Westminster Politics

[finneh]

I partially agree with your first point about layers obscuring democracy but size also means that policy becomes less extreme and more representational. The US federal and state laws are a good example of that but the EU environmental laws too where individual governments are too close to push them through. You will not solve climate change with localised politics.

Again I disagree, you're more likely to get extreme policies due to lobbying.

For example if someone told you they were going to create a local policy that actively prevented African people from selling their goods by leveling an "African levy" to all sales; there would be a revolt.

People would say "that's outrageous, I buy my bread from an African baker who's the best and the cheapest in the area, how dare you close him down or force me to pay more via this levy".

However the external tariffs that discriminate in the same way are deemed moderate, rather than patently racist.

As for corruption i really don't get how you've arrived at that. Nothing in our politics shows that to be the case as far as I'm aware. The idea that you can lobby the EU easier than MPs or local officials is a bit absurd, collective responsibility is designed to erode such corruption. Is there some specific EU corruption you're rallying against?

I try not to make the perfect an argument against the better. The UK government are also too big and should delegate far more.

If there were a referendum on giving far more powers to regional governments I'd also vote for that.

In terms of corruption see the aforementioned prevention of African, Asian and South American goods via external protectionist tariffs and regulations.

 

[Flying high]

Do you not think the referendum HAS been respected? The main driving force behind it has spent three years doing their best to adhere to it, a process which only seemed to highlight difficulties and reasons why it should not be respected. Feels to me like respecting the referendum has turned into flogging a dead horse.

Exactly.

Had there been a solid plan we could easily have left within a year or 2 and remainers would have been able to do little about it. Instead we have had to endure a constant stream of bulsshot and moving the goalposts.

 

[Volumiza]

Moot point. The EU will grant the extension.

Of course they will, there would be no end to the amount of extensions they would grant. An extension is no Brexit ... for now anyway, and possibly never.

Do you not think the referendum HAS been respected? The main driving force behind it has spent three years doing their best to adhere to it,

My parents, 3 of my friends and my Mrs all do not think the referendum has been respected, and especially by Parties actively campaigning on reversing their vote and, regardless of my voting direction, I tend to agree with them on certain points. I have been on the losing side on a few general elections and it is a part of being a democracy. Yes, you can change your mind in a democracy but not straight away surely? Not before the vote has even been implemented? It is this side of the remain argument I don't like and don't get.

a process which only seemed to highlight difficulties and reasons why it should not be respected. Feels to me like respecting the referendum has turned into flogging a dead horse.

If it couldn't be respected in the first place then it wouldn't or shouldn't have been put to the people. I believe very firmly that it could be delivered if all minds were onto it instead of making it difficult. That is what Article 50 was designed to do, allow a member state to leave. So if article 50 doesn't actually facilitate that then surely there is a huge dishonesty there? I think remain have blocked and delayed brexit in almost every way possible. If the whole house got behind this we'd have been much further down the road than we are.

That being said, and what I do agree with my brexit voting friends and family is that the integration of the UK into the EU has been done in such a deceitful and sneaky way over the last 30 years and the public have seen so many powers handed over without their say so (no political party ever had these treaties in their manifesto), that how can anyone really feel part of it or trust it or even want it? That is also a big factor in the split between 'old and young' voters. The older ones (my parents especially) still feel a sense of betrayal at being led through the backdoor into a political union back in the 70's when it was informed it was only going to be a trade union.

This has been a very damaging time for the UK and unless hard line Brexiteers and Remainers start the healing process now, by some form of painful compromise and working together towards the best brexit possible our country will be fractured permanently.

 

[Stevondo8]

Moot point. The EU will grant the extension.

I imagine so, just sort of wondering aloud what would happen if one decide nah, feck em.

The sooner we have an election the better, but I find it hard to believe even that will actually resolve anything. I don’t see any party having a majority afterwards and there seems to be enough parties not willing to join forces to be able to form a coalition.

 

[Buster15]

Exactly.

Had there been a solid plan we could easily have left within a year or 2 and remainers would have been able to do little about it. Instead we have had to endure a constant stream of bulsshot and moving the goalposts.

