Libertariansim and Anarchism; Delusional and Utopian

Post Reply New Topic

I suppose... but then, Europe also developed those tendencies before we were aware of existense & pervasiveness of the Stockholm Syndrome.

As a matter of Fact, Jefferson spoke of the problem quite eloquently - if somewhat antagonisticly - and he was well aware of the history & development of centralized government in Europe (such as it was in the 1780s)

Now, I've been to Europe. I lived in Germany for almost 3 years. It's not a bad place, but Centralized Government/Centralized Religion has been the CAUSE of more of Europes wars than anything else...

Why that historical fact is difficult to see is beyond me.

Perhaps I am missing something, but I think this is the major point where you make a positive case, and I do not really see why a central authority is necessary for labeling. I mean, any group can create a labeling process, a corporation could just go around and standardize these things if there was a big enough demand for it I think.

This development started much earlier: In England with the Tudors, in France with Henry IV in Spain with Phillip II - all in the 16th century. Charles V tried so in the Holy Roman Empire and failed.



Germany is the exception - the federal structure with a complex muddling between federal and state authorities is a German hallmark - except for the Hitler dictatorship.

But generally: The creation of the national state stopped the constant internal warfare. England's history prior the Tudors was mostly a history of feudal lord gambling for the and with king and against each other. The War of Roses was just the last and most famous chapter, but just look into the fate of Empress Matilda.

Important for functioning market is transparency. This means that standards are unified and known. If anyone has his trade standards you just can't compare the quality of products reasonable.

Ok. I know that. But, I do not see how private organizations cannot provide some trade standard. It isn't as if this is one of the hard jobs for government to do, as there is not an instance of a public good, or anything like that. It is something that would benefit both industries and consumers, and I do not see transaction costs as being particularly high either.

Because there are a lot of private organizations, but only one EU-Commission.

What is easier to corrupt? A central organization or many individual guilds?

So? Private organizations could agree on a standard, and likely would as doing so would benefit them. If you're going to justify government based only on that one service, you'll have a pretty tough time of it.

Transaction costs are likely low, as I stated, so your comment isn't much of a rebuttal. You aren't presenting a real problem I don't think, because the only way you can justify this is by saying that transaction costs are relatively high, and so this regulation is Pareto optimal, but that just seems absurd because there is no reason for there to be high transaction costs for something *this* simple.

Oh ... yes: We see this in power supplies for mobile phones or for ink/toner container for printers: Each producer has his own standard.

Only the government has the power to force each producer to obey to the standards. It is at the end consumer protection: If quality and packages are standardised a real transparent market can be established. If each producer is allow to choose his ideas regarding quality and labelling this will be not possible. "Rye flour type 1035" is clear for everyone, the fancy names producers like to give their products not.

Ok, and neither of those seem like some massive deal, as they are all standardized to work best with a specific product. They could probably all be identified as belonging to that product. Why not complain about cars having different parts?

But, if quality and packages have some non-standard-ness to them, then there is competition along multiple lines, such as price, quality, and even subjective elements.

As for "rye flour type 1035" I don't see that as very clear, the fancy names producers give their products allow us to know what specifically they are trying to sell, as the titles usually suggest particular usages and things of that nature.

Certain products, especially consumer products including food, shall have minimum standards along with clear labelling rules. Such rules are worthless with a central institution to impose those - aka the state. When I buy a French bottle of wine, the label must give by law an indication regarding the origin and to which extent this particular bottle does confirm to certain stanadrs of taste to assume from a wine of this region. When I buy a technical device "according to EN-xyz" I know that this product is line with a certain published technical standard etc.

When I want something better or fancy - no problem, but the minimum standard of what "tomatoes class A" much obey must be set by a central institution. It is same with all products of mass production, from steel to food via bicycle tyres.



"Rye flour type 1035" means a rye flour fit for backing bread of certain amount of mineral residue.



Yes - the type 1035 is exactly defined. If you buy flour frequently, you learn this system quite quickly. But no one stops a producer to tell costumers that this is slightly darker kind of flour, but less dark and finer than a whole grain one.

I still really do not see how this is a big deal. I mean, it still seems as if some catalog for special buyers could be created by the company or another agency if this were a major issue.

And governments have standardized power supplies for mobile phones and ink cartridges for printers? Have I been sleeping through the news again? When did this happen? Since when has government used its "power to force each producer to obey to [sic] the standards?"

In any case, those seem to be a specific case of vendor lock-in, and frankly I don't see governments acting against it. Nor does it really matter so long as I know that my HP printer needs HP ink. I don't actually care too much about type 1035, but I'm certain that different corporations would find a way to make themselves understood when they were trying to sell their products.

Look, a reasonably case for government can be made, but you aren't making it. You're just making yourself look exceptionally foolish.

Obviously not because I believe Marxism to have a solid political agenda


Funny how an ideology based on such crappy economic theories fully predicted the current breakdown in capital.



Yes he was from a wealthy middle class family and worked in the family business. Unfortunately like myself he lived in a capitalist society, of course you will refute his motive to support Marx and himself, obviously I should give up my small business as well


He had no choice the newly formed red army was not up to the job

*edit* I would hardly call an ultimatum being 'supported'

As a direct result of the war, the revolution and the Russian civil war the country was in tatters, Lenin brought in the NEP in an attempt to stabilize the economy, this was not meant to be a long term measure, in a sense it was a tactical retreat in order to maintain the revolution unfortunately he died 3 years after its implementation and will forever be criticised for this



Trotsky had many dummy spits with Lenin, many of them were due to his continual attempts at reconciling the various of party.

Like most of your diatribe so far you are over simplifying events




To quote the man himself
''We began peace negotiations in the hope of arousing the workmen's party of Germany and Austria-Hungary as well as of the Entente countries. For this reason we were obliged to delay the negotiations as long as possible to give the European workman time to understand the main fact of the Soviet revolution itself and particularly its peace policy''

Although he agreed with Lenin that the red army was not capable of fighting the German forces he was of the opinion that a treaty with an imperialist power would lead to insurgency within Russia. He hoped that a refusal to sign the treaty would cause an uprising within the German Army



WOW this one is really new to me and every other member of my political affiliation,in fact during Lenins illness Stalin, Zinoviev and Lev Kamenev banded together to take control, they systematically undermined Trotsky. Lenin was horrified by this and tried to have Trotsky installed as the new leader



You read any newspapers recently



Again you read any newspapers recently.

The only way out of our current mess is for the means of production and resources of the planet to be placed into the hands of the majority. Capitalism just allows for the worst of human greed to rampage.

Last edited by DentArthurDent on 05 Mar 2009, 3:01 am, edited 1 time in total.

Your kidding.

One thing about you AG you never seem to put your beliefs on the line, as far as I can tell you are an anarchist, but you don't seem to be defending that position, obviously you only like to attack other peoples beliefs, well how about you actually putting your beliefs out for critical debate, or are you worried that the idiocy of anarchism would be too hard to defend.