Skeptic Project

I'm not into "ultra free markets" or whatever that means. Let me make that clear.

What would poor people be able to do under the ultra free market that they can't do now to make money? They don't have to pay income tax, in fact they get a return on it

Well, other than a "ultra" free market, but more like a voluntary social contract association, I see them engaging in whatever services that satisfies their needs, and with no income tax with them working, unlike today, they have more to do with their money whether saving it or spending it. Plus, with people being allowed to be more responsible with a wide variety of things, who's to say they will still have a large number of poor people part of this social system?

It's hard to save for a rainy day when you're in the red every month, just for food and shelter.

This is where those who can step in to help, and where finance and charity services can help. Don't you think people can be responsible enough to provide these things too for those who are truly unfortunate?

So wait, the interest rates would be lower without government intervention? The government sets maximums on that. How does that even make sense?

My point with that is if people were allowed to be more responsible on their own, financial services would not just revolve around the Federal Reserve and where financing would be of a wider variety leading to competitiveness. This can include lending rates.

>> companies with the biggest market share

What?

You know, companies like Standard Oil and U.S. steel long ago

There was also a hell of a lot less automation as well.

So?

So, companies keeping bigger competitors from competing in their markets by using the government doesn't stifle monopolies, how exactly?

The point is it stifles the virtue of consumer choice/preferencing in market competition. In other words, it makes Government enforce how successful you can be even though people may have chosen you to be even more successful.

the literacy rate was higher

[citation needed]

Realize that there were no public school laws until the mid to late-1800s, and yet people learned to read and write from private schools, parents, in one-room school houses, etc. The literacy rate was high (close to 100%) and went on a little declined after compulsory public schooling laws came in the picture.

http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/chapters/3b.htm</p>

Private charities and churches didn't come remotely close to helping most people. The type of utter destitute that existed in the late 19th and early 20th century in America, especially prior to the labor movement shows exactly what government intervention into poverty can do.

The point isn't how much people were help then but that people were allowed to be responsible to provide such services on their own with the potential to see a number of them available increase.

Contract to be upheld by what court? To be enforced with what police? Who ever has the biggest stick will always be in control regardless of any gentleman's agreement.

Contract and stipulations upheld by those who are in agreement and are members of it. Check out the Social Meta Need theory to see the "meaty" details of how the order of it works.

And this would happen less with no government protection for individuals?

Can't people be responsible and mature enough to have their own protection services without a central government? If most people aren't, then government will still be the central provider dictating many things.

That's just wishful thinking that has no example of ever working in the real world, if you have an actual example I'd like to see it.

I take it you're not one of the millions of small business owners. Do you think without the government it'd be easier for you to get rich? You can make your own currency now if you want, backed by a timebank, why not? Why would it work better without the State?

Who says everyone has to be "rich" to live comfortably and form their own services? Moreover, he who is content is "rich" in his own mind.

We do have those things today. There are a lot of big corporations, but a lot of business is controlled by smaller companies. In fact with state intervetion into companies like walmart, you could guarentee there'd be more competition. Without the state, what would stop Walmart from just invading all areas and becoming the only store?

My point is there is no need for the corporatism structure today you see with a lot of big business and that the very corporations is a government creation. You know, the S Corps, C Corps, LLCs, etc. You missed my point of me already stating there being fundamental rules people who voluntary are part of a social contract revolving around Social Meta-Needs would know how to deal with violations like the one you listed with Walmart. Check out that theory to see more what I'm talking about. However, if individuals of a business are buying up extra property to increase their size and consumers are choosing them to be the most sought after, what's wrong with that?

So monopolies that arise from clever or brutal business are great, but monopolies of state power -- even when the people have control over that to an extent -- are bad.

Clever is fine, brutal implies harm. The difference is with state power/a political monopoly, competition isn't still open to consumer choice, but enforced and coerced by legal enforcers. People will just have say over who wants to do the legal enforcing and on what, but there will still be coercion rather than pursuation in the end. As for a company, consumers can preference against them. No company is holding a gun to ones head or enforcing a law for you to engage in their service. Morever, individuals who own these companies still will have to abide by the fundamental rules required for a social system to function when it comes to the Social Contract theory and the Social Meta Need theory.

What do you mean 'become responsible'? That just seems like a way to avoid talking about real issues, such as exploitation of workers, private tyranny, etc. You seem to describe a Bladerunner universe exists now due to government regulation, and somehow we'd all be better off if companies made the majority of decisions for us.

Being responsible meaning being accountable for your actions and utilizing your social preferences. What I'm saying is the more government pacify people due to them being irresponsible and immature in saving on their own, having insurance on their own, having charity on their own, having currency on their own, regulating on their own, and choosing things on their own, etc., people mostly will depend on government and the road to tyranny/institutionalized coercion on others grows little by little. In other words, the growth of government will be inevitable. I am not stating for a "privae tyranny" to be an answer.

If less government regulation lead to massive achievements, why did the US and other countries become economic power houses after more intervention? Why aren't countries with less government controls over the market, more powerful?

Citation needed. Also, did alcohol companies have massive achievements when the U.S. government banned alcohol sales in the 1920s? Did government intervention made companies like U.S. Steel and Standard Oil so successful to the point that the same government enforced them to be broken up? And thank goodness the computer and electronic industry as an example flourished without government intervention.

Also, when America and even other countries start booming many years ago,

I'd like an explanation as to how a private tyranny would be better than state tyranny, when the people have at least some control over the state.

I don't recall stating private tyranny being better than state tyranny. I stated self responsibility being an approach if people want to cure a lot of social ills and voluntary contract-associations revolving around the Social Meta Need theory being an alternative to State centralization, which can reap great benefits and a wide range of variety when it comes to commerce.

>> I'm not into "ultra free markets" or whatever that means. Let me make that clear.

I'm glad you made that clear, but I think you may know what it means. It's not an official term by any means, but if I say "free markets" alone, most people be confused and say "aren't already in a free market system?" By adding "ultra" or "super" people understand "oh, without regulation." I've tried saying "unregulated free markets" before, but then there was confusion with places like Hong Kong.

>> Well, other than a "ultra" free market, but more like a voluntary social contract association, I see them engaging in whatever services that satisfies their needs, and with no income tax with them working, unlike today, they have more to do with their money whether saving it or spending it.

Yes, but poor people don't need to pay income tax.

