[dr2005]

Sorry for being slow to reply - have been travelling a lot this week with work so haven't had chance to sit down and compose a full response.

Originally Posted by Of Mike and Men

First of all, there's no need to add "with respect." It is implied through communicating that people are being respectful, despite differences. Also, I tend to ignore your posts, because seeing you previously in the religious forums, I do not expect to change your mind, on any topic, ever (but that isn't my goal here). And last thing before I continue, the response you chose to respond to was not directed towards you, nor was it directed toward the public. It was a response to a single person, and I'd expect them to defend their case, not you.

In response:

1) I always add in "with respect" where my response could be construed as being otherwise (for instance in this case, where someone less accommodating might think I was being snarky by pointing out the difference in terminology). Written communication of this sort is notorious for being misconstrued, and having been accused of attacks in the past when I have intended nothing of the sort I always err on the side of caution. It also acts as a helpful reminder to people that I am courteous in my reply, however much it challenges what they are saying.

2) Ignoring my posts simply because you have failed to convince me on arguments regarding religion is exceptionally narrow-minded of you, in my opinion. If you have failed to change my mind on a topic in the past, including religion, it is for no other reason than that your arguments haven't been up to scratch. That is not my fault. I am perfectly happy to consider positions contrary to my own, and do so on their own merits, and have changed my opinions on a number of topics in light of considered arguments. To claim otherwise on my part shows how little you actually know about me. In light of my background majoring in Law, I am going to go over such arguments with a fine-tooth comb and challenge them where I find reason to. Likewise, I expect people to do so with mine and am happy to respond to challenges where they are raised (and I expect them to be - if people agree with everything I say, it puts me on edge frankly). If you are unhappy with that notion, then I would say you need to reconsider why you are engaging in debates in the first place - which is, by definition, what you are doing by posting in a Debates forum (and by proxy the Religion etc forum), despite claims to the contrary.

3) You are posting on a public forum where all posts are open to reply both from the intended recipient and the wider community on this forum. Your reply contained no specific restriction on who could reply, and your claims were general enough that anyone would be within their rights to comment on them. If you sought a specific reply from one person, and one person only, then you should either say so in your reply or take it to a PM instead. When you post on a public forum instead, it's open to anyone to choose to reply. That's how these things work. Again, if you are unhappy with this notion some further thought about why you are posting may be required.

Moving on...

Originally Posted by Of Mike and Men

Anyway, I did not confuse my terms.

Corporatocracy is relatively similar to the way some (independents, libertarians, anarchists, etc.) people use the word corporatism. In corporatism, the society, or "state" is controlled by large interest groups. These large interest groups are maintained and funded by large corporations. We refer to it as corporatism, because our country is controlled by these interest groups, which then the government funds the corporations that fund these select groups. The government spends roughly 50% more on corporation subsidies than on individual welfare.

Fair enough. All I would say in response is it doesn't appear to match the wider use of the term, but for these purposes I'm happy to concede the point.

Originally Posted by Of Mike and Men

Officially recognized by whom? Governments? Federally funded scholars and researchers?

Well, the Oxford English Dictionary defines a corporatocracy as "a society or system that is governed or controlled by corporations". Thus far, the last one which I've found identified in a peer-reviewed history source (either within or outside the USA) is Rhodesia. Claims of the United States and similar jurisdictions being one tend to be confined to the conspiracy theorists, who don't seem so keen on the peer review process.

Originally Posted by Of Mike and Men

At the end of your post, you seem to be a tad adamant about sources. So, please, show me a source other than wikipedia. Decisions are certainly made at State levels, but I'd argue they primarily are not. Why? Because they have federal expectations to hold up to. E.G. SATs, and a curriculum that allows students to go to colleges that have federal requirements, as well. It is funded by the state, to a point, but you have to look at the larger picture.

The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act 2001) specifically forbids the implementation of a national curriculum. The Constitution is silent on education matters, so in the absence of any constitutional provision the ESEA dictates terms - which means, inter alia, education decisions are made at state level. Likewise, public universities are coordinated at state level, as is cooperation across state borders by groups such as the Washington Student Achievement Council. Beyond stating what the current legal framework requires, I'm not sure what other sources you're looking for. Regarding the comments about the SAT and the ACT requirements by colleges and universities, that is true up to a point in that it sets a national yardstick; however, it is one chosen by the colleges and universities themselves, not the federal government. The SAT is the joint effort of the College Board and Educational Training Systems, both of which are private non-profit organisations, and the ACT is administered by a non-profit based in Iowa City. Conflating "national" with "federal" serves to misrepresent the nature of the system as far as I can see.