Moving the goalposts.
That is the basis of the problem. There were no goalposts.
Just one word. Leave.
And leave probably meant 17 million different things to those who were pursued to vote for it.
If the idiot Cameron had devoted any thought process to the referendum then we would not still be where we are; Chaos.

 

[Kentonio]

Again I disagree, you're more likely to get extreme policies due to lobbying.

For example if someone told you they were going to create a local policy that actively prevented African people from selling their goods by leveling an "African levy" to all sales; there would be a revolt.

People would say "that's outrageous, I buy my bread from an African baker who's the best and the cheapest in the area, how dare you close him down or force me to pay more via this levy".

However the external tariffs that discriminate in the same way are deemed moderate, rather than patently racist.

I try not to make the perfect an argument against the better. The UK government are also too big and should delegate far more.

If there were a referendum on giving far more powers to regional governments I'd also vote for that.

In terms of corruption see the aforementioned prevention of African, Asian and South American goods via external protectionist tariffs and regulations.

You can’t compare protectionism to racism and corruption. Countries look out for their best interests, and if trading with a country will make money, they won’t hesitate to trade, no matter what colour the population are.

 

[finneh]

You can’t compare protectionism to racism and corruption. Countries look out for their best interests, and if trading with a country will make money, they won’t hesitate to trade, no matter what colour the population are.

The corruption is the protection of rich white people at the expense of poor black people; due to the lobbying by the aforementioned rich white people.

The fact that this is ratified by government makes it worse not better.

 

[SteveJ]

You can’t compare protectionism to racism and corruption. Countries look out for their best interests, and if trading with a country will make money, they won’t hesitate to trade, no matter what colour the population are.

When it comes to racism, money sees no colour. Cue Bannon dancing with Saudi sheikhs.

 

[Kentonio]

The corruption is the protection of rich white people at the expense of poor black people; due to the lobbying by the aforementioned rich white people.

The fact that this is ratified by government makes it worse not better.

The rich white people in this case being the population of the UK. We want goods we want to buy, at the standards we expect and as a country we want to profit from the transactions. Countries put their own citizens first for right or wrong. If it’s racist, then we’re all racist.

 

[Flying high]

Again I disagree, you're more likely to get extreme policies due to lobbying.

For example if someone told you they were going to create a local policy that actively prevented African people from selling their goods by leveling an "African levy" to all sales; there would be a revolt.

People would say "that's outrageous, I buy my bread from an African baker who's the best and the cheapest in the area, how dare you close him down or force me to pay more via this levy".

However the external tariffs that discriminate in the same way are deemed moderate, rather than patently racist.


I try not to make the perfect an argument against the better. The UK government are also too big and should delegate far more.

If there were a referendum on giving far more powers to regional governments I'd also vote for that.

In terms of corruption see the aforementioned prevention of African, Asian and South American goods via external protectionist tariffs and regulations.

Don't you see the contradiction of wanting smaller government then adding extra layers of(competing) bureaucracy?

 

[finneh]

The rich white people in this case being the population of the UK. We want goods we want to buy, at the standards we expect and as a country we want to profit from the transactions. Countries put their own citizens first for right or wrong. If it’s racist, then we’re all racist.

If we go back to the example of thousands of governments of 500 people do you think this kind of racist policy would be enacted and be enforceable?

For example Town A enacts a policy that bans African wheat because they want to protect their wheat manufacturers, under the guise of it "not meeting our quality expectations". The people then have two options: drive 10 minutes to Town B to buy the cheaper African wheat that they believe is perfectly fine quality or buy UK wheat as they agree the quality is better. If no-one buys the African wheat then by definition there would be no law in the first place as Town A wouldn't have a problem.

Therefore banning anything under this guise is obviously against what the population want by it's very definition.

That's why the bigger the government the more inherently corrupt it is. It restricts the rights of the populace under often spurious and jingoistic regulations.

Don't you see the contradiction of wanting smaller government then adding extra layers of(competing) bureaucracy?