>> Plus, with people being allowed to be more responsible with a wide variety of things, who's to say they will still have a large number of poor people part of this social system?

The fact that we had even more poor people before income tax.

>> This is where those who can step in to help, and where finance and charity services can help. Don't you think people can be responsible enough to provide these things too for those who are truly unfortunate?

No, because they never could. Charities can barely help the homeless. They aren't just a blanket excuse you can use to avoid discusion, as charities have never been able to help as many people as governments, not even remotely close -- and charities that do help a lot of people get major backing from governments, such as International Red Cross.

>> My point with that is if people were allowed to be more responsible on their own, financial services would not just revolve around the Federal Reserve and where financing would be of a wider variety leading to competitiveness. This can include lending rates.

I don't disagree with you on this.

>> You know, companies like Standard Oil and U.S. steel long ago

But the government broke those up.

>> So?

So... why would a company that can automate all or nearly all tasks employee more people than they need to? The reason companies like Ford were able to hire so many more people is because of less automation, not in spite of it.

>> The point is it stifles the virtue of consumer choice/preferencing in market competition. In other words, it makes Government enforce how successful you can be even though people may have chosen you to be even more successful.

But then a single company could theoratically come to dominate the market, removing actual competition and then you have something worse than a state monopoly.

>> http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/chapters/3b.htm</p>

That's almost certainly due to a change and methodology. If you want it to be scientific, the test has to be the same, but I have a very strong feeling that it simply wasn't. These days anyone who can't read above about a 4th grade level is considered illiterate; 70 years ago, I imagine most people read at a 4th grade level, especially in rural areas.

Speaking on completely unscientific personal experience: testing has changed dramatically since I was in school 20 years ago -- they're much harder, and over the years I've noticed my children learning more difficult subjects earlier and earlier, including spelling; which may explain why my spelling is so terrible.

>> The point isn't how much people were help then but that people were allowed to be responsible to provide such services on their own with the potential to see a number of them available increase.

But really, in order to be responsible enough you need to make enough money, considering $5.50/hour a single person can't even live on without struggling a lot.

>> Contract and stipulations upheld by those who are in agreement and are members of it. Check out the Social Meta Need theory to see the "meaty" details of how the order of it works.

Please provide some links, I always hate googling new things like that because I end up with crazy people, and I'd like to know specifically where you're coming from.

>> Can't people be responsible and mature enough to have their own protection services without a central government? If most people aren't, then government will still be the central provider dictating many things.

So you're saying you'd rather have no police and turn your house into a bunker? If no one is there to stop crime, wishful thinking and being a responsible and mature person won't keep it from happening. With no social safety net, more people will go out and commit crimes in order to feed themselves or their families, and you're suggesting there be no way to stop it. I imagine that preaching against police is fine when you have no experience living in a bad neighborhood, but without police all of the things that make your neighborhood safe will go away.

>> Who says everyone has to be "rich" to live comfortably and form their own services? Moreover, he who is content is "rich" in his own mind.

I see what you're saying, but anyone who makes $40,000+ a year seems rich to me.

>> However, if individuals of a business are buying up extra property to increase their size and consumers are choosing them to be the most sought after, what's wrong with that?

Nothing, again, I think you need to really explain where you're coming from, I'm not familiar at all with "Social Meta Contracts"

>> The difference is with state power/a political monopoly, competition isn't still open to consumer choice, but enforced and coerced by legal enforcers.

Instead private enforcers are better? At least I can vote on sheriff. Again, I can't change a private company, but with the state I can, as well as work within it if I run for office. I can't run for CEO.

>> People will just have say over who wants to do the legal enforcing and on what, but there will still be coercion rather than pursuation in the end.

Why is that something desirable at all? At least I can vote for sheriff.

>> As for a company, consumers can preference against them.

Not if they become the only company in a given area, as you already said, if that happens that shows the company is successful.

>> No company is holding a gun to ones head or enforcing a law for you to engage in their service.

That may be true, but a company with a private security force and no state protection can easily drive out competitors with force -- the same way drug cartels do, and people keep consuming drugs.

>> Morever, individuals who own these companies still will have to abide by the fundamental rules required for a social system to function when it comes to the Social Contract theory and the Social Meta Need theory.

To be enforced by whom, though? To me it sounds like you're suggesting they will just because.

>> Being responsible meaning being accountable for your actions and utilizing your social preferences. What I'm saying is the more government pacify people due to them being irresponsible and immature in saving on their own, having insurance on their own, having charity on their own, having currency on their own, regulating on their own, and choosing things on their own, etc., people mostly will depend on government and the road to tyranny/institutionalized coercion on others grows little by little. In other words, the growth of government will be inevitable. I am not stating for a "privae tyranny" to be an answer.

So, you're taking the position that most people are only poor because they put themselves in a position to be poor?

>> Citation needed.

US: http://www.data360.org/graph_group.aspx?Graph_Group_Id=149 only goes back as far as 1947, and most sources I could find don't go back very far, but it does show GDP growing with size of government, though they aren't necessarily beneficial to each other, the USSR being a great example. Some better charts exist, but so far as I've seen you have to pay for them.

>> Also, did alcohol companies have massive achievements when the U.S. government banned alcohol sales in the 1920s?

Did alcohol companies have massive achievements after being unbanned and heavily regulated by the US government?

>> Did government intervention made companies like U.S. Steel and Standard Oil so successful to the point that the same government enforced them to be broken up?

Did they?

>> And thank goodness the computer and electronic industry as an example flourished without government intervention.

Actually, the computer and internet industries were created by government and have been pushed by government heavily. The iPhone may be a great example of what consumer choice can do, but much of the ideas behind and things it uses such as the microprocessor, TCP/IP, etc wouldn't exist without government -- either the government created these things in its own labs or funded companies with millions (or billions) of dollars to create or expand them. If we left it up to consumer choice alone, we wouldn't have personal computers or the Internet; computers would just still be large things only used by companies able to spend millions of dollars.

Computers might have taken off some, but the original computers were built solely for government, and without government even the mainframes and reel-to-reel monsters that were at my college would have not existed, as consumers had no reason for them to. I imagine that advanced calculators and so forth would have emerged, but why consumers need to make them more powerful and do more important things if they don't have large simulations on nuclear war to run, if they don't need to calculate ICBM trajectories, or regular missiles for that matter.

Cool stuff like the iPhone sure, you can talk about consumers, but computers and the internet in general, no way can free markets take credit for creating that, even though I heard Glenn Beck say it on TV.

