Why do we form societies?

The state shouldn't be uinvolved in our day to day lives in the firstpalce. That's my problem they are putting their hands where they don't belong.

Where? Give me an example. I can't agree or disagree with you without specifics.

"where they don't belong" could you define things please, thus far it seems you have defined "don't belong" as "anywhere".

Let's see getting involve3d inforign wars, censoring the media, trying to restrict associations such as gay marrige or business associations, giving state support formarrigei n the first palce (government has no place in that) the war on drugs and trying to tell us what we can do with our bodies in thefirst place. Any form of draft, absurdly high taxation fors ervices that would do better on the market or through charities, Gun registaration requirements, requirement ofa marrige licinse, the PATRIOT Act. How much doyou people need to be pushed before you say enough is enough?

First of all, Jesus Christ man, I'm not American. Those are all American examples. Know your audience.

Secondly, one of the basics of debating is to cite a specific example, not just throw out buzzwords like an overexcitable politician using scare tactics. If you can't explain something in more detail then you're only demonstrating your own ignorance on the subject.

Thirdly, while you might have point in terms of the restriction of drugs (again, I'd prefer a more in-depth analysis) you're failing to appreciate two things: those restrictions were often put in place in the hopes of curbing the violence and dangers associated with the drugs trade, and also this goes back to my point about the exigencies of the common good; the protection of public health is a recognised reason for the infringement of the rights of individuals, legally-speaking.

edited 15th Apr '11 8:15:21 AM by DanEile

sorry i'm not too familliar with the actionsof other governments. I only know my constitution and governmetn a little. My sincerist apologies.

Okay, calm down and type a bit slower, maybe editing for spelling might be a good idea?

Marriage is a civil thing, it needs governmental overview in order to be legal. Businesses need to be monitored for fear of them deciding to just up and start acting dickish at any opportunity. And we are neither of us American's, you seem to just have a lot of talking points here, not actual reasons as to why these things suck. Heck I would agree with you on a fair number of them, but for pities sake try and slow down.

edited 15th Apr '11 8:15:29 AM by JosefBugman

Assuming that was Sincerity Mode, apology accepted. I also tagged on a possible explanation on the drugs issue in an edit in my previous post.

edited 15th Apr '11 8:14:30 AM by DanEile

If you don't know much about your government and constitution, why are you arguing so vorciferously against them?

government intervention in business won't fix that. Government intervention in business has a certain like to corpretism and fascism. left ot the market most of this stuff will fix itself. Marrige is not a civil matter it is a religious matter established by religion. On the matter of drugs. Criminalizing drugs is actually what causes the illegal drug trade if you ban something you just give the black market a profit and they are not responsible like the free market. I said I didn't know much about other governments and i'mnot arguing against the Constitution i'm pro-constitution anti-big government.

edited 15th Apr '11 8:20:28 AM by tnu1138

Really? When the market was "left to itself" we ended up with the Wall Street Crash and the current recession.

Actually marriage has been a civil thing for a long time, the religious aspects were brought in for most people a lot later, mostly during the counter-reformation.

And oddly enough, criminalising drugs made it an "illegal" trade, but it was still a deeply damaging and often harmful trade before hand, look at the Opium Wars.

edited 15th Apr '11 8:21:06 AM by JosefBugman

Your "left to the market" theory has some serious holes.

Ever studied economics? It's true that the market will often balance out; but left unchecked this can be at a serious cost to the individual, such as in monopoly markets where; without intervention from the government (such as price ceilings etc.), consumers could be absolutely raped by high prices. This can also happen in situations with price inelastic goods, which include drugs such as insulin for diabetics.

There's also the issue that a company is, at law, a separate individual from its members/directors and needs to held accountable for its actions, both to creditors and to the world at large.

edited 15th Apr '11 8:20:54 AM by DanEile

Thing is I trust the market more then I trust the state without all the excess regulationit is harder to establish monopolies because there will always be somoene who wants to Start My Own. with the market you have options. With the state you don't andyoru forced at gunpoint to buy the good or service.

Ok if someone wants to buy a drug from osneone it's their damn business criminalizing itdoes not solve the problem because it will just go to the black market.

edited 15th Apr '11 8:25:07 AM by tnu1138

OK, clearly you have not studied economics. What you just said is just factually wrong. One of the problems with monopolies and other such markets being left unregulated is that you, the consumer, don't always have options.

