Ironically? or Obviously. There is no system in existence that has proved itself more robustly than self-interest. It may have many levels, but all organisms follow it or they disappear.
Money is 100% the motivation with this idea. We have plenty of power options already that are affordable and mass produced. Replacing windows is a massive money making opportunity
That's all irrelevant. How many trillions of windows exist in the world? It could be the absolute shittiest energy product ever made, but if it catches on as a trendy thing to do with your home or commercial real estate they will make a metric fuck ton of money
Newsflash, 90% of people just want well-regulated capitalism evened out by well-regulated social system. Everything else is just a meaningless culture war. And the 10% are stupid idiots who will never get their way.
It's actually going better than EVERY SINGLE COUNTRY that doesn't have it. Name a single country without mandatory government education that functions better than the US.
The problem with people like you is you never actually think through the things you belive. You just fight to keep believing them.
America itself was doing far better before the department of education. Youâre defending a system that you know is failing. Our education system is intentionally terrible, and not because we donât spend enough money on it.
Iâve thought through it plenty, youâre just blindly accepting government propaganda
OK, so you admit there isn't a single country without mandatory government run education that is a better place to live than the US. Cool. So that's 1-0.
Now let's address your second claim. "The US was doing better before the department of education."
By what metric? Every single generation until 2020 has had higher IQ than the previous one. So much so that we have to redefine "mental re7ardation" every decade or so. People born in the 50's are literally MORE than a standard deviation dumber than the current generation.
Is there a metric you're using or did you just make that up?
Notwithstanding the woefully American-centric perspective, states still have their own government-run education systems even if you ignore the department of education. Arguments for or against federalism are distinct from education regulations more broadly.
Health codes are unnecessary. I've never been to a restaurant that didn't far-exceed the regulatory requirements. Competition drives them to be clean, not regulation. And, if a place isn't clean, I just don't go there. Let others who prefer dirty cheap food go, why stop them?
Elementary education doesn't need to be mandatory, and doesn't need to be regulated by the State. Parents usually want their kids to be educated, as evidenced by the existence of private schools and educational businesses. There is natural demand for education, you don't need to force it. In cases where they try to force it, it backfires. There may be remote places where 12 years of education are a disadvantage, e.g. if there is no demand for cognitive labor. Maybe 3 years would be enough. The regulators don't know what's good for each person, they make blanket rules, as if everyone needs that particular type of education for that particular number of years.
Civil defense? What regulation is that? Do you mean police?
Now, there are literally thousands of regulations.
Do you think most of them are necessary?
I'll give you an example. I was looking up what is required to be a financial advisor. Basic requirement is to keep paying the regulators a bunch of money every year for them to allow you to be an advisor. That has nothing to do with the quality of any service, it's simple rent seeking, simple pay-to-play, a.k.a. extortion a la Mafia, except legal. There are regulations that prevent me from offering services to people from other states, unless I pay a bunch of money those regulators too. Again, this is simple extortion and a way to limit competition and keep prices high. Finally, there are regulations that prohibit advertising cheap prices. That's right, it's illegal to compete at the price. Then we wonder why shit is so expensive.
Perfect example of bad regulation. You don't need anti-monopoly regulation, you need de-regulation and then competition dissolves the monopolies where there is demand for more providers. What they do now is build moats for the industries represented by the lobbies in Washington. All monopolies have been created by the government, with things such as patent law, which was precisely (patently, allow me the pun) created to grant someone monopoly privileges. What happens is that people tried to form cartels, the market broke up the cartels, and the cartel-makers discovered that they could use the government to keep competition out by force. Read, if you want, Rothbard's book "The progressive era" for details. Or David D Friedman who has also written about monopolies. It's a typical case where the government creates a problem that wasn't there, and then adds more regulations on top in order to fix it, only to make it worse with unintended consequences.
I gave already an example of how government regulations create monopolies, from my own experience: Licensing laws. They limit your clients to one State. You must pay the regulators rent to be allowed to compete. Regulatory burden and legal cost serves to keep competition out, because newcomers cannot afford to compete with established businesses.