>> Also, when America and even other countries start booming many years ago,

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're saying.

>> I don't recall stating private tyranny being better than state tyranny.

You didn't say that, but when you suggest there be no state and that companies and individuals should hire their own security forces, then you're suggesting just that. On top of all of the problems the poor have to worry about now, they also need to worry about buying their own protection service as well.

>> I stated self responsibility being an approach if people want to cure a lot of social ills and voluntary contract-associations revolving around the Social Meta Need theory being an alternative to State centralization, which can reap great benefits and a wide range of variety when it comes to commerce.

But I've seen no real world example of this, so I can't really trust it anymore than The Venus Project.

I think we agree on a lot of things, I think, though there's some confusion (especially from my side) about what exactly we're talking about here, what kind of system should be in place, how society should be organized. To me it sounds like you're talking about anarcho-capitalism, but if you're not, I'd be interested for you to clarify beyond "social contract theory."

Here is the structural problem with ultra-free markets.

First and foremost, ultra-free markets are incapable of stopping monopolistic behaviors and corporatism. We can easily look back to the late 19th and early 20th century to see how an unregulated market can easily fall prey to the powers of large corporate behaviors. We must ask ourselves what would exist within a truly free-market to stop this kind of development. It was not until the first Roosevelt administration that we saw many of the monopolies and trusts break apart, and likewise for workers' conditions improve. This is a historical fact any supporter of an ultra-Free market would have to account for.

Now, corporations are first and foremost legal persons with a structural motive to accrue profits. I don't think anyone here can deny this fact. A corporation only has the incentives to act when its profits can be increased. Indeed, the first responsibility of a corporation is not to the consumer, but rather to the shareholder. The corporation is beholden to extracting money from the market for the benefit of the shareholders and not necessarily to providing anything to the community. Consider the actions by BP that lead to the Deepwater Horizon disaster. These accidents are not the direct result of a few immoral people, but the result of the various pressured that lead corporations to cut corners to save money and make profits. And BP is not the only example. If we look back to 2008 and even further, we find that corporations are constantly found to have done very dubious things in an effort to achieve profit gains. Again, I believe this is a result of the structure of the corporation and not the individual people in charge. Many corporate executives may be decent people, but the whole system pushes the corporation, as a legal entity, to make bad decisions.

There are no adequate control mechanisms that the public can use over a corporation without a public sphere or government. The corporation is not directly influenced by the consumer, and this is less so the case in a monopolistic situation. Meat packers in the early 20th century didn't care about the quality of food they were providing to people, and often cheated the products. Now, the consumer, had no knowledge of what was in their food much less an idea as to how to get a company to stop cheating them. The only way to be involved in the decisions of a corporation is to be on the board or have a majority share. But then you'd be more concerned with profits than truly responsible behavior.

In a free market one would have to seriously wonder how the structural pressures of constant profit searching would be overcome in an effort to protect the consumer. This was not the historical outcomes of the "free market" (which were never truly free, by the way) and contemporary examples show us that, with less government regulation, these pressures would become more prevalent.

I'm glad you made that clear, but I think you may know what it means. It's not an official term by any means, but if I say "free markets" alone, most people be confused and say "aren't already in a free market system?" By adding "ultra" or "super" people understand "oh, without regulation." I've tried saying "unregulated free markets" before, but then there was confusion with places like Hong Kong.

Well, whatever one label it as, commerce will still be grounded in some sort of fundamental rules for order. However, these fundamental rules are what responsible people can voluntary agree on contractually on their own without the need of some geo-political central enforcers.

Yes, but poor people don't need to pay income tax.

A good number of them also have jobs, so they also pay income taxes.

The fact that we had even more poor people before income tax.

Yet, due to private investors growing the markets, the number has declined, and income is rising. The numbers may even be higher in wealth if income taxes weren’t in the picture and if more people become responsible in forming more finance and currency tools.

No, because they never could. Charities can barely help the homeless. They aren't just a blanket excuse you can use to avoid discusion, as charities have never been able to help as many people as governments, not even remotely close -- and charities that do help a lot of people get major backing from governments, such as International Red Cross.

The idea is charities are an option to help people, not that they will be able to help every poor person or homeless person. There is no 100% ideal. In addition, I also mentioned where people can be responsible enough to provide different type of finance services, newer markets, etc., which can include helping them obtain income. But if majority people don’t want to allow that chance or take on that responsibility and think Governments alone are able to do so, then the available action for that to occur will be quite low.

> My point with that is if people were allowed to be more responsible on their own, financial services would not just revolve around the Federal Reserve and where financing would be of a wider variety leading to competitiveness. This can include lending rates.
I don't disagree with you on this.

Great

>> You know, companies like Standard Oil and U.S. steel long ago
But the government broke those up.
>> So?
So... why would a company that can automate all or nearly all tasks employee more people than they need to? The reason companies like Ford were able to hire so many more people is because of less automation, not in spite of it.</blockq uote>Huh? Why the emphasis on automation when that is not the issue I raised? The point here was America was beginning to see some companies have massive achievements as far as market share and jobs before Government intervention.

>> The point is it stifles the virtue of consumer choice/preferencing in market competition. In other words, it makes Government enforce how successful you can be even though people may have chosen you to be even more successful.
But then a single company could theoratically come to dominate the market, removing actual competition and then you have something worse than a state monopoly.

If it is through consumers choosing them to dominate, I see no problem with this because that also implicates they are providing something in great supply at an affordable price. Moreover, this occurs a lot when someone brings something new to a market that everyone likes and they dominate the market for a period of time. For instance, when Sony introduced the first affordable, commercial videocassette player called U-matic, it dominated this market and was like a monopoly for some years. Then eventually, competition from other companies like JVC and Phillips started to kick in to where Sony eventually was no longer the dominate force. So you see, having an efficient monopoly does not guarantee you will always be on top once open competition is available.

>> http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/chapters/3b.htm<br /> That's almost certainly due to a change and methodology. If you want it to be scientific, the test has to be the same, but I have a very strong feeling that it simply wasn't. These days anyone who can't read above about a 4th grade level is considered illiterate; 70 years ago, I imagine most people read at a 4th grade level, especially in rural areas.
Speaking on completely unscientific personal experience: testing has changed dramatically since I was in school 20 years ago -- they're much harder, and over the years I've noticed my children learning more difficult subjects earlier and earlier, including spelling; which may explain why my spelling is so terrible.