One of the defining assumptions underlying a monopoly market is that there will be barriers to entry to the industry; such that the incumbent (or dominant) company will use any means necessary to keep competitors out of the market, where it be deliberately setting prices opponents can't hope to match, forming cartels or otherwise. Governments seek to prevent this happening.

edited 15th Apr '11 8:29:00 AM by DanEile

But WHY do you trust the market more?

And no it isn't hard to establish monopolies because when people "start their own" you buy them, because you have more money. Or you have them killed, whichever is more cost effective.

Dan Eile. H You mean such as lobbying for government regulation? that sort of thign?

What? No. Take some time to actually read and think about what I'm saying. The government's goal is generally to prevent complete market domination (such as a monopoly). Without government regulations, monopolies will seek to maintain their market dominance. This is not a good thing for consumers.

Also, if you don't know anything about how economics actually works I'd suggest you read up on it. You're not coming across as very knowledgeable about the subject you've chosen to discuss, here.

edited 15th Apr '11 8:32:43 AM by DanEile

Josef (How do you pronounce that by the way?) You're assuming that a) people will alwyas be sellouts instead of stickign to their principles or b) that the coerparation or body will resort to assassinatin and other such practices.

And you're being incredibly naieve in assuming that everyone will stick to their principles. Society is set up in this way to protect people from the few dangerous individuals who would take advantage of a lack of government regulation.

Here's why Itrust the market more ifa market is self-regulating or somesuch I can choose toopt out of buying any given product or service. if government takes that over i'm forced to buy it at gunpoint.

Jesus. Read our posts. In a price inelastic market, when the price goes up, demand doesn't decrease very much at all.

Examples of price inelastic goods include insulin for diabetics and petrol for our cars. White bread, water, milk. Necessities. Stuff you have to buy. This means that where the market is unregulated, you won't have much of a choice but to buy hideously overpriced goods. You're not thinking this through. Again, take an economics course. Or even just read a book.

edited 15th Apr '11 8:39:27 AM by DanEile

So, what are you suggesting? That somehow a corporation (made up of similar people as government) will not resort to assassination and intrigue (like you are accusing governments of doing constantly) because... why?

Also if you are still arguing this despite having a lack of knowledge about the subject then why are you arguing it at all?

edited 15th Apr '11 8:46:24 AM by JosefBugman

Re: Start My Own

This is not true outside of maybe small niche businesses and interests, or most creative endeavors. There is the very real phenomenon of Economies of scale. As production expands, the cost per unit decreases to a certain point, only to start rising due to a greater need to invest in infrastructure (factories, a larger workforce to maximize the productivity of each worker, etc.) that bares the vast amount of newcomers from becoming competitors in a market, even a free one. In some industries it prevents even upstarts, like the auto-industry. There's a reason there's only a handful of car manufacturers; even with zero regulations the average person could only hope to gain enough capital to capture a very small market, or expand at the expense of producing low-quality death traps. Economies of scale ensure that a monopoly or oligarchy are inevitable.

EDIT: Hell, it advances even to creative efforts. It's easy to draw one picture, but lots and lots off them (for animation) is expensive, hence they're rarer than live action. With new technology even individuals can produce high quality animation, but that's not the case with producing cars or planes, or even crops to feed a nation.

Hence, some regulations are needed to minimize the advantages of monopolies, lest they sacrifice quality or inflate price to their own advantage and the detriment of those who rely on them.

edited 15th Apr '11 8:48:44 AM by Ratix

The problem Ican see is that bigger compabnies will take advantage of this power andset up lobbies and still hold monopolies in their favor under the guise of alturism. You want someonewhoknows what I mean ask Usht why many of the regulations are a bad idea. It goes under the assumption that governmwent can not be swayed and is always altruistic.

You've sort of proved our point, there. Monopolies need to be regulated. Yes, the government can be lobbied and/or corrupt. That's why we need the democratic process.

Also, by pointing out that the government can be corrupted you're contradicting your earlier assumption that people unregulated in business will stick to principles. You can't have it every way.

edited 15th Apr '11 8:53:34 AM by DanEile