"Currants Bw..."

[Niall_Quinn]

My point is without a set of laws and regulations setting out how businesses can operate, whether you think the theft was state sponsored or not is irrelevant the result is the same. There is no self corrective power, unless you operate under the assumption that I am incorruptible and therefore I must assume other people are as well.

This is my critique of libertarian philosophy, the problem is other people. People aren't all products of an environment imposed upon them by a sinister big brother state, some people are just cunts.

Libertarian works on the assumption that people should be given the benefit of the doubt that they aren't going to fuck eachother over.

Why do we need a set of laws outlining the way business can operate? Who's business is it how a business operates? Provided there are agreed remedies should those business cause harm then let them do what the hell they want. What's the baker going to do? Poison his customers? Why? Do you really imagine the banks would have played casino had there been no state at the ready to bail them out? Of course not. The very presence of the state is what fired the recklessness. I didn't say the criminality of the bankers was sponsored by the state (the other way around maybe), what I'm saying is the state intervening to offer incentives and punishments will always favour those who can best manipulate the rules. The rich don't pay tax, the poor do. Why? Because the rich can afford accountants and lawyers and those accountants and lawyers are a damn sight smarter than the unambitious drones who lack enough dignity to work for HMRC.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

Why do we need a set of laws outlining the way business can operate? Who's business is it how a business operates? Provided there are agreed remedies should those business cause harm then let them do what the hell they want. What's the baker going to do? Poison his customers? Why? Do you really imagine the banks would have played casino had there been no state at the ready to bail them out? Of course not. The very presence of the state is what fired the recklessness. I didn't say the criminality of the bankers was sponsored by the state (the other way around maybe), what I'm saying is the state intervening to offer incentives and punishments will always favour those who can best manipulate the rules. The rich don't pay tax, the poor do. Why? Because the rich can afford accountants and lawyers and those accountants and lawyers are a damn sight smarter than the unambitious drones who lack enough dignity to work for HMRC.

So what stops the business using underhand methods to establish itself as a monopoly and then once a monopoly setting its prices however it chooses.

What then stops that business from firing an employee because they couldn't come in one day because they suffered a family bereavement.o

Yes this already happens now, but it seems like a stateless society just gives it the green light

I agree that the Banks only did what the state allowed them to get away with, but what would stop a cartel forming where for instance people were only able to get mortgages at crippling rates of interest, the cartel has eliminated all its competitors and therefore there is no going elsewhere for a better price. It just seems to me that it makes natural what you hate about states and government for manafacturing artificially


The only thing I can see that your stateless system provides is that businesses won't have to bribe anyone in government to act the way it wants to, because there won't be a government.

Greed, violence and misery are not by products of the state, they are by products of human beings.

[Niall_Quinn]

So what stops the business using underhand methods to establish itself as a monopoly and then once a monopoly setting its prices however it chooses.

What then stops that business from firing an employee because they couldn't come in one day because they suffered a family bereavement.

The only thing I can see that your stateless system provides is that businesses won't have to bribe anyone in government to act the way it wants to, because there won't be a government.

Greed, violence and misery are not by products of the state, they are by products of human beings.

What?

Genuine competition prevents monopolies. When you strip away all the nasty little state provided incentives and rewards for big business then it allows competition and innovation to thrive. The monopolies you see now are all mostly a result of the backwards and forwards privatisation scam.

And a worker couldn't be fired under the conditions you mention because he'd have a contract of employment. Any breach would carry a penalty. What happens now when a company fires all it's workers and then reinstates them on zero hour contracts?

Greed, violence and misery are most certainly byproducts of the state, not the only byproducts but some of the more notable ones. The greed is obvious. The violence is the very thing on which the state is founded and upheld. And the misery may not extend to every citizen but that's the point, robbing one citizen to bribe another. I'm pretty sure the guy who just got robbed is going to be miserable.

So is it better to have one giant, corrupt monster at the heart of the society, or is better to have many, smaller organisations that may or may not behave in a way that is beneficial to society? What do you do now if a company abuses society? You turn to the state and plead with the to do something. And what happens? You speak of the state as if it actually solves any of these problems you imply are inherent in liberty.

[Letters]

Who's business is it how a business operates?

You said "Who's"


Meh.

[Xhaka Can’t]

Obviously I'm not talking about this one particular instance. I'm talking about whatever it is that you do in general. Why is the public having a portion of the proceeds of their labour taken under duress in order to fund this self-evidently non-essential operation? There can be no justification for it. And considering this is a "free country", how do I opt out of paying for you to swan around the place performing non-essential activities? I would rather my money be spent on the poor and the sick and the elderly. Who do I vote for to ensure all non-essential services are shut down immediately? May or Corbyn? Please advise urgently.

You really really really need to watch Parks and Recreation.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

What?

Genuine competition prevents monopolies. When you strip away all the nasty little state provided incentives and rewards for big business then it allows competition and innovation to thrive. The monopolies you see now are all mostly a result of the backwards and forwards privatisation scam.

And a worker couldn't be fired under the conditions you mention because he'd have a contract of employment. Any breach would carry a penalty. What happens now when a company fires all it's workers and then reinstates them on zero hour contracts?

Greed, violence and misery are most certainly byproducts of the state, not the only byproducts but some of the more notable ones. The greed is obvious. The violence is the very thing on which the state is founded and upheld. And the misery may not extend to every citizen but that's the point, robbing one citizen to bribe another. I'm pretty sure the guy who just got robbed is going to be miserable.

So is it better to have one giant, corrupt monster at the heart of the society, or is better to have many, smaller organisations that may or may not behave in a way that is beneficial to society? What do you do now if a company abuses society? You turn to the state and plead with the to do something. And what happens? You speak of the state as if it actually solves any of these problems you imply are inherent in liberty.

Again I don't see how you can state that monopoly would not occur, either by fair means or foul

And working contract? If the person has to choose between working for a company and unemployment because of the lack of alternative employers what on earth makes you think they are going to be offered an equitable contract?.

[Xhaka Can’t]

No point inhibiting ourselves economically especially in this post Brexit world just so some economically well-off posh yuppies can feel good about themselves. As you say the flights aren't going to vanish, they'll just head off to Frankfurt and we'll lose the economic business nor would any reduction in C02 mean much when India and China continue to pump it out to grow their economies.

Just disgusted it's taken this long to approve and I hope there aren't even more delays in it's construction (there probably will be knowing it's England). What a shambles we are.

P.S. - Fuck off Zac Goldsmith you cretin. Hope he loses.

By the time the runway is built, air travel will be obsolete and the sun will have entered its red giant phase.

[Letters]

I don't think he's aware he's doing it. Which makes it funnier.

I think you just beat MrsL's record for saying so much and yet saying so little.
Kudos

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

By the time the runway is built, air travel will be obsolete and the sun will have entered its red giant phase.

Fingers crossed

[Niall_Quinn]

You really really really need to watch Parks and Recreation.

Watched the first couple of episodes last night.

Are you mocking me, by any chance?

What I can't figure out is if it's fictional or a fly on the wall documentary.