Well, it is hard to say which level they were reading at the time, but the key thing here was that private schools were already universal in places like the U.S. and England and where the literacy rate was already high, and books and newspaper sales were doing well, which shows people being responsible on their own to provide schools and teaching can work.
>blockquote>>> The point isn't how much people were help then but that people were allowed to be responsible to provide such services on their own with the potential to see a number of them available increase.
But really, in order to be responsible enough you need to make enough money, considering $5.50/hour a single person can't even live on without struggling a lot.

Depends on which era they were making $5.50/hr. But once again this goes back to the point you agreed with that if people were allowed to be more responsible on their own, financial services would not just revolve around the Federal Reserve and there would be more availability of competitive lending rates and finance tools to help the needy.

>> Contract and stipulations upheld by those who are in agreement and are members of it. Check out the Social Meta Need theory to see the "meaty" details of how the order of it works.
Please provide some links, I always hate googling new things like that because I end up with crazy people, and I'd like to know specifically where you're coming from.

http://selfsip.org/fundamentals/socialmetaneeds.html</p>

>> Can't people be responsible and mature enough to have their own protection services without a central government? If most people aren't, then government will still be the central provider dictating many things.
So you're saying you'd rather have no police and turn your house into a bunker? If no one is there to stop crime, wishful thinking and being a responsible and mature person won't keep it from happening. With no social safety net, more people will go out and commit crimes in order to feed themselves or their families, and you're suggesting there be no way to stop it. I imagine that preaching against police is fine when you have no experience living in a bad neighborhood, but without police all of the things that make your neighborhood safe will go away.

No, I am saying police and security services can still be provided for members of a society done through voluntary contract associations and these same services will be grounded in the fundamental rules needed for order.

>> Who says everyone has to be "rich" to live comfortably and form their own services? Moreover, he who is content is "rich" in his own mind.
I see what you're saying, but anyone who makes $40,000+ a year seems rich to me.

Even $20,000/yr can be comfortable depending on the currency, inflation rate, and competitiveness of different markets.

>> However, if individuals of a business are buying up extra property to increase their size and consumers are choosing them to be the most sought after, what's wrong with that?
Nothing, again, I think you need to really explain where you're coming from, I'm not familiar at all with "Social Meta Contracts"

I provided the link above.

>> The difference is with state power/a political monopoly, competition isn't still open to consumer choice, but enforced and coerced by legal enforcers.
Instead private enforcers are better? At least I can vote on sheriff. Again, I can't change a private company, but with the state I can, as well as work within it if I run for office. I can't run for CEO.

I did not say they will be private enforcers. I said you can have preferences for companies you want to be part of or even start yourself which would still be part of the fundamental rules of the social contract both you and others chose to be part of.

>> People will just have say over who wants to do the legal enforcing and on what, but there will still be coercion rather than pursuation in the end.
Why is that something desirable at all? At least I can vote for sheriff.

Why not just choose a security service with a proven track record for yourself?

>> As for a company, consumers can preference against them.
Not if they become the only company in a given area, as you already said, if that happens that shows the company is successful.

”If” is the key word. And even if they are there is still available action for you or others to compete against them with no law enforcing them to be the exclusive provider.

>> No company is holding a gun to ones head or enforcing a law for you to engage in their service.
That may be true, but a company with a private security force and no state protection can easily drive out competitors with force -- the same way drug cartels do, and people keep consuming drugs.

Remember, these companies still will have to follow not violating others that are part of social contract with you. And I see it where it will be mostly mature and responsible people being part of such voluntary contract associations. I don’t see it where it will be a bunch of immature hooligans being part of such contract fighting for territory like what drug cartels do if such contracts are against such acts.

>> Morever, individuals who own these companies still will have to abide by the fundamental rules required for a social system to function when it comes to the Social Contract theory and the Social Meta Need theory.
To be enforced by whom, though? To me it sounds like you're suggesting they will just because.

Automatically enforced by members who are part of the contract. It will work once a great number of mature and responsbile people are part of it with many of the needed services you see in society. But I think once you read a model of the contract in that link I posted, you will get a clearer explanation.

So, you're taking the position that most people are only poor because they put themselves in a position to be poor?

No but some do, and some even abuse the need for handouts. Never the less, if society becomes more transparent with feedbacks and character reputation, this would help social preferencing in who truly need help.
>> Citation needed.

US: http://www.data360.org/graph_group.aspx?Graph_Group_Id=149 only goes back as far as 1947, and most sources I could find don't go back very far, but it does show GDP growing with size of government, though they aren't necessarily beneficial to each other, the USSR being a great example. Some better charts exist, but so far as I've seen you have to pay for them.

I don’t see how I can tell if government intervention is responsible for majority of the GDP. Also, I would of like to see the GDP in correlation to inflation before the 1930s up to close to the modern date.

Did alcohol companies have massive achievements after being unbanned and heavily regulated by the US government?

Yep, the Rolling Rocks, and the Captain Morgans are examples.

>> Did government intervention made companies like U.S. Steel and Standard Oil so successful to the point that the same government enforced them to be broken up?
Did they?

Nope, they became successful on their own but the government indeed broke them up.
>> And thank goodness the computer and electronic industry as an example flourished without government intervention.

Actually, the computer and internet industries were created by government and have been pushed by government heavily.

Actually the computer was created in various forms by private people like Charles Babbage that created it, and governments financed projects to advance it more thereafter. However, it was private investors who made it affordable for consumers. The Government through DARPA may have invented the origins of the internet (it would of still been invented without them most likely), but once again it was private investors who advanced it and made it affordable for consumers.

>> Also, when America and even other countries start booming many years ago,
I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're saying.

Oops, ignore that statement it was something I forgot to delete.

>> I don't recall stating private tyranny being better than state tyranny.
You didn't say that, but when you suggest there be no state and that companies and individuals should hire their own security forces, then you're suggesting just that. On top of all of the problems the poor have to worry about now, they also need to worry about buying their own protection service as well.

No, I’m saying people can have voluntary contract associations that revolves around Social Meta-Needs and that security services are things people can be responsible to provide. Even though it could have some poor people I don’t thin it would be as much as today due to the potential for a wide range of options for many things. But with transparency, I see this even regulating behavior where security forces won’t be needed to relied on heavily.