It would be the opposite. If we had thousands of competing governments they would be much smaller. Very few groups of 500 would vote to pay larger taxes to increase the size of its civil service. If they did people would move to a neighbouring town with lower taxes, decreasing the population over time to zero (and therefore no government at all).

The chances are most of these small governments would be voluntary citizens who met up in their free time in order to make their town a better place.

For ultimate freedom we are 70 millions governments of one who aren't coerced by force to do anything (provided of course that our actions aren't harming anyone else)

 

[Kentonio]

If we go back to the example of thousands of governments of 500 people do you think this kind of racist policy would be enacted and be enforceable?

For example Town A enacts a policy that bans African wheat because they want to protect their wheat manufacturers, under the guise of it "not meeting our quality expectations". The people then have two options: drive 10 minutes to Town B to buy the cheaper African wheat that they believe is perfectly fine quality or buy UK wheat as they agree the quality is better. If no-one buys the African wheat then by definition there would be no law in the first place as Town A wouldn't have a problem.

Therefore banning anything under this guise is obviously against what the population want by it's very definition.

That's why the bigger the government the more inherently corrupt it is. It restricts the rights of the populace under often spurious and jingoistic regulations.

This is more than a bit mad, and completely ignores how people actually act in reality. Back when there were countless small states, all that happened was they spent half their time beating the shit out of each other and trying to steal each other’s shit, while being considerably more racist, jingoistic and xenophobic than any country today.

 

[Flying high]

It would be the opposite. If we had thousands of competing governments they would be much smaller. Very few groups of 500 would vote to pay larger taxes to increase the size of its civil service. If they did people would move to a neighbouring town with lower taxes, decreasing the population over time to zero (and therefore no government at all).

The chances are most of these small governments would be voluntary citizens who met up in their free time in order to make their town a better place.

For ultimate freedom we are 70 millions governments of one who aren't coerced by force to do anything (provided of course that our actions aren't harming anyone else)

I take it your a supporter of Thatcherism. It also seems you are quite a way down this road, so not much point in me arguing the finer details, though I disagree with almost every part of your post.

What I will say though:
Collaboration is better than competition.
Kindness, caring and community values are more important than getting ahead of some other group.
The world has finite resources and can handle only so much from us as a species before it will fight back, hard. To continue the race to the bottom style of politics is the last thing we need right now.

 

[esmufc07]

This made me smile.



Guy is a complete tool. I've no idea why the BBC think he is in any qualified to be talking on political matters.

 

[finneh]

I take it your a supporter of Thatcherism. It also seems you are quite a way down this road, so not much point in me arguing the finer details, though I disagree with almost every part of your post.

What I will say though:
Collaboration is better than competition.
Kindness, caring and community values are more important than getting ahead of some other group.
The world has finite resources and can handle only so much from us as a species before it will fight back, hard. To continue the race to the bottom style of politics is the last thing we need right now.

Thatcherism included things like poll tax which I thought was outrageous. It was too authoritarian for my liking also.

My views are in line with:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night-watchman_state

 

[finneh]

This is more than a bit mad, and completely ignores how people actually act in reality. Back when there were countless small states, all that happened was they spent half their time beating the shit out of each other and trying to steal each other’s shit, while being considerably more racist, jingoistic and xenophobic than any country today.

Believing that progress is down in any part to centralisation of government is where we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

[Flying high]

Thatcherism included things like poll tax which I thought was outrageous. It was too authoritarian for my liking also.

My views are in line with:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night-watchman_state

So you're against the NHS, state funded schools, roads and services?

I find that a very odd position, especially in a society where there is nothing like an even playing field in terms of inherited wealth.

 

[Stevondo8]

I take it your a supporter of Thatcherism. It also seems you are quite a way down this road, so not much point in me arguing the finer details, though I disagree with almost every part of your post.

What I will say though:
Collaboration is better than competition.
Kindness, caring and community values are more important than getting ahead of some other group.
The world has finite resources and can handle only so much from us as a species before it will fight back, hard. To continue the race to the bottom style of politics is the last thing we need right now.

s
Just to clarify before I post, I am no supporter of the Tories, and unable to vote in UK elections coming from where I do, but I am subjected to UK politics on tv and in the press.