Originally Posted by Of Mike and Men

I think this is a little misguided. But it's also too broad of a statement to understand what you are getting at. Give me an example. It may be a little to idealistic at this point, I'd agree. It'd take baby steps to achieve free market equality. However, I'd argue a free market is the ONLY way to achieve equality in the first place. The only reason it'd be difficult with our current economics is because of how the government has been involving itself in the past 200 years. Namely the last century.

I don't see how it is misguided to point out that there are large differences in manpower, resources and market reach amongst participants in the marketplace. It seems a fairly basic statement of economic fact. Nonetheless, given you seek an example, here are a few which will hopefully illustrate the point I am making:

1) Company A is an established consumer technology company. An entrepreneur, B, comes up with a product in the same sector as A's but with some distinct differences and improvements. A uses its superior resources to not only write a cease-and-desist letter to B alleging theft of its intellectual property, but also to ensure all its distribution agreements prevent its partners from stocking competing products, including B's. As a result, B's product fails to reach the market as he cannot afford to fight the legal battle or find a stockist.

2) Mr C and his family have run a successful, popular Mexican restaurant for over fifty years in their home town. D, a national chain of Mexican restaurants, opens a new restaurant on the same street as Mr C's. D cuts its prices aggressively and engages in a marketing blitz, funded by its head office, in order to force Mr C out of the market. Despite several mixed and negative reviews of D's products, Mr C's restaurant is marginalised such that it cannot make a profit, and closes. D then raises their prices back to existing levels, citing the earlier levels as an "opening discount".

3) Two candidates, E and F, apply for the same job. Both have very impressive academic records, E from well-established schools and colleges in affluent areas and F from schools and colleges in more deprived areas. However, whereas E's neighbourhood was serviced by a number of providers of extracurricular activities such as sports and social clubs funded by private businesses, F's was not as the businesses behind such schemes did not view it as viable. E gets the job over F, for no reason other than his membership of these sports and social clubs.

4) G is a large car manufacturer, with a significant share of its domestic market and sizeable operations overseas. One of its competitors overseas, H, decides to start selling cars in G's home market, in the belief that its more reliable and cheaper-to-run models will be popular with consumers in G's country. In response, G threatens its dealers that it will withdraw their franchises if they stock H's models as well, and engages in a marketing campaign bad-mouthing H's products and using selective reviews to make their own (inferior) products sound better. As such, H cannot establish a stable foothold in G's home market and withdraws.

Hopefully you can see what I am trying to say about a free market not generating equality, but just in case: none of these examples include anything which is contrary to a free market or based on state intervention, or indeed illegal. Parties can choose to enter into contracts of exclusivity if they so wish, and do so on a regular basis. However, those participants in the free market with access to higher levels of resources, and market reach, will always be in a more powerful position than those starting up, and more often than not will use that position to stifle competition. The examples I give above are all based on fairly typical occurrences in the business world. Supply and demand may form the fundamental component of the free market, but it is not immune to external influence and on its own cannot create a level playing field. Indeed, the notion of truly perfect competition within a free market tends to be regarded as utopian, and - perhaps counterintuitively - a certain amount of state intervention in the market is in fact aimed at trying to improve competition (for example the Competition Commission in the UK and the core economic freedoms within the EU).

Originally Posted by Of Mike and Men

I think you are missing the point. In a free market, people choose the winners AND losers. Not the government. Let's say we became a free market tomorrow. We kept all of our DMV employees and started privately funding the DMV. Now, let's say, the DMV does not improve in quality. What do we do? We stop funding the DMV. What happens to the DMV then? It's removed. We are no longer forced to pay for a defunct department. So, what do we do? Well, we have this wise entrepreneur who starts another DMV-like system. We are skeptical, but we start giving him money, and slowly start funding his ideas. His ideas run better, and smoother than the DMV. Do you see where I am going? Competition is good. It allows us to allocate our money to where it WORKS. Don't get me wrong, I do not think free market people are going to fix everything instantaneously, but I think it allows us to put our money where it is earned, rather than where it is taken and given to a BS system.