>> I stated self responsibility being an approach if people want to cure a lot of social ills and voluntary contract-associations revolving around the Social Meta Need theory being an alternative to State centralization, which can reap great benefits and a wide range of variety when it comes to commerce.
But I've seen no real world example of this, so I can't really trust it anymore than The Venus Project.

It has been in the real world to an extent for instance people having contracts with companies or individuals to perform a job or service and constitutions (despite some drawbacks).

I think we agree on a lot of things, I think, though there's some confusion (especially from my side) about what exactly we're talking about here, what kind of system should be in place, how society should be organized. To me it sounds like you're talking about anarcho-capitalism, but if you're not, I'd be interested for you to clarify beyond "social contract theory."

Yes, we agree on a lot of things, I think the confusion is just what the Social Meta Need theory is and how a contract for it will be stipulated which you can check in that link.

@Un-Ed-Ucated...If a company dominating a market jack up the prices they only risk consumers preferencing against them in a major way where a competitor will eventually slip in with a better price and be the one consumers will rather have.

Matt the Liberal Wonk wrote:

Paultard detected.

Alton already stated that he felt it was perfectly okay to use hyperbole to make his points. It isn't about truth or accuracy, it is about defending his dogma. Maybe its Paultard dogma. Maybe its Austrian school of economics dogma. Maybe its Randroid dogma. All the same crapola in my book.

Don't expect any intellectual honesty any more than you would from a Zeitgeister or a Fundie Christian. Its all just fringe weirdo stuff from people who think they have stumbled upon magical secrets of life via the Intarwebz.

If a company dominating a market jack up the prices they only risk consumers preferencing against them in a major way where a competitor will eventually slip in with a better price and be the one consumers will rather have.

@ Alton you are not considering marketing and customer loyalty, also aesthetics/design and quality.

Consumers dont buy things just based on price, there is a lot more to purchasing power than that.

Here is a wiki page that lists Title 15 of United States Codes against monopolies. This is a very good example of what government regulation should do. I still don't see why you think the government can create any monopolies when there is an entire legal body designed to stop anti-competitive behavior. Furthermore, we can see that these laws emerged from the problems that plagued the country in the early 20th century when monopolies not only dominated, but often hurt the consumer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_15_of_the_United_States_Code

Nevermind the fact that corporations behave irresponsibly. Again, you would have to deal with the fact that people DON'T always pick whats best for them, as highlighted in my second post, and the fact that corporations INHERENTLY betray consumers due to complex pressures. Standard Oil and U.S. Steel were far from good companies, and their interactions were fraught with problems.

The Dutch East India Company is a completely different issue altogether and would need a recounting of the fact that the Netherlands was NOTHING like the United States in terms of its government-corporate relationship. The book "the Familial State" highlights this very well. Also consider that FedEx and UPS are both viable alternatives to the U.S. Postal service and thus not a monopoly. There are no laws saying government options are the only options. Indeed, of your examples, only the Postal Service comes close, and thats because there is a direct constitutional clause for this (Article I, Section 8, Clause 7 of the United States Constitution). Saudi Aramco also emerges from completely separate cultural-political environment than the United States. Your examples are so scattered and factually limited that they really don't prove anything.

I'd ask for an adequate rebuttal to my first and second posts. You haven't provided any convincing arguments on the question of why monopolies are good, or what monopolies are in terms of government "enforcement"

Un-Ed-ucated wrote:

Nevermind the fact that corporations behave irresponsibly. Again, you would have to deal with the fact that people DON'T always pick whats best for them, as highlighted in my second post, and the fact that corporations INHERENTLY betray consumers due to complex pressures. Standard Oil and U.S. Steel were far from good companies, and their interactions were fraught with problems.

The issue here is not about companies being holy, without faults (remember, they can be sued), or provide the best quality product all the time. It is that nothing is harmful in individuals networking to form a company, merging with other companies, and consumers happening to have preferences towards them to the point these companies have large market shares or dominate a specific industry. Whether an individual choose a product you may think is not good, is problematic or is all hype, etc., each person will still have their own preference for what is available out there and no one is forced to buy anything or forced not to try to compete.

The Dutch East India Company is a completely different issue altogether and would need a recounting of the fact that the Netherlands was NOTHING like the United States in terms of its government-corporate relationship. The book "the Familial State" highlights this very well. Also consider that FedEx and UPS are both viable alternatives to the U.S. Postal service and thus not a monopoly. There are no laws saying government options are the only options. Indeed, of your examples, only the Postal Service comes close, and thats because there is a direct constitutional clause for this (Article I, Section 8, Clause 7 of the United States Constitution). Saudi Aramco also emerges from completely separate cultural-political environment than the United States. Your examples are so scattered and factually limited that they really don't prove anything.

The issue here is not about whether the Government, culture, and corporate structure of the Netherlands is identical to the United States, but that the government of the Netherlands DID grant the Dutch East India Company to be the sole charter company of the country, which would be a classic example of a Government granted monopoly. The same thing goes for Saudi Aramco. You're making it seem that because another country government and culture is different that even if the government grant a monopoly there it is excused because it is not like the United States culture and government. Does not work like that sir. The bottom line is no matter the culture, nation or type of government, if the government grants a group/company to be the sole provider of something, it is a political monopoly.

As for FedEx and UPs, thanks to some loopholes, companies were still able to emerge to compete against the U.S. Postal Service. However, to this day, the U.S. postal service has full monopoly rights over first-class (letters) and third-class (“junk”) mail. Moreover, it is illegal for Fedex and UPS to deliver stuff to your home mail box. Awesome isn't it? This is a classic example of government option being the only option.

This is characteristic of the over-simplified economics that plague ultra-free market thinkers. Do we know that people thought about the quality of VHS between these companies in depth? This is part of the model problems i highlighted earlier. Furthermore, there would have been a distinct breach of the Sherman Anti-trust law HAD sony been allowed to keep VHS technology private and bar competitors.

There is no way they could of barred companies from developing their video cassette technology once it goes public unless they use what? Ding, ding, ding. The federal government (if the government were to grant them such authority)! Plus, Sony was not even responsible for VHS. Their technology was the U-matic then the Betamax. There is no oversimplification here, just facts of achievements that occurred through history in markets where government weren't in the picture intervening unless there was fraud or physical harm.

I'm not sure how this supports your argument considering that one of the governments key roles has been in allowing companys to enter markets by preventing unfair business practices. Do you think that without the title 15 laws, Sony would have allowed other companies to compete with them? Certainly Standard Oil didn't- they were notorious for gouging prices where there wasn't competition, and easing up where there was. This is what got them in serious trouble.

