U.S. rattled as Mexico drug war bleeds over border

[mRx 16]

What I said was that profits and producing something benefitial to humans do not run hand in hand, no matter how many times you argue that somehow that is inevitable.

You are missing a very fundamental point that in order to have a profit (gain), a person must lose something that is valued by the other party more than what they are losing, and gain something in voluntary trade. Both parties must value what they are willing to give up as a loss less than what they are going to gain. This is an economic axiom. Therefore profits (gains) is something that both sides of the transaction experience.

About that... I've got some magic beans to sell you, if you don't mind parting with your prized dairy cow...

Deception is no different than fraud, which is considered a crime. Fraudsters don't last long on any market.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Dunno man - there seems to be no shortage of people willing to buy some of that infomercial #######. And those guys have been around for years.

[mRx 16]

Dunno man - there seems to be no shortage of people willing to buy some of that infomercial #######. And those guys have been around for years.

We're getting away from the point here; that in any transaction, both parties experience a gain. In cases of fraud, one party deceptively experiences a loss, and should be entitled to full retribution back to one's original state.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

In theory yes.

But the waters are pretty muddy on what constitutes "deception", especially if you hold to a view that ethics are disposible in business.

[mRx 16]

You need only apply the argument to things like building standards (or electrical standards) to see how ludicrous it is. I can only imagine what a pickle we'd be in if anyone who wanted to throw up a building didn't have to conform to a single established standards for laying foundations, what sort of materials should be used in supporting walls or holding up the ceiling.

Assuming that our buildings are safe due to silly building codes is Statist nonsense. Construction companies meet the demand for safe establishments just as any company meets any other consumer demand. Buildings stay up not because some code says it must, but because there is a competition among companies to build better buildings and these builders are liable for their work.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

You need only apply the argument to things like building standards (or electrical standards) to see how ludicrous it is. I can only imagine what a pickle we'd be in if anyone who wanted to throw up a building didn't have to conform to a single established standards for laying foundations, what sort of materials should be used in supporting walls or holding up the ceiling.

Assuming that our buildings are safe due to silly building codes is Statist nonsense. Construction companies meet the demand for safe establishments just as any company meets any other consumer demand. Buildings stay up not because some code says it must, but because there is a competition among companies to build better buildings and these builders are liable for their work.

Construction companies only meet those demands for quality because explicitly designed standards exist to begin with - to ensure not only a guaranteed standard of the quality of their work but also of the occupational safety of the people doing it.

There is of course, no shortage of corner cutting.

[I'm Gone 60]

http://www.amazon.com/Phamatech-At-Home-Me...9162&sr=1-2

http://www.amazon.com/Phamatech-At-Home-Dr...9280&sr=1-1

http://www.amazon.com/First-Check-Home-Dru...9299&sr=1-6

[mRx 16]

In theory yes.

But the waters are pretty muddy on what constitutes "deception", especially if you hold to a view that ethics are disposible in business.

Whether or not something constitutes fraud would be between the buyer, the seller, and a private arbitration company.

The idea that each side experiences a profit is not a theory, it's an axiom.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

In theory yes.

But the waters are pretty muddy on what constitutes "deception", especially if you hold to a view that ethics are disposible in business.

Whether or not something constitutes fraud would be between the buyer, the seller, and a private arbitration company.

The idea that each side experiences a profit is not a theory, it's an axiom.

Whatever semantics you want to use doesn't get away from the fact that black and white terminology isn't particularly useful in explaining the nuances of specific examples.

[mRx 16]

You need only apply the argument to things like building standards (or electrical standards) to see how ludicrous it is. I can only imagine what a pickle we'd be in if anyone who wanted to throw up a building didn't have to conform to a single established standards for laying foundations, what sort of materials should be used in supporting walls or holding up the ceiling.

Assuming that our buildings are safe due to silly building codes is Statist nonsense. Construction companies meet the demand for safe establishments just as any company meets any other consumer demand. Buildings stay up not because some code says it must, but because there is a competition among companies to build better buildings and these builders are liable for their work.

Construction companies only meet those demands for quality because explicitly designed standards exist to begin with - to ensure not only a guaranteed standard of the quality of their work but also of the occupational safety of the people doing it.

There is of course, no shortage of corner cutting.

The demands for quality and safety are demanded by the consumer, regardless of what some code says. If I decided to build houses made out of ductape and thumbtacks, it's pretty apparent that I would be out of business real quick, but would I be out because I wasn't complying with a code, or because I wasn't meeting a consumer's demand for quality and safety?

Granted, the common consumer may not know exactly if a building is sound in it's construction, but then couldn't they hire an expert to survey the building?

[mRx 16]

In theory yes.

But the waters are pretty muddy on what constitutes "deception", especially if you hold to a view that ethics are disposible in business.

Whether or not something constitutes fraud would be between the buyer, the seller, and a private arbitration company.

The idea that each side experiences a profit is not a theory, it's an axiom.

Whatever semantics you want to use doesn't get away from the fact that black and white terminology isn't particularly useful in explaining the nuances of specific examples.

The axiom of profit as gains is not a theory, it's applicable to each and every specific example, except for fraud/deception, which as explained, would be determined via an arbitration agency between buyer and seller. The triangulation through arbitration would decide whether or not a possible fraud is black or white.

