"Freedom" thread or something

timothy leary wrote: Quik is one of their oldest products.Powdered chocolate milk. I did not realize they were so big.

Ah, right - that must be what we know as Nesquik over here. I doubt that is a big seller anywhere, I expect they sell more Friskies cat biscuits than Nesquik.

I would just like to chime in to say I find Quik (the concept anyway) fairly gross. If I want milk, I will take it from a carton, not a can thank you very much. 

JJLehto wrote: OK this one I DO think is quite groudned in history. The theory isn't new, it was declared in the 1800s "when goods cant cross borders, armies will" and later by Woodrow Wilson who made free trade one of his 14 points for World Peace. As for real life: If you look at the history of open trade (NOT the days of empires) freely trading countries are far more peaceful with each other. They just are, how can you deny it? Look at European intergration slowly over time. Look at China willingly giving up its past aggressiveness and "warming" with neighbors like India, Russia even Japan. Yes, America has a very aggressive foreign policy, sadly, but thats our unique status and the remaining boner from the Cold War. Having a strong army itself doesn't mean you will have war at all. Opening new countries to trade always tend to bring about better times, and note Cuba who we still have closed off and its made no progress in the world. It may be an over simplification but its effective: When you are making $ and doing well you care less about hostility and differences. Again, look at the whole world and not the US.   I'd like to hear some counter examples, why will you not bother? Sorry if I've offended you in any way but I think I've been polite and kind, why not give me some counter examples?

I'm just mystified by why libertarianism is considered extreme. Geoff's argument runs "there are certain people who have the right to take my money, that I worked for and earned, by force. Why? Because they need it to do good works. Why can't I take people's money by force and use it to do good works? Because I am not one of these special people."

Whereas my argument runs "it is wrong to rob people who have done you no wrong, whatever your intentions may be."

Why is my position considered the more crazy?

horsewithteeth11 wrote: I would just like to chime in to say I find Quik (the concept anyway) fairly gross. If I want milk, I will take it from a carton, not a can thank you very much.  I am curious as to what would make you try the cat biscuits. Were you really drunk at the time or something?

Nail on the head, Horse.  Drunken college stupidity I'm afraid. 

Dean wrote: Epignosis wrote: Consumer power is a myth because there aren't sufficient number of people boycotting an expansive brand?  Retailers are not going to stock product that doesn't sell.  Unfortunately for those boycotting, people love their Quik. You are speaking a foreign language to me, what is a Quik? (apart from poor spelling)   Consumer power works when there are sufficient numbers of people boycotting every brand that a multinational corporation owns (Nestlé comprises of some 8,000 different brands... not product-lines, but brands). This is an impossible expectation, not in the number of consumers required, but in the diversity of the brands. I didn't know until this evening that Mövenpick was a Nestlé brand - not a problem today because I've never bought that brand of ice-cream, but tomorrow they could buy Ben & Jerry's (they already own Häagen Das) - as we boycott one brand they simply buy another or rebrand an existing one.

I believe most of you are missing the point.  Wanting the ability to single-handedly smash a company you don't like by not purchasing from them- that isn't how a market works.

Most people do not share your moral outrage with Nestle, and most people will not be able to tell you what products Nestle owns.  Should people not be allowed to support Nestle if they wish?

Think on it another way: Suppose your government gave a contract to Nestle for this or that.  That's your money going to Nestle whether you liked it or not.  Liberals never admit that big government is more responsible for crony capitalism than a free market could ever be.

Dean wrote: manofmystery wrote: manofmystery wrote: Regulations will only strengthen a company like this' stranglehold on the market. HarbouringTheSoul wrote: I think you're missing the point of the boycott. Equality 7-2521's aim is not to reduce the market share of Nestlé. It's to get them to comply to certain standards.   I believe it was Dean that was engaged in the boycott.  Regardless, the aim doesn't change my response.  Standards are higher in a competitive market than in one that has fallen victim to regulatory capture.  Regulations (including copyright and patent law) limit the amount of businesses that are fiscally able to compete with a company such as Nestle, for example.  This means that a company like Nestle only has to worry about meeting regulatory standards that they, through size and influence, often have helped write.  Regulations are always reactions to the last event so they are always behind the times in an ever changing market.  The only thing government action accomplishes is a corruption  of the market that insulates large companies from the need to adapt to ever changing competition and demands of said market (the market being all of us).  This is just the practical argument against government intervention.  There is also the idea that consumers should be free to make their own transactions because it is their natural right to. Yes it was me and yes you have missed the point by such a wide mark that you aren't even commenting on the same subject.

Edited by manofmystery - January 25 2013 at 00:18

dtguitarfan wrote: HarbouringTheSoul wrote: thellama73 wrote: I'm happy to pay for law enforcement. I'm happy to pay for courts to render decisions and carry them out. I don't see why that implies taxes. I would like to have the ability to decline to pay for these services if I don't want them. Law enforcement and jurisdiction aren't services. If you commit a crime, being arrested and dragged into court is hardly a service, much less a service you can decline in any way. If you were able to decline the "service" of law enforcement and jurisdiction, you could happily kill people and there would be no legal body that could do anything about it, because you didn't pay for its "services" and thus it has no power over you. THANK YOU.

That's not quite what Pat Logan (sorry - wrong-name-itus strikes again ) was getting at, nearly, but not quite. The people paying for the service would be the victims, intended victims and the potential victims, not the criminals (though fines, expenses and charges would apply once convicted, for example they would have to pay for their food and board while being locked-up and for the cops that arrested them etc.). This then is akin to insurance (or protection money) - if you don't pay for the services then you could not avail yourself of any law enforcement or judiciary, though you could in principle pursue a private investigation and prosecution (basically you'd have to hire a PI and then sue arse off the criminal once your gumshoe had solved the crime). Of course, just like insurance, if you do pay and never use the service then your money is "wasted". Also if you don't pay and your neighbour does then you and your home will become a target for every criminal in the vicinity. But you will have the ability to decline to pay if that's what you really want. This is all based on the premise that enough people want law enforcement sufficiently to fund a permanent system, if in a city of 200,000 only 2,000 household pay the "insurance" then the resulting police force is likely to be too small and under-funded to be of any practical use.

Edited by Dean - January 25 2013 at 08:14

Dean wrote: Epignosis wrote: Consumer power is a myth because there aren't sufficient number of people boycotting an expansive brand?  Retailers are not going to stock product that doesn't sell.  Unfortunately for those boycotting, people love their Quik. You are speaking a foreign language to me, what is a Quik? (apart from poor spelling)

Edited by Snow Dog - January 25 2013 at 07:18

^So it would be open season on the poor who would be unable to pay for police and court services.  Yeah, that seems fair.  "Once you violate someone's rights..." would only apply to those who could afford to enforce their rights, which brings me back to what I said a few pages back about anarcho-capitalism, justice and freedom to the highest bidder (or at least only to those who can afford to purchase it).