How Sony could of barred competition once their technology goes public? People would of easily just see what they have under the box and emulate what they were developing or choose to have partnerships with them. Besides, JVC and others already were starting to compete with Sony's Umatic and Betamax systems with the VHS format. Same thing goes for Standard Oil too. Despite them having a large market share and acquiring competitors, you still had competitors out there like Gladys Oil, and Corsicana Oil Development Company.

You are skipping the entire fact that there was no Dutch government the way you envision it. The Dutch East India company was granted a charter by the federation of Dutch states (there was not really a unified Netherlands the way there was a unified France or England that this time) because powerful families operated the DEC as well as were powerful members of the government at large. Again, the way you envision the "allowance" of a Dutch East India company by the government is flawed from a cultural-historical perspective. It absolutely works like that. The DEC was actually one of the most powerful forces in Dutch politics and was even the dominate actor in the confederated states. Yes, there is a distinct difference in the way this works. In the United States, corporations are not the government, nor do we find it acceptable for corporations to have free reign over the government (and exactly why we bitch about lobbyists) whereas the Dutch had no issue with this. The dominant paradigm was a state ruled by powerful families, including the families that ran the Dutch East India company. Furthermore, there was no separation of state and economy in the Netherlands in the way the English had at this point. So to say the "granted a monopoly" is highly disingenuous because it was, in no way, operatively seen as the same for the Dutch. It was more a step in strengthening the state as a whole. Indeed, Dutch power during the Dutch Gold Age DEPENDED upon this move. I find it troubling that you are unwilling to see that the power-structure in these cases is dramatically different and thus critical to the argument.

Dutch states are still governments dude. Even from angle of dutch states forming a federation, the DEC was still granted this privilege. Moreover, it was actually the States general that granted the DEC this privilege. I am not arguing against the fact the the way these governments were structured were different, but the fact that DEC was granted this monopoly right did exist from state power(s). Also, I did not say anything about corporations in the United States being the government. However, the structure of corporations are government sanctioned legal entities in the U.S.

only as long as there is legal constraint on companies and a regulation from which to sue them. This is exactly the argument I am making; we require the public entity to serve as the arbiter of contracts between the public and corporations. A truly free market would have no such constraints and thus no basis on which to sue (and here I am assuming that the government is still allowed to exist). That is my entire problem with an ultra-free market. The pressures placed upon corporations make them very poor to be the dominate power in society without government regulation. That's my entire point. Their poor behavior should immediately caution us to allowing them to have free reign over any sort of social interaction.

It is not about ultra free markets I'm arguing here, but about people learning how to be responsible and to be self regulating. Also, when Governments were much smaller in the U.S. and some other places, there weren't intervening in a lot of industries (except for looking for theft and harm) and there were massive achievements with companies with this low level of government intervention. Moreover, if people choose to be responsible, they can form their own legal framework in settling disputes and having order in markets. In other words, self-regulating. But if majority don't choose this responsible path, then a central authority WILL exist or remain to exist to do it for them.

Yes, because the government doesnt make a difference. Lets just overlook that authoritarian regimes restrict free enterprise or the various faults companies have led themselves into in the name of progress. This is rank and file Libertarian argumentation "the free market has given us the greatest progress in human history" but then we have problems like companies who used Benzyene which turns out to be the most carcenogenic molecule we know of. Or lead in paint, or asbestos, or contributing to pollution in unheard of levels. Progress at what costs? Indeed, it is the governments job to look at what is in the products we are sold and see if they are safe or not. And when they fail, they are directly responsible to the United States people. I think you, yourself, have already admitted to the very point I am arguing- government regulation is absolutely necessary.

I agree that transparency is important with the products we consume. This is why I brought up the Social Meta-Need theory earlier that social contracts can revolve around and transparency/non-anonymity is one of these needs. Also, yes, companies can contain bad things in their product that can harm you where you or your heirs can charge them for such violation. Moreover, this is where individuals should preference against companies who don't list what their products contain for them to assess if the quality of the product is safe. But the point here is, such things can still be self regulating by people without the need of some central government authority.

Those companies comprised less than 15% of oil shares at the time of Standard Oil (see the Wiki article's sources for good places to verify this figure). Furthermore, Standard Oil was sued, in part, because where there was competition, they had low prices- but for places where there was no competition, Standard Oil engaged in price gouging. Had the government not broken up Standard oil, how long do you think these competitors could have withstood controlling less than 15% of market shares with Standard oil competing with them directly?

Bottomline is there were still competition out there and the potential to have more regardless of the price Standard Oil charged. In addition, Standard Oil was beginning to lose market share despite them gauging their prices elsewhere because their kerosene product was beginning to get competition from another popular product today known as gasoline. Though Standard Oil became a dominant company, increased efficiency and augmented profits, the entrance of competition after the expansion of the market was still inevitable.

" Also, I did not say anything about corporations in the United States being the government. However, the structure of corporations are government sanctioned legal entities in the U.S."

That was not the point I was making, and to adequately explain this we'd have to revisit a century of Dutch History. The power dynamics and interrelation between corporation and state in the Netherlands were vastly different and thus not a valid comparison to the issues at hand.

" Moreover, if people choose to be responsible, they can form their own legal framework in settling disputes and having order in markets. In other words, self-regulating. But if majority don't choose this responsible path, then a central authority WILL exist or remain to exist to do it for them."

This is kind of asinine. Revisit my criticism of the modern rational Economic model. Also, wouldn't this be the exact role of the government? I find it truly troubling that you think people could learn to "be responsible" when they have already been shown to fall prey to corporate deception. How exactly do people become more responsible under a free-market lead system when its actually in the direct interest of the corporations to make sure they continue to give money to the corporation regardless of what's in the best interest of the consumer. This is why I am asking for a discussion of my first two posts. That's where my argument is.

"But the point here is, such things can still be self regulating by people without the need of some central government authority."

How exactly are independent individuals supposed to foresee the all the possible infringements corporations could commit? its really nice to imagine a world where individuals are capable of knowing all things necessary to make informed decisions. However, thats the exact problem I raised in my second post. You seem to have faith in the Smithian model of economics, but it has been sharply critiqued across the board. Again, why do people buy homes they can't afford. I refer you back to my second post on this thread.