Corbyn likes to come out with the kinder politics and against the race to the bottom, but he and his supporters, really are no different to the rest. Twitter is full of all sorts of bile coming from all sides of politics, whether it be outright anti-semitism on Twitter by those claiming to support labour, or outright racists on the right. It’s all the same really, just different targets.

The whole country/parliament needs a reset.

 

[Kentonio]

Believing that progress is down in any part to centralisation of government is where we'll have to agree to disagree.

Ok so let’s use an example from what you say you favour. Let’s say we have that small libertarian government. Which doesn’t have food or agricultural standards agencies. So Jim finds he can buy some REALLY cheap food/animals/seeds in another country. Which he proceeds to do and sells loads of it back home, because hey who doesn’t like cheap stuff? Except Jim has just brought in products that carries diseases that then contaminate the local agriculture system and population, leading to devastating results.

How exactly do we prevent this kind of event under your preferred system?

 

[Flying high]

s
Just to clarify before I post, I am no supporter of the Tories, and unable to vote in UK elections coming from where I do, but I am subjected to UK politics on tv and in the press.

Corbyn likes to come out with the kinder politics and against the race to the bottom, but he and his supporters, really are no different to the rest. Twitter is full of all sorts of bile coming from all sides of politics, whether it be outright anti-semitism on Twitter by those claiming to support labour, or outright racists on the right. It’s all the same really, just different targets.

The whole country/parliament needs a reset.

Well I think you've largely said it yourself. Corbyn espouses kinder politics, some of his supporters either don't, or are unable to deal with the wrongs that they see without venom. That's no reason to tar Corbyn with the same brush as the outwardly toxic tories.

 

[Simbo]

My parents, 3 of my friends and my Mrs all do not think the referendum has been respected, and especially by Parties actively campaigning on reversing their vote and, regardless of my voting direction, I tend to agree with them on certain points. I have been on the losing side on a few general elections and it is a part of being a democracy. Yes, you can change your mind in a democracy but not straight away surely? Not before the vote has even been implemented? It is this side of the remain argument I don't like and don't get

Well an MP is not likely to ever change their stance on an issue because they lost a vote on it, they will continue to support the course of action they believe is right, that's just democracy in action. Its one of the reasons a country shouldn't try and push through something so extremely risky as Brexit on what is essentially a 50/50 split. Most other countries would require a super-majority, 60% or two-thirds, on any fundamental changes to avoid the chaos we are going through right now.

We are at a point where the government isn't even trying to implement the result of the referendum, but the interpretation of a minority. That is why the opposition is so strong right now, that is why the ruling government is colapsing before us and currently has a disfunctional majoity of -43 MPs.

I'm in the same boat with my parents, sister, step-bro, etc. I tend to disagree with them on everything however :/

 

[finneh]

Ok so let’s use an example from what you say you favour. Let’s say we have that small libertarian government. Which doesn’t have food or agricultural standards agencies. So Jim finds he can buy some REALLY cheap food/animals/seeds in another country. Which he proceeds to do and sells loads of it back home, because hey who doesn’t like cheap stuff? Except Jim has just brought in products that carries diseases that then contaminate the local agriculture system and population, leading to devastating results.

How exactly do we prevent this kind of event under your preferred system?

A night Watchman state has the role of preventing damage to property or violence against people, whilst enforcing private contracts. If Jim if looking to cause harm he'd be arrested the same as if a mass murderer were planning an attack.

However it is not in Jim's interest to destroy his business by purchasing said dangerous goods. Likewise it's not in the interests of the customer to buy from Jim as a clearly negligent businessman. They would buy from Tesco who would naturally regulate their supply chain and be "cheaper" when balancing a few quid against the risk.

The contamination of private land would be an issue for the private land owners to take against Jim. Sensible land owners would have insurance against damage by the likes of Jim that would be paid out to remedy the damage.

If someone knocked on your door and asked of you wanted to buy several pounds of beef for £2 would you jump at the chance, or would you stick to Tesco?