However, in defense of this, the DMV out where I live is good. I just use this as an example, because I know how some people feel about it. I'm more about people having options, rather than being held at the threat of arrest for not wanting to do or pay for something they don't want or use.

One clarification, if I may: the DMV is not a federal institution. Each state has its own variant, with functions handled by either a single agency or possibly multiple agencies depending on each state's constitution, and the code which guides their operation is produced by a private non-profit organisation called the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Laws and Ordinances. There is no federal standard in place, although the REAL ID Act of 2005 is trying to coordinate them more. Thus far I would say it has had limited success.

Aside from that, one issue I can see with your argument is that it assumes all services can benefit from competition. This is not in fact the case. Some systems require such a high degree of coordination, or inherent guarantees from the state, that the only effective way to administer them on a national level is to have a monopoly provider; the very fact that such systems developed in this manner rather than each state or province having its own way is proof of this. Again, a few examples:

1) All United States citizens (lawful ones, anyway) who wish to travel overseas require a passport, issued by the State Department. The form of this is the same for all US citizens - as is, no doubt, the cost. Imagine now that the State Department is dissolved, and a number of private companies decide to create their own versions, all with different degrees of information and format and priced competitively in order to get citizens to adopt them. However, a passport operates on the basis of the mutuality of obligations between states - namely, citizens from one country won't be blocked from entering the other and vice versa. That's straightforward enough with one provider - but how does a state provide such a guarantee without knowing whether the passports are backed by the state of origin? All they know is it's a document produced by a private organisation, ostensibly identifying where they are from but with no guarantees therein. So other states have to try and coordinate different sets of information and try and work out whether all the passports should be treated the same, increasing the bureaucracy and the cost involved. The only way to ensure they are all treated the same is to have some oversight by the government, such as an underwriting process or standardised format, but that entails inspection and verification procedures which again cost money. So where is the inherent benefit of competition?

2) The FDA provides a lot of regulation in the USA in the field of public health, particularly in relation to food standards and drugs. Imagine this agency is dissolved, and instead two large private agencies assume their responsibilities on the basis of more efficient and effective testing and oversight at competitive rates. A new drug, product X, is submitted to both for verification. Agency A conducts its tests and determines that the product is not safe for public use, and refuses verification. Agency B conducts its tests and determines that the product is safe for public use and grants a licence. Both sets of tests are valid - it is a question of the criteria each use in determining safety. Retailers are therefore left with Agency A refusing to allow the product on sale, and Agency B giving the go ahead. Which one should consumers listen to?

3) In Europe (seeing as my examples thus far have been US-based), crash testing for cars (and vans) is carried out by a body called Euro NCAP. This is an association backed by a combination of automotive groups and governmental departments, and is independent from the automotive industry. Imagine that, instead of this body carrying out testing, it is instead tendered out to a group of private companies. With profitability and shareholder interests to contend with, plus potential influence by the industry, it is conceivable that the testing methodology may not be as rigorous across all the companies, yet they may produce their results in a very similar format (e.g. star ratings). Consumers may be unaware as to the difference, and assume that a good rating from one company is equivalent to a good rating from another company. Does this amount to an improvement of the service to consumers?

I suppose I should hold my hand up at this point and admit that all of these examples are of government bodies which developed in response to a particular need - free passage of its citizens in foreign lands, food adulteration and vehicle safety respectively. But that is part of the point. Some services by their very nature need to be free from market forces in order to serve their end users properly - much as it may be unpopular to hand such functions over to central governments, with some things (e.g. foreign affairs) they are best suited to the role. That isn't to say they are to all things, and I would agree there are many functions which governments should keep clear of, but to say that competition and the free market always improves services is not something I can agree with.

Originally Posted by Of Mike and Men

I appreciate you responding to these. However, I believe, in the case of the ACA website, if they hired privatized citizens to create it initially, it would have done better. Why? Because, think of it this way: I'm a small little web developing company called AWD (fictional company). The government comes to me and says, "Hey, I want you to create the ACA website." In this case, I would WANT to do a good job. Why? Because let's say I do well on the ACA website, what does this mean for the future of my company? The government will come pay me again to design more websites. What about government employees? Well, they may get a pat on the back, or forgotten. My mom and stepdad both work for the government. My grandpa did to. I've seen this happen first hand. You want to know what they got for doing their jobs well? A basket of treats and trophies that cost a few bucks.

