one would do anything and as long as the owners got rich off it and could cash out, they could care less if they lost business after being found out. Who cares about the long-term viability of your business as long as you got rich off your scams while they were going on?

So maybe you're right, but this argument only applies if by "fewer" regulations you mean "zero" regulations and by "china" you mean "a free market society".

But I don't think you'll take that for an answer, so long story short: the companies with plants in China have very strict guidelines which the Chinese can conveniently ignore because 1) free speech is limited and so these sort of reports never get out until the products make it to america and 2) the Companies who then attempt to seek retribution are told to fuck off by - gasp - the Chinese government.

Is that your idea of capitalism? Almost, except for the part where it isn't capitalism, it's politics and at worst, corporatism, which is what the three of you keep railing on about. Reminder: giant 'evil' corporations are made powerful ONLY through the government. Show me an example proving otherwise. especially with this thing about pharmaceuticals - ever read anything about their lobbyists? lobbyists would not exist without government - that should be an argument in of itself.

edit: kolar, that thing about tiberium or whatever was interesting... where was the government while all this happened? if you're going to play the numbers/evil game, governments always kill more people and are led by more evil people than businesses ever have. i don't see why you continue to go down this path, i hate being the one to invoke godwin's law.

[Jerome Scuggs]

oh, and cops:

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/wor...html?id=405747

a great read. i laughed, i cried.

[Kolar]

edit: kolar, that thing about tiberium or whatever was interesting... where was the government while all this happened? if you're going to play the numbers/evil game, governments always kill more people and are led by more evil people than businesses ever have. i don't see why you continue to go down this path, i hate being the one to invoke godwin's law.

First it wasn't tiberium, that's from Command & Conquer. It was Thalidomide. At the time (late 50s) the FDA did not have much control over the production and design of pharmaceuticals. In response to that tragedy the Kefauver Harris Amendment strengthened the FDAs testing of such drugs on humans before they come to the market. Sadly it takes tragedies like this for change to happen but it took years for the drug to be pulled. It probably would have gone on for far longer if FDA approval, testing and oversight wasn't beefed up. How many CEOs would hold off and not give the recall order because it meant a huge loss, how many would focus on developing PR crap and business plans before preventing the sale of the drug or do nothing at all?

Since you made a reference to WW2, how many war profiteers killed our soldiers fighting Nazi Germany because their fucking guns were poorly made intentionally to save money and line the pockets of some douche bags? I can find tons of examples just like you can, it doesn't solidify your point or mine or make either right or wrong. It shows the need for change when we tip too far right or too far left.

This shouldn't be 'Big Business vs. Big Government', there is a middle ground between the two and that requires both to execute internal and external regulations and infuse the concept of corporate responsibility into their primary business processes. How does Capitalism not turn into "Corporatism" without keeping these companies honest externally? Really I think most people see it as an eventuality when capitalism is off its leash, China is a prime example because authorities there are corrupt (see toxins in plastics used in children toys) or powerless to do anything (poison in pet food). Prosecuting and making changes would first be bad PR and China can really do no wrong, and second the political system has to change much faster then the economic situation has. But a democracy or even the illusion of one is not a sure fix to this kind of corruption, I again point to the current situation south of the boarder (not Mexico).

Edit: I just had a terrible thought, would 'Decentralized Disaster Relief' also extend to private security? So Blackwater walking down the streets of LA, New York or DC....

[Jerome Scuggs]

How does Capitalism not turn into "Corporatism" without keeping these companies honest externally?

by removing the government.

[Kolar]

That makes no sense. If Capitalism can turn into Corporatism easily then what prevents it? Regulations can keep them from becoming corrupt and remembering its responsibilities to its clients and shutting it down if necessary.

The Somaliland situation is even worse then I thought actually. The "Government" or corrupt collection of war lords, thugs and murders as I like to think of them, whenever a business becomes profitable they just take it over, running it into the ground and cashing out.

[Jerome Scuggs]

That makes no sense. If Capitalism can turn into Corporatism easily then what prevents it? Regulations can keep them from becoming corrupt and remembering its responsibilities to its clients and shutting it down if necessary.

Like how businesses use the Sherman Anti-trust act to keep potential competitors out - or new businesses use it as an easy way to enter a market. Capitalism can't "turn" into corporatism without a government - that's the definition. It's when a company uses the State to legitimize its actions.

The Somaliland situation is even worse then I thought actually. The "Government" or corrupt collection of war lords, thugs and murders as I like to think of them, whenever a business becomes profitable they just take it over, running it into the ground and cashing out.

You're right, they actually have been doing that - so have the Taliban in Afghanistan. And then they realized "oh, shit, we're killing the people who are providing our water and other services". The taliban released an official apology, whereas the Somalian warlords have simply stopped raiding local businesses.

[Kolar]

So you see no way for a company to become corrupt, through legitimate business practices and the pursuit of profit without a Government intervining?


Do you have something up to date on Somaliland that states that? The report I read was from 2001.

[Jerome Scuggs]

So you see no way for a company to become corrupt, through legitimate business practices and the pursuit of profit without a Government intervining?

I contend that in a free market, the damage of a corrupt businessman will be minimized quickly, because one can act immediately - by not shopping at firm X. Whereas when a government goes corrupt... everyone's along for the ride and noone is unaffected. It's not as much as an opinion as it is historical observation.

Do you have something up to date on Somaliland that states that? The report I read was from 2001.

As a matter of fact the link's been posted twice. But, think about it. If there's a society with no government - how easy will it be to take over? Because there's no "leader" to take, you will have to fight every single individual for their property... making violence and attempts to seize power vastly too expensive. When power is in the hands of a centralized government, then you can easily seize an entire nation's resources with a coup. But when the resources are owned by individuals, it's a completely different story. Here's a fantastic analysis on the subject of private security:

http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/3_1/3_1_2.pdf

It re-analyzes the notion of the American "wild west" and shows how private security companies (as opposed to government police) and the general anarcho-capitalist attitudes of the time led to a period with very little violence (san francisco's murder rate was two people a year. Two.)

[Kolar]

I contend that in a free market, the damage of a corrupt businessman will be minimized quickly, because one can act immediately - by not shopping at firm X. Whereas when a government goes corrupt... everyone's along for the ride and noone is unaffected. It's not as much as an opinion as it is historical observation.

It's a combination of both that I believe works to the benefit of us all. We need a strong democracy interested in the welfare of its people, we need people interested in Government as it is not a spectator sport and we do need companies we care about social issues, not just their bottom line. A balanced approach is superior then having it one way or the other.

I was looking for something not with a political bent to it, more of an independent assessment but the UNDP Human Development Report will do just fine.