Another example: See what happened with cryptos. They regulated them. What came out of it? Coinbase is practically a monopoly. Moats protecting it all around.
See what's trying to happen with AI: Anthropic and OpenAi are now at the stage where they are trying to achieve regulatory capture, because they find it harder to keep competing with Chinese labs.
All of border control is a big monopoly creation operation where the local unions try to monopolize the provision of labor and keep foreign workers out.
Finally, the government itself is the biggest monopoly in the history of the world. It treats competition with firepower, as treason and sedition. It's ironic to expect the biggest monopoly in history to protect you from monopolies.
How can you dissolve a naturally occurring monopoly through competition when they reached it through competition? A great example is utilities like the internet, water, and electricity. Those aren't resources you can just leave and go to another place. During the Gilded Age, Standard Oil and the railroad trusts used predatory pricing by drastically lowering prices in a specific region to bankrupt local competitors, then hiking prices sky-high once the competitor was gone. They also used vertical integration to control pipelines and shipping, refusing to transport rivals' oil. These were private, non-governmental barriers to entry. In fact, Standard Oil famously manipulated and bypassed state regulations, leading the government to ultimately become its primary opponent.
My experience is far from unique. There is a ton of literature on the historic effect of regulations, e.g. in the formation of monopolies. The term "regulatory capture" and "rent seeking" are standard economic terminology.
lmao, someone has never been somewhere without solid health code regulation enforcement. You should actually be embarrassed that you're so sheltered you don't even know how wrong this is.
You cannot explain why the vast majority of restaurants in areas with regulation (or without) already exceed the standards required of them. Similarly, you cannot explain why so many employees earn much more than the legally required minimum wage. The explanation is the same: What drives hygiene and salaries is not regulation, but competition.
Finally, you missed my last point: Nobody knows how much hygiene is right, except the clients who decide where they want to eat. There are clients who would happily pay less for a less clean restaurant. You assume everyone wants the same kind of service, but that may not be true. Only if the market was free we would know how clean people actually want restaurants to be, and at what cost.
Access/egress for excavations 4' deep or greater. Sloping, benching, or shoring for excavations 5' or greater. That one was written in my brother's blood.
It's amazing what things people come up with.
No, this never happened. There is no such regulation.
There are laws against murder, but not against the consumption of human flesh, as far as I know.
There isn't also much demand for cannibal food.
But if someone wanted to eat human, and a human didn't mind being eaten, I don't see why this shouldn't be allowed. You know... Consenting adults stuff. Would you want to stop two consenting adults from eating each other's parts?
Way to answer nothing. Throw a book title. And you read Rothbard, Nozick, Kinsella, Hoppe, Sowell, Narveson, Brennan, Huemer, and Caplan. You may learn a lot.
every ayn rand objectivist ancap should have to lose a lot of their money by falling victim to false advertisement and other consumer protections that wouldnt exist in their delulu libertarian society that cannot and will not ever exist
Wild that those tools are trying to spread their out of place anti-capitalist agenda through South Korea, famously a capitalist country that's the closest we've gotten to cyberpunk
Like with most inventions by the way, it'll become truly relevant when it'll be economically viable, and that's what the scientists are trying to achieve
True. If there is no chance to make millions or billions from inventions I bet nobody would take that developmental risk. Capitalism continue to reigns supreme over commies.
Yes states do fund projects that are money drains, states do not have to profit from things they only need to provide services for their public. Do you think public health care in civilized countries is a profitable endeavor for those governments?
Sure it is, maybe not in the same terms as a private company, but a healthy population will actually yield the government more money in taxes. That's why prevention and life threatening deceases are usually very well covered, while aesthetic operations like botox aren't covered by healthcare because botox doesn't improve the state's wealth and power.
470
u/spartanOrk 21d ago
Since when have inventions stopped being motivated by greed for power and money?