Again though there are dozens of economists far more learned than myself who've explained how this kind of system would work in far greater depth. Even if you disagree they're worth a read (or YouTube - Milton Friedman is a good start)

Edit: also this is incorrectly assuming the system has to be perfect. Look at the damage central governments have inflicted across the world.

 

[Flying high]

A night Watchman state has the role of preventing damage to property or violence against people, whilst enforcing private contracts. If Jim if looking to cause harm he'd be arrested the same as if a mass murderer were planning an attack.

However it is not in Jim's interest to destroy his business by purchasing said dangerous goods. Likewise it's not in the interests of the customer to buy from Jim as a clearly negligent businessman. They would buy from Tesco who would naturally regulate their supply chain and be "cheaper" when balancing a few quid against the risk.

The contamination of private land would be an issue for the private land owners to take against Jim. Sensible land owners would have insurance against damage by the likes of Jim that would be paid out to remedy the damage.

If someone knocked on your door and asked of you wanted to buy several pounds of beef for £2 would you jump at the chance, or would you stick to Tesco?

Again though there are dozens of economists far more learned than myself who've explained how this kind of system would work in far greater depth. Even if you disagree they're worth a read (or YouTube - Milton Friedman is a good start)

How about if Jim's business employs 1000s of people and because what he is doing is only 'mildly' damaging to health, Jim is let off with a big(but not crippling) fine? Do you not then outlaw the practice in which Jim was partaking to prevent future health risks and litigation?

 

[Kentonio]

A night Watchman state has the role of preventing damage to property or violence against people, whilst enforcing private contracts. If Jim if looking to cause harm he'd be arrested the same as if a mass murderer were planning an attack.

However it is not in Jim's interest to destroy his business by purchasing said dangerous goods. Likewise it's not in the interests of the customer to buy from Jim as a clearly negligent businessman. They would buy from Tesco who would naturally regulate their supply chain and be "cheaper" when balancing a few quid against the risk.

The contamination of private land would be an issue for the private land owners to take against Jim. Sensible land owners would have insurance against damage by the likes of Jim that would be paid out to remedy the damage.

If someone knocked on your door and asked of you wanted to buy several pounds of beef for £2 would you jump at the chance, or would you stick to Tesco?

Again though there are dozens of economists far more learned than myself who've explained how this kind of system would work in far greater depth. Even if you disagree they're worth a read (or YouTube - Milton Friedman is a good start)

Edit: also this is incorrectly assuming the system has to be perfect. Look at the damage central governments have inflicted across the world.

The reason we have those agencies in real life is because the system falls down without them. In this case you can also replace Jim with Tescos. If someone brings in contamination, you don’t always know where that came from. The buyer doesn’t generally know they’re buying unsafe produce. Unless you have people checking this stuff in the national interest it will happen quite accidentally and frightfully often. In the past there was a lot less international trade and yet there are countless examples of it happening. Now when produce can come from anywhere in the world it would be dramatically worse.

Did you know for instance that wine from France/Italy isn’t grown from purely French/Italian vines? Because after American vines were imported they brought a disease that almost wiped out European vines. Now they have to splice US and European vines to allow them to disease this imported disease.

It’s frighteningly easy to wipe out entire sectors of agriculture, and that’s without even touching on all the other industries that can be effected by dodgy import standards. Toxic toys, lead paints, etc etc etc. The government are the ones who protect us from this stuff, not some corporation who care pretty much only about their bottom line.

 

[DavidDeSchmikes]

 

[finneh]

How about if Jim's business employs 1000s of people and because what he is doing is only 'mildly' damaging to health, Jim is let off with a big(but not crippling) fine? Do you not then outlaw the practice in which Jim was partaking to prevent future health risks and litigation?

Jim would receive no fine, as his customers are buying his goods despite them being of inferior quality. I'm assuming by mildly damaging you mean like alcohol or cannabis is mildly damaging?

On balance customers prefer the cheap but mildly damaging food over the far more expensive rival food.

At the same time Jim's biggest competitor Bob has found a cheaper way to offer the better quality food due to innovations in technology. Over the next few years Jim goes out of business as his mildly damaging produce is not selling due to the non-damaging but now only slightly more expensive superior alternative.