"In addition, Standard Oil was beginning to lose market share despite them gauging their prices elsewhere because their kerosene product was beginning to get competition from another popular product today known as gasoline"'

This doesn't mean they didnt do massive amounts of damage, nor that such behaviors wouldnt repeat themselves without legislation. All this example has shown is that trusts were capable of doing great harm, and that this harm needed to be mitigated. To argue otherwise is simply to claim that we can suffer hell just to get out the otherside and start the cycle again. Trust in the free market without caution is what leads to problems like 2008.

I'd also like to know which consumers would have gone out to deep water horizon, had the technical know-how to examine the well, and determine if it was safe or not. Now, who would do that for all of the wells in the gulf?

Please see my first two posts.

That was not the point I was making, and to adequately explain this we'd have to revisit a century of Dutch History. The power dynamics and interrelation between corporation and state in the Netherlands were vastly different and thus not a valid comparison to the issues at hand.

Dude, you just going circular with the power dynamics of the state of Netherlands and ignoring the fact that the Dutch company did have a monopoly right by the States.

This is kind of asinine. Revisit my criticism of the modern rational Economic model. Also, wouldn't this be the exact role of the government? I find it truly troubling that you think people could learn to "be responsible" when they have already been shown to fall prey to corporate deception. How exactly do people become more responsible under a free-market lead system when its actually in the direct interest of the corporations to make sure they continue to give money to the corporation regardless of what's in the best interest of the consumer. This is why I am asking for a discussion of my first two posts. That's where my argument is.

So you are saying, every person is irresponsible, and every person will fall prey to corporate deception? Also, what is this "deception" are you implying? Moreover, didn't you see the part where i mentioned the importance of transparency? Also, if government is made up of people, why these same individuals rather than being a geo-political monopoly enforcing laws on others form voluntary contract associations with fundamental rules needed for a social system instead? This way, the social system would be more peer2peer rather than a majority vs a minority or minority vs. a majority. That's the point of people being responsible in being self regulating.

How exactly are independent individuals supposed to foresee the all the possible infringements corporations could commit? its really nice to imagine a world where individuals are capable of knowing all things necessary to make informed decisions. However, thats the exact problem I raised in my second post. You seem to have faith in the Smithian model of economics, but it has been sharply critiqued across the board. Again, why do people buy homes they can't afford. I refer you back to my second post on this thread.

That's where a social contract with stipulated rules these same individuals who voluntary agree on will know what are permitted and unpermitted actions for this social system. Therefore, individuals would know what are "violations" they can charge another person or a business owner with. I'm not saying that with individuals being responsible means that companies will do no wrong or that they will know all the best products at all times. What I'm saying is individuals can be responsible in forming their own social system where they can know how to settle disputes and handle violations that CAN occur. Add in the Social Meta-Need of transparency and feedback, and this will also help individuals assess what is of quality is out there when it comes to consumables.

This doesn't mean they didnt do massive amounts of damage, nor that such behaviors wouldnt repeat themselves without legislation. All this example has shown is that trusts were capable of doing great harm, and that this harm needed to be mitigated. To argue otherwise is simply to claim that we can suffer hell just to get out the otherside and start the cycle again. Trust in the free market without caution is what leads to problems like 2008.

So, what are these massive amount of damages where people got physically harmed or robbed by Standard Oil? Where does forming partnerships with other companies a massive damage? Nothing is wrong with markets once no one is physically harming anyone or robbing them. Moreover, even though such violations can occur, does not mean majority of companies will commit such acts or that there won't be no fundamental rules for these companies to follow. You making it seem as if I'm arguing that having markets will mean that no bad things will occur when that is not the issue here. The issue here is people can responsibly have voluntary social contracts with grounded rules without the need of a central government.

I'd also like to know which consumers would have gone out to deep water horizon, had the technical know-how to examine the well, and determine if it was safe or not. Now, who would do that for all of the wells in the gulf?

I don't understand the point of this question. Moreover, if you are implying about the BP oil leak, this is where if Real Estate was more organized like this: http://selfsip.org/solutions/NSC.html#real_estate

I'm sure this same leak would of lead to other property owners to charge BP for this problem and or BP would of taken the maintenance of the oil pipes more seriously.

"Yes, people may not make the best decisions for products of quality all the time or what they can truly afford, but the important thing here is for people to be the ultimate arbiter in what they want to buy and where people and business owners are bound to fundamental rules against harm and theft.."

What are these fundamental rules? Before the current financial system was in place, it would have been impossible for anyone to have set rules against the kinds of problems inherent in such a system. I understand that you think there is some "basic" level of law that should be applied, and beyond that there should be no regulation. However, anyone who has surveyed societal development and legal change can easily see that laws need to constantly be updated. What you call "fundamental" may be insufficient to protect the public from the harm companies can do. What AIG and Goldman Sachs did would not have been covered had we only followed "fundamental rules against harm and theft" because what they did was invariably tied into a system more complicated than simple harm and theft.

I also fail to see how government regulation has told people what to buy or where to buy it. Our society does not place government regulation as a control for what consumers can and can't do, but on what companies are and are not allowed to get away with. Who will, in place of the government, ensure that the public has access to necessary information. This is, yet again, back to my original critique of the current economic conception. People do not make the best decision for themselves because they are not privy, nor can they be, to ALL information necessary to make good decisions- and even when they are they don't actually make the best decision. Is the position then "well too bad, socio-economic Darwinism will take care of those people?" Clearly it cannot be, because, as we have seen from our own history, companies needs and motives do not match up with those of the consumers. An ultra-free market would pit a large corporation against a market share where all foreseeable consequences were veiled. This faith in a free market is greatly misplaced as even a market with regulation has revealed the structural flaws in corporate motivations. These are consequences we as a should society should not be forced to endure.

"Never the less, a sane society even through a voluntary social contract, would still ensure that individuals who are business owners aren't excused from physical harm and theft and where a victim can charge them for such violations"

Social contract theory has been repeatedly questioned and I don't find such theories, in the least, convincing. That said, even social contract theory leads to a government and government regulation. What you are describing is a proto-regulatory system which would inevitably lead to businesses and economics being reintegrated with the political sphere. It starts with a business owner being watched to make sure he isn't poisoning his consumers because he acts lazily. Then we have to make sure he isn't stealing money from his consumers by hiding the cost of what it takes to make his product. Then we need to make sure he isn't destroying the commons (environment) as he goes about his business. It continues to escalate. So where are we to draw the line? All of these potential problems are grave, and they all affect society as a whole. Are we to leave up to the "market" which doesn't always weed out the irresponsible companies? The market sure has kept companies like Nike in business even though they use child labor and sweat shops to make their goods. It sure hasn't made sure BP was acting safely in the interest of the people. Do you see why the ultra-free market is such a huge problem?

