The best example of a business unfettered by the government is ... a drug gang

First topic message reminder :

The only reason to start a business is to earn as much profit as possible. Thus, every successful business follows a few simple rules:

* The business must be selling something that is in high demand.

* The business must strive to corner more and more of the market for its product or service.

* The business must work hard to fend off competitors.

Supporters of unfettered capitalism like to say that businesses would be far more profitable if it weren't for the many government rules they must follow. Sometimes they're right!

But a business that had few or no government rules to follow would probably end up looking a lot like a business that can't survive government intervention of any kind, and the best example of that kind of business is a drug gang.

Drug gangs sell a product that is in high demand, they strive to expand their base of customers, and they work hard to fend off competition, just like any other business.

But because any brush with government intervention could spell the death of the gang, they operate completely outside the law. So the rules for such businesses become:

* Sell something that is in high demand -- regardless of whether it kills people.

* Corner more and more of the market -- regardless of whether the new customers are children.

* Work hard to fend off competitors -- up to and including killing them, and any innocent people who might be in the vicinity.

I'm not saying that all business owners are as ruthless as the leaders of drug gangs.

But I am saying that in the absence of government regulation, the pursuit of profits would logically lead many businesses to sell a highly addictive product, regardless of whether it's unsafe, indiscriminately, and to use violence to protect its profits.

Government regulation is possibly the most important the key to keeping businesses from behaving more like gangs.

I'd love for someone to prove me wrong on this.

phildidge wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:If a drug gang is illegal, It Is fettered by its very definition.

Meaning it's forced to operate outside the realm of the government as much as possible, which I argue is a situation quite similar to what would exist if the government had little to no involvement in business.

But you are comparing two really seperate things here and trying to make/argue that such unlimited unregulated government intervention. Will always lead to violence. Sorry Ben, but history shows that simple is not the case. Only in authoritarin governments will you see examples of this.

Actually I was very careful not to say it would always lead to violence, as I don't believe that. If you read back what I've written, I did my best to say that my concern is that less interaction with the government will tend to make more businesses resort to violence as part of their survival strategy.

Ben Reilly wrote:

phildidge wrote:

But you are comparing two really seperate things here and trying to make/argue that such unlimited unregulated government intervention. Will always lead to violence. Sorry Ben, but history shows that simple is not the case. Only in authoritarin governments will you see examples of this.

Actually I was very careful not to say it would always lead to violence, as I don't believe that. If you read back what I've written, I did my best to say that my concern is that less interaction with the government will tend to make more businesses resort to violence as part of their survival strategy.

Oh for fuck sake

My concern is ben, is that you simple do not listen

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:If a drug gang is illegal, It Is fettered by its very definition.

Meaning it's forced to operate outside the realm of the government as much as possible, which I argue is a situation quite similar to what would exist if the government had little to no involvement in business.

Like if I were to sell you tomatoes that I grew in my backyard?


You do realize, that it the regulations on drugs that makes the drug war so deadly don't you?

Ever see gunplay at a farmers market?

Ben Reilly wrote:

phildidge wrote:

But you are comparing two really seperate things here and trying to make/argue that such unlimited unregulated government intervention. Will always lead to violence. Sorry Ben, but history shows that simple is not the case. Only in authoritarin governments will you see examples of this.

Actually I was very careful not to say it would always lead to violence, as I don't believe that. If you read back what I've written, I did my best to say that my concern is that less interaction with the government will tend to make more businesses resort to violence as part of their survival strategy.

Your OP also shows the downfall of freedom in another sense.  Go back to the three rules of successful business:

Ben wrote:Thus, every successful business follows a few simple rules:

* The business must be selling something that is in high demand.

* The business must strive to corner more and more of the market for its product or service.

* The business must work hard to fend off competitors.

Rules 2 and 3 have to do with eradicating competition, which is another term for monopoly.  The original free market theory held that competition was of a personal nature: each producer would pare back his own costs in order to present the most attractive price in the market.

In fact, as Rules 2 and 3 show, capitalism puts personal gain over the well-being of the market.  Competition is no longer the paring back of one's own costs, but the eradiction of opponent producers, thus eventually destroying the market.

This anti-competitive tendency is countered (in the US) by government regulation in the form of the Clayton Act and the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.  Without those measures, any market-based economy would be less than Bulshevism, as the management would be for personal profit, rather than the collective good.

Government regulation is the only thing that keeps us from a total Plutocracy.  Even with those public protections, you still see a reluctance to bring anti-trust lawsuits.  Have you checked your cable bill lately...same service as this time last year, but about $100/month more, innit? Alas, no competition.

Maddog wrote:Ever see gunplay at a farmers market?

Guess not.

Original Quill wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Actually I was very careful not to say it would always lead to violence, as I don't believe that. If you read back what I've written, I did my best to say that my concern is that less interaction with the government will tend to make more businesses resort to violence as part of their survival strategy.

Your OP also shows the downfall of freedom in another sense.  Go back to the three rules of successful business:

Ben wrote:Thus, every successful business follows a few simple rules:

* The business must be selling something that is in high demand.

* The business must strive to corner more and more of the market for its product or service.

* The business must work hard to fend off competitors.

Rules 2 and 3 have to do with eradicating competition, which is another term for monopoly.  The original free market theory held that competition was of a personal nature: each producer would pare back his own costs in order to present the most attractive price in the market.

In fact, as Rules 2 and 3 show, capitalism puts personal gain over the well-being of the market.  Competition is no longer the paring back of one's own costs, but the eradiction of opponent producers, thus eventually destroying the market.

This anti-competitive tendency is countered (in the US) by government regulation in the form of the Clayton Act and the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.  Without those measures, any market-based economy would be less than Bulshevism, as the management would be for personal profit, rather than the collective good.

Government regulation is the only thing that keeps us from a total Plutocracy.  Even with those public protections, you still see a reluctance to bring anti-trust lawsuits.  Have you checked your cable bill lately...same service as this time last year, but about $100/month more, innit?  Alas, no competition.

I don't have cable.

No need with competition from the internet.

Maddog wrote:

Maddog wrote:Ever see gunplay at a farmers market?

Guess not.

Most people don't witness gunplay between drug gangs, either.

Selling drugs attracts a different personality type than selling cucumbers, surely. Again, I never said all capitalists would turn into gang members if we weakened government regulation of business.

But if you seriously believe that more capitalists wouldn't try to get away with unethical practices, up to and including violence against the competition, if regulations were mostly removed, I think you're pretty naive.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Guess not.

Most people don't witness gunplay between drug gangs, either.

Selling drugs attracts a different personality type than selling cucumbers, surely. Again, I never said all capitalists would turn into gang members if we weakened government regulation of business.

But if you seriously believe that more capitalists wouldn't try to get away with unethical practices, up to and including violence against the competition, if regulations were mostly removed, I think you're pretty naive.

You should always have regulations against actually harming others.

And I'm far from naïve.

The different person selling drugs is there because it's illegal and more profitable.

Maddog wrote:You do realize, that it the regulations on drugs that makes the drug war so deadly don't you?

Since you seemed to have missed it the first time.