 

[RedSky]

This made me smile.



Guy is a complete tool. I've no idea why the BBC think he is in any qualified to be talking on political matters.

Love the ending.

 

[finneh]

The government are the ones who protect us from this stuff, not some corporation who care pretty much only about their bottom line.

More often than not the government do the very opposite. The result of protectionism is deaths all around the third world due to the cartel of wealth hoarding via government policy. They're actively promoting the deaths of poor people and we defend them as we've eaten the propaganda that their deaths are in our best interests. The same kind of propaganda used when defending how much worse off we'd all be with the abolition of slavery.

Last year as a random point there were over 26,000 deaths or serious injuries in road traffic accidents. Could you imagine a private company responsible for that level of chaos and death? They'd have gone out of business decades ago. Private industry will circumvent the poor road system by safer autonomous vehicles but it was be hundreds of thousands of deaths too late.

Again I'm not saying the system I'm describing is perfect... But I struggle to see how it wouldn't be better from what I've read.

 

[Sweet Square]

Last year as a random poiny there were over 26,000 deaths or serious injuries in road traffic accidents. Could you imagine a private company responsible for that level of chaos and death? They'd have gone out of business decades ago. Private industry will circumvent the poor road system by safer autonomous vehicles but it was be hundreds of thousands of deaths too late..

Once again proving that dan the twitter horse is correct

Could you imagine a private company responsible for that level of chaos and death ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_slave_trade


Seriously whats your view on segregation ?

 

[Flying high]

Jim would receive no fine, as his customers are buying his goods despite them being of inferior quality. I'm assuming by mildly damaging you mean like alcohol or cannabis is mildly damaging?

On balance customers prefer the cheap but mildly damaging food over the far more expensive rival food.

At the same time Jim's biggest competitor Bob has found a cheaper way to offer the better quality food due to innovations in technology. Over the next few years Jim goes out of business as his mildly damaging produce is not selling due to the non-damaging but now only slightly more expensive superior alternative.

No I meant 'mildly' damaging as in it's really bad for you, but not in an obvious and immediate kind of way. Though your misinterpretation did enable you to neatly side-step the follow up question of where do the laws which you would enforce, come from. And what is the difference between a regulation derived from scientifically evidenced best practice and whatever laws you deem reasonable?

The bolded bit is confusing me, I have to say. If you mean: even many people who work in decent jobs are forced to choose the cheap(over-processed) food as their budget won't stretch to the proper food, then maybe they 'prefer' it to not being able to heat their homes. Or they would choose the cheaper food if money wasn't an issue. Either way, this statement is incorrect.

Why should every consumer of foodstuffs need to be an expert in the entire food chain in order to not eat contaminated/substandard food? Surely a system of regulation is much more efficient and beneficial to the health of any society?

 

[Flying high]

More often than not the government do the very opposite. The result of protectionism is deaths all around the third world due to the cartel of wealth hoarding via government policy. They're actively promoting the deaths of poor people and we defend them as we've eaten the propaganda that their deaths are in our best interests. The same kind of propaganda used when defending how much worse off we'd all be with the abolition of slavery.

Last year as a random point there were over 26,000 deaths or serious injuries in road traffic accidents. Could you imagine a private company responsible for that level of chaos and death? They'd have gone out of business decades ago. Private industry will circumvent the poor road system by safer autonomous vehicles but it was be hundreds of thousands of deaths too late.

Again I'm not saying the system I'm describing is perfect... But I struggle to see how it wouldn't be better from what I've read.

Protection through regulation is not the same as protectionism. And your 'more often than not' really needs a citation as it sounds very much like someone has made it up.

 

[finneh]

...

Protection through regulation is not the same as protectionism. And your 'more often than not' really needs a citation as it sounds very much like someone has made it up.

It depends.

Let's take London taxi drivers for example. Their jobs are at risk because they lobbied the government for lots of pointless regulation and fixed high pricing... In the short term this meant a somewhat unskilled job ended up with drivers that were paid more than their market value at the expense of the general public.

Uber came along and smashed that apart by bypassing the pointless protectionist regulations. They either now have to adapt or will dwindle in numbers.