They may well have done - although I would counter that by saying that I have worked in the contracting sector myself and know all too well that private companies are also capable of doing a very poor job. G4S at the Olympic Games is a very high-profile example, but there are others as well. Admittedly government employment practices leave a lot to be desired, but again I have seen similar lack of recognition in private companies as well. It's a sign of poor management in both cases, but not unique to either.

Originally Posted by Of Mike and Men

I had not said that this was a new phenomenon. What I am saying is that education is being devalued because they are finding colleges make students self-entitled. They'd rather the student get out in the workforce out of high school. Regardless, we still see education as a requirement in many places, ironically. However, you end up in a catch-22 after graduation. You need experience to get in. Generally about 2-5 years of experience, even at low-end jobs. So, what do we have? People employed making 7.50 an hour, living at home, and working at McDonalds with tens of thousands of dollars in debt from a bachelor degree that gave them nothing. Then again, if they work part time they get approximately $55K in assistance from the government (which if this is the case, why would they ever want to move up? Why would they want to be an entrepreneur?).

I wouldn't say that education is being devalued as such - expectations in Europe, and certainly the UK, are very high in terms of the standard of education an applicant has. What is perhaps being questioned is whether the education system at present is supplying those applicants with the appropriate skills for the workplace, and that is a valid question. It is still possible to leave university, for example, with comparatively poor use of spelling, punctuation and grammar, and that is something employers hate. That being said, the experiences available to those at school leaver level are not particularly impressive, and certainly nothing which would fast-track an employee in most sectors - indeed, they tend to be the same kinds of jobs you describe above. The experience for a lot of sectors comes from internships, which tend to require completing at least college education. The major problem, and again I emphasise this, is that there simply are not enough posts because the economy is still recovering from the absolute tanking it had in 2007-8.

Out of curiosity, where did you find the $55,000 assistance from the government figure? I must confess I have not encountered that one before, and it sounds somewhat out of kilter with the US approach to state welfare generally.

Originally Posted by Of Mike and Men

I agree. However, I'd argue that if we had removed our federal taxes, enforcing laws that make it difficult for small business owners, and allowed us to choose winners and losers in the economy (rather than the government granting billions of tax payer money to corporate companies and banks, and as it appears to be coming, insurance companies), we'd have a more stable economy. It'd allow for more entrepreneurs. You have to look at why we are in this situation to begin with.

We're in this situation to begin with because, arguably at least, a very light-touch approach to regulation of our financial markets led to a series of incredibly stupid decisions regarding the subprime market which wiped out the balance sheets of major financial institutions, triggering a panic and calling in of debt which went global. The financial crisis of 2007-8, from which we are still recovering, was the result of market forces gone very badly wrong. "Boom and bust", as it is more popularly termed, is an inherent risk of a capitalist economy such as ours, or at least the trend would suggest as such. Given that, historically at least, recoveries have taken place more quickly with increased government intervention to jump-start the economy again, I'm not sure cutting off the revenue stream by removing federal taxes is a sensible approach. As for the laws question, that comes down to the question of which laws you believe make it difficult for small business owners - you may get very different responses from different owners depending on their field of expertise.

Originally Posted by Of Mike and Men

I'm sorry, but this is similar to what you've done this entire post (again, no need for stated respect -- I don't really deserve any anyways). I don't find it necessary to show how we've reached corporatism. It's clear we are controlled by lobbying interest groups. And it is clear who controls those groups. Nor would I call my response a debate. I'd just call it a response with dissenting ideas. I don't really care to be "right." I just care to get people to think about what they believe.

Asserting something is "clear" does not make it so - this is not Wonderland. If you wish to convince others of the merits of your ideas, so as to get them to "think about what they believe", it would do you some good to have some evidence to back up your positions. Beyond that, we have nothing aside from your rhetoric and assertions that it is as you describe it to be. You may well be right in your views - or you may simply be overstating the case considerably. It's up to the reader to decide in each case, but if you wish to encourage dissenting minds to consider your ideas then more substance is required. Einstein still had to show his workings out, after all.