I am not advocating government CONTROL over the market- I don't think anyone here is- but rather looking at the inherent absurdity in faith in ultra-free markets. There are so many structural tensions at play that serve to expose consumers to harm, that without an evolving legal body we are likely to be harmed repeatedly. The free market has brought us great progress! But at the cost of human life in nations abroad. But at the price of new poisons and dangers. At the price of our own financial well being when we allow businesses to tell us things are alright when they aren't.

This libertarian movement, which follows essentially the same line as you, has forgotten that economics and social forces are not separate entities. They are subject to the same governing feedbacks, and to pretend that the free market can somehow take care of our needs greatly overlooks the fact that our needs (and our behaviors) change over time in very profound ways. The government serves to keep these loops going (even though the government, like all things, can fail).

"Dude, you just going circular with the power dynamics of the state of Netherlands and ignoring the fact that the Dutch company did have a monopoly right by the States."

No, I am saying that by granting the Dutch East India Company a monopoly, it was actually a move to strengthen the state as a whole. The point at which the DEIC had the monopoly coincides with the Dutch Golden Age. My entire point is that the Dutch East India company was not divorced from the political sector, but rather integral to it. This is like saying the US Navy has a monopoly on war ship deployment. My critique here is that the company was not like companies today in that they were far more related to political power of the state. Again, Julia Adam's book "The Familial State" outlines this remarkably well.

"So you are saying, every person is irresponsible, and every person will fall prey to corporate deception? Also, what is this "deception" are you implying? Moreover, didn't you see the part where i mentioned the importance of transparency? Also, if government is made up of people, why these same individuals rather than being a geo-political monopoly enforcing laws on others form voluntary contract associations with fundamental rules needed for a social system instead? This way, the social system would be more peer2peer rather than a majority vs a minority or minority vs. a majority. That's the point of people being responsible in being self regulating."

Lets start with a resounding no. That is a horrible hyperbole from what I actually am saying. A perfectly rational model is extraordinarily difficult to come by and there will always be people who act irrationally and people who will not have enough information. It is fallacious to claim I am arguing all people are irresponsible or irrational. What I am saying is that necessary information is often very difficult to attain in the necessary amounts to avoid unwanted outcomes. Even people well trained in investments are caught by surprise because they either misinterpret information, or don't have the necessary information to tell whether a stock will go up or go down. My further question is how you propose transparency is possible without government regulation. What is the real incentive for a company to allow all information to be visible, even when its incredibly damning? You mention social contract theory, but as we look at social contract theorists (J.S Mill, J.J Rousseau, Thomas Hobbes, etc etc) we find that social contract theory has been used to explain the creation of the state and of government. Social contract theory is not the place to look to how private contracts are formed. These theorists wanted to explain why governments emerged and how they related to the people. If you want to go over these theorists arguments specifically, I'm willing to, but I hope that you are cautiously applying this argumentation. The further question is to find historical or anthropological evidence of self-regulating systems that did not have what we can observe as a political order. Then we must extend these findings to larger populations. This is a wonderful pipe-dream- balanced anarchy where individual people are responsible. Again, this rests on a false view that all people can be a0 rational or b) exposed to all necessary information.

" Therefore, individuals would know what are "violations" they can charge another person or a business owner with. I'm not saying that with individuals being responsible means that companies will do no wrong or that they will know all the best products at all times. What I'm saying is individuals can be responsible in forming their own social system where they can know how to settle disputes and handle violations that CAN occur. "

Again, revisit the actual arguments of Social Contract theorists. They are arguing that the government emerged to cover that exact social-system. The question is what apparatus you think can effectively replaces this, and what keeps people from defaulting to a governmental form when things become difficult. This further falls back on the problem of omni-rationality in the population. What is the difference between a republic and self-regulation or even a democracy. Thomas Hobbes, J.S. Mill, and J.J. Rousseau- all social contract theorists- described how governments emerged as a way to meet this need. They further talked about what the rights of the people were in a government and what the contract actually meant for this relationship. I am very curious as to how you envision social contract differently. How does a social contract (a contract between all members of society) not become a government (a contract that then emerges between the people and the government).

"You making it seem as if I'm arguing that having markets will mean that no bad things will occur when that is not the issue here. The issue here is people can responsibly have voluntary social contracts with grounded rules without the need of a central government."

I find the last statement very dubious. If you can demonstrate a situation where truly free markets have existed for extended period of times without public outcry and reaction, I'd be interested in seeing it. Your call for voluntary social contracts is not very practical, much less have you proved that these contracts dont, by virtue of their logical extensions, lead to government formation. Again, how are people able to have transparent to necessary information? Consider that things like the FDA are responsible for forcing companies to disclose information. Prior to the FDA there was no incentive for companies to do this very thing. What I am pressing here then is two fold

1) How do social contracts- despite the intellectual geneology of the entire field- not result in government formation. I'd love to see where you get social contract theories that don't immediately address the question of government

2) How do you reasonably overcome the problem that 100% of the population cannot be 100% rational either by virtue of their own error or by virtue of the fact that they do not have access to all necessary information. Don't allow this to turn to hyperbole, but rather address the question at hand. Its not that all people are either rational or irrational, but rather a mixture exists that is highly fluid. This then leads us to the following:

The government obviously fails- but they are, unlike corporations- directly responsible to the population (in fact, this is what Social Contract theorists have argued!).. Corporations are structurally linked to profit seeking and not to satisfying or protecting consumers.

"I don't understand the point of this question. Moreover, if you are implying about the BP oil leak, this is where if Real Estate was more organized like this: http://selfsip.org/solutions/NSC.html#real_estate"

My point in this question was one of practical application. In your model, who checks in on BP? Who checks on these corporations? Who enforces these issues. Do you think BP expected Deepwater horizon would explode? No, they reasonably thought they could get away with what they were doing. This is an example were government regulation failed, but further an example where corporate behavior does not inherently result in responsible behavior. If a company thinks it can get away with cutting corners and thus increase their profit margins, why should they be more careful when there is no effective regulation?

This is the longest I've seen a civil discussion go on the forum.