Wasn't trying to be semantic, man.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

You need only apply the argument to things like building standards (or electrical standards) to see how ludicrous it is. I can only imagine what a pickle we'd be in if anyone who wanted to throw up a building didn't have to conform to a single established standards for laying foundations, what sort of materials should be used in supporting walls or holding up the ceiling.

Assuming that our buildings are safe due to silly building codes is Statist nonsense. Construction companies meet the demand for safe establishments just as any company meets any other consumer demand. Buildings stay up not because some code says it must, but because there is a competition among companies to build better buildings and these builders are liable for their work.

Construction companies only meet those demands for quality because explicitly designed standards exist to begin with - to ensure not only a guaranteed standard of the quality of their work but also of the occupational safety of the people doing it.

There is of course, no shortage of corner cutting.

The demands for quality and safety are demanded by the consumer, regardless of what some code says. If I decided to build houses made out of ductape and thumbtacks, it's pretty apparent that I would be out of business real quick, but would I be out because I wasn't complying with a code, or because I wasn't meeting a consumer's demand for quality and safety?

Granted, the common consumer may not know exactly if a building is sound in it's construction, but then couldn't they hire an expert to survey the building?

How would they hire an expert to survey the building if the standards that the expert uses to make his assessment aren't established anywhere?

Furthermore how does the consumer have confidence in what he's being told if there's no reference guidepost for what information he/she should trust.

Centralised standards only exist to provide the consumer with a basic level of quality that they can have confidence in. It isn't foolproof, nor do I see how the existence of those standards prevents construction firms from exceeding them and doing better quality work than a competing firm.

[Peikko 1,575]

You need only apply the argument to things like building standards (or electrical standards) to see how ludicrous it is. I can only imagine what a pickle we'd be in if anyone who wanted to throw up a building didn't have to conform to a single established standards for laying foundations, what sort of materials should be used in supporting walls or holding up the ceiling.

Assuming that our buildings are safe due to silly building codes is Statist nonsense. Construction companies meet the demand for safe establishments just as any company meets any other consumer demand. Buildings stay up not because some code says it must, but because there is a competition among companies to build better buildings and these builders are liable for their work.

Construction companies only meet those demands for quality because explicitly designed standards exist to begin with - to ensure not only a guaranteed standard of the quality of their work but also of the occupational safety of the people doing it.

There is of course, no shortage of corner cutting.

The demands for quality and safety are demanded by the consumer, regardless of what some code says. If I decided to build houses made out of ductape and thumbtacks, it's pretty apparent that I would be out of business real quick, but would I be out because I wasn't complying with a code, or because I wasn't meeting a consumer's demand for quality and safety?

Granted, the common consumer may not know exactly if a building is sound in it's construction, but then couldn't they hire an expert to survey the building?

That relies on the idea that the 'expert' will give one 'expert' advice but without regulation, how would one know? It's not like a 'badly' built house will fall down just because you look at it wrongly. There are a lot of factors involved and many of them are not under some five minute test rule. Some safety issues only become apparent once a building has been exposed to a stress that may take a few years to come to light.

Then there is the question of group safety. If one consumer decides, for example to save money and not demand some fire safety measures - this could have a detrimental affect on other houses built around them. Without regulation you can't possibly know if you are building your house amongst fire resistant houses or ones that would ignite if fire so much as looked at it. The list of potential pitfalls is never ending.

Not to mention...I have no faith in your so called 'consumer driven' safety. I don't have to worry though. It's not going to happen.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

In theory yes.

But the waters are pretty muddy on what constitutes "deception", especially if you hold to a view that ethics are disposible in business.

Whether or not something constitutes fraud would be between the buyer, the seller, and a private arbitration company.

The idea that each side experiences a profit is not a theory, it's an axiom.

Whatever semantics you want to use doesn't get away from the fact that black and white terminology isn't particularly useful in explaining the nuances of specific examples.

The axiom of profit as gains is not a theory, it's applicable to each and every specific example, except for fraud/deception, which as explained, would be determined via an arbitration agency between buyer and seller. The triangulation through arbitration would decide whether or not a possible fraud is black or white.

Wasn't trying to be semantic, man.

No you're being condescending

So if you're not being semantic I guess I should be.

I wasn't describing the idea itself as "theory", I was saying that the idea works "in theory".

I was agreeing with you - I was disagreeing with how it is useful in understanding the examples that we're talking about.

[mRx 16]

How would they hire an expert to survey the building if the standards that the expert uses to make his assessment aren't established anywhere?

Furthermore how does the consumer have confidence in what he's being told if there's no reference guidepost for what information he/she should trust.

Centralised standards only exist to provide the consumer with a basic level of quality that they can have confidence in. It isn't foolproof, nor do I see how the existence of those standards prevents construction firms from exceeding them and doing better quality work than a competing firm.

A surveyor can have his own standards, ones that will distinguish him/her from other surveyors. The accuracy of the surveyor's claims will determine their marketability. If the surveyor makes inaccurate judgements or isn't thoroughly meticulous, then his business will suffer, because he won't be assuring that the consumers are recieving the quality and safety that they demand.

It's just like getting a used car inspected before you purchase it. Each mechanic follows different standards and procedures, and it's up to the consumer to pick between the competing mechanics to which will earn his money surveying the vehicle.

Centralized standards are unnecessary. The quality and safety are demanded by the consumer, and can be verified true by a chosen surveyor. Free competition (as you've stated in bold) ensures that better buildings are built. Building codes was your central argument against the ludicrous free-market.