I gave a couple of examples, but there are examples in most sectors, there are numerous books written about this. For example public Vs private roads as my previous example.

YouTube Milton Friedman as a good start if you're genuinely interested (regardless if you'll never agree).

 

[Fingeredmouse]

It depends.

Let's take London taxi drivers for example. Their jobs are at risk because they lobbied the government for lots of pointless regulation and fixed high pricing... In the short term this meant a somewhat unskilled job ended up with drivers that were paid more than their market value at the expense of the general public.

Uber came along and smashed that apart by bypassing the pointless protectionist regulations. They either now have to adapt or will dwindle in numbers.

I gave a couple of examples, but there are examples in most sectors, there are numerous books written about this. For example public Vs private roads as my previous example.

YouTube Milton Friedman as a good start if you're genuinely interested (regardless if you'll never agree).

Not the public vs private roads madness again.

 

[DOTA]

Uber came along and smashed that apart by bypassing the pointless protectionist regulations. They either now have to adapt or will dwindle in numbers.

I think bypassing the bit where they try to make money might have been relevant. They reported losses of something like 5bn in a quarter recently.

I do not need to hear any more Milton Friedman, nor Ayn Rand. You people are insane.

 

[Sweet Square]

This is the second time you've avoided put forward your views on segregation. Come on lets hear it.

 

[finneh]

This is the second time you've avoided put forward your views on segregation. Come on lets hear it.

Because it's a stupid question. Obviously forcing someone to do something against their will is by definition coercion and would be treated as such.

I think bypassing the bit where they try to make money might have been relevant. They reported losses of something like 5bn in a quarter recently.

Down to aggressive investment in autonomous vehicles I believe (rather than a failing business model).

 

[Flying high]

It depends.

Let's take London taxi drivers for example. Their jobs are at risk because they lobbied the government for lots of pointless regulation and fixed high pricing... In the short term this meant a somewhat unskilled job ended up with drivers that were paid more than their market value at the expense of the general public.

Uber came along and smashed that apart by bypassing the pointless protectionist regulations. They either now have to adapt or will dwindle in numbers.

I gave a couple of examples, but there are examples in most sectors, there are numerous books written about this. For example public Vs private roads as my previous example.

YouTube Milton Friedman as a good start if you're genuinely interested (regardless if you'll never agree).

I have watched far too many videos of Friedman. Let's just say I find his arguments have not stood the test of time.

I notice you haven't been addressing my questions. This one in particular seemed to get to the root of what was wrong with your earlier argument:

Why should every consumer of foodstuffs need to be an expert in the entire food chain in order to not eat contaminated/substandard food? Surely a system of regulation is much more efficient and beneficial to the health of any society?

As for Uber. Do you not see any downside with their business model? They have been fined repeatedly all over the world, and can only continue to undercut other operators due to the cutting of standards for workers and customers. Classic race to the bottom stuff.

 

[Abizzz]

Last year as a random point there were over 26,000 deaths or serious injuries in road traffic accidents. Could you imagine a private company responsible for that level of chaos and death? They'd have gone out of business decades ago.

Can't wait for cars, busses, trucks and bikes to finally be built by private companies. Will become much safer, i'm sure of it.

 

[Sweet Square]

Because it's a stupid question. Obviously forcing someone to do something against their will is by definition coercion and would be treated as such.

Of course its a stupid question but well...... your a libertarian, it needs to be asked. What happens if a local business man feels serving black people or gay people is against his will ?

 

[finneh]

What happens if a local business man feels serving black people is against his will ?

I think their business would fail very quickly so there would be no incentive for them to take that position. Businesses adopting this policy would be at a disadvantage against their competitors so would fail.

It'd be like saying what's my opinion on a theoretical example of Tesco's replacing all products on their shelves with only dog food. People would go to Asda instead and Tesco would quickly disappear.

What makes you believe this?

A business article that was linked from Reddit (sorry I can't find directly atm) was stating that their R&D costs are insanely high in pursuit of those technologies.

Anyway I'm signing out for the day as I've got stuff to do!