Emissions trading broken?

[Josquius]

Collapse under the weight of bureacracy could refer to the volume and intrusiveness of rules and regulations as well as the number of staff.

Yeah I didn't mean the number of people, that's usually the lesser problem. Their influence on stuff they shouldn't have influence on is the problem.

Except the EU is good for this, it drastically reduces bureaucracy.
Without the EU you would have dozens of different bodies like the "European Banana Industry Association" and "The Alliance of European Bread Makers" all agreeing lots of complicated rules and regulations and standards amongst each other.
International standards just make sense. The EU consolidates things a lot.

[Neil]

Yeah, but the Alliance of European Bread Makers isn't likely to make a rule that only bread made in France can be labeled as 'bread', and that all other countries have to call their bread 'imitation loaf'.

Fuck the EU.

[Tamas]

The fundamental threat to freedom is the power to coerce, be it in the hands of a monarch, a dictator, an oligarchy, or a momentary majority. The preservation of freedom requires the elimination of such concentration of power to the fullest extent possible and the dispersal and distribution of whatever power cannot be eliminated — a system of checks and balances. By removing the organization of economic activity from the control of political authority, the market eliminates this source of coercive power. It enables economic strength to be a check to political power rather than a reinforcement.

[The Larch]

So you've given up reasoning and are down to quoting and soundbites now? We get it, you're a freak libertarian type of guy in a place where there are almost none. Get over it.

[Tamas]

So you've given up reasoning and are down to quoting and soundbites now? We get it, you're a freak libertarian type of guy in a place where there are almost none. Get over it.

I spotted it on facebook and it fits the point I was trying to make

I have not given up reasoning, but I think you are getting a personal angst toward me because I keep voicing my opinion that your country's design is broken somewhere if you face such big unemployment.

[The Larch]

So you've given up reasoning and are down to quoting and soundbites now? We get it, you're a freak libertarian type of guy in a place where there are almost none. Get over it.

I spotted it on facebook and it fits the point I was trying to make

I have not given up reasoning, but I think you are getting a personal angst toward me because I keep voicing my opinion that your country's design is broken somewhere if you face such big unemployment.

No, I berate you because you're basically a clueless ideologically driven ignoramus that for some reason I can't fathom feels entitled to lecture people on libertarian bullcrap applied to places you don't have the foggiest idea about from behind your IT desk. If you talk about Hungarian stuff or IT stuff I won't bat an eyelid, you're the expert. If you start mouthing off about "comfy welfare states like Spain" I'm going to call you on it because it's plain and simple that you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

[Tamas]

Like lack of knowledge is stopping most people here

And my hyperbole was on a base supplied by what you Spaniards told here about the rigid and uneven laws concerning employment, plus the news coming of needed cuts of government spending. "too much welfare" is hardly the most impossible conclusion on these, altough wording it "state intervention" might have been better at keeping you calm

[Neil]

The Larch is a lusty Spaniard.  There is no way to head off his rage, but it is a fleeting thing.

[Ed Anger]

Then he writes sonnets about windmills.

[Josquius]

Yeah, but the Alliance of European Bread Makers isn't likely to make a rule that only bread made in France can be labeled as 'bread', and that all other countries have to call their bread 'imitation loaf'.

Fuck the EU.

I strongly support the geographic food name thingy (the term escapes me), lets local areas profit from their heritage. And its not like it goes to such crazy extents as French bread can only be made in France, it tends to be applied pretty logically, just makes sure for instance that Kendel keeps control of its famed mint cake and the like.
I do believe such laws are spreading beyond the EU too.

[Neil]

Yeah, but the Alliance of European Bread Makers isn't likely to make a rule that only bread made in France can be labeled as 'bread', and that all other countries have to call their bread 'imitation loaf'.

Fuck the EU.

I strongly support the geographic food name thingy (the term escapes me), lets local areas profit from their heritage. And its not like it goes to such crazy extents as French bread can only be made in France, it tends to be applied pretty logically, just makes sure for instance that Kendel keeps control of its famed mint cake and the like.
I do believe such laws are spreading beyond the EU too.

Those laws are foolish and utterly evil, and are usually spread through corruption.

[Duque de Bragança]

I strongly support the geographic food name thingy (the term escapes me), lets local areas profit from their heritage. And its not like it goes to such crazy extents as French bread can only be made in France, it tends to be applied pretty logically, just makes sure for instance that Kendel keeps control of its famed mint cake and the like.
I do believe such laws are spreading beyond the EU too.

In practical terms, however, finding real, good, cheap baguette/pain (bigger baguette) outside of France is almost impossible so no law is needed. 

[Razgovory]

The fundamental threat to freedom is the power to coerce, be it in the hands of a monarch, a dictator, an oligarchy, or a momentary majority. The preservation of freedom requires the elimination of such concentration of power to the fullest extent possible and the dispersal and distribution of whatever power cannot be eliminated — a system of checks and balances. By removing the organization of economic activity from the control of political authority, the market eliminates this source of coercive power. It enables economic strength to be a check to political power rather than a reinforcement.

What an excellent quote to demonstrate the problems with Libertarianism.  The total refusal to see that coercion can come from non-state entities. Through out the history of the US tyranny has not come from the government, but from individuals.  Millions of people lived in a state of chattel slavery.  Not slaves of the government, but slaves owned by private individualism.  It was the concentration of government power that freed them.

[dps]

The fundamental threat to freedom is the power to coerce, be it in the hands of a monarch, a dictator, an oligarchy, or a momentary majority. The preservation of freedom requires the elimination of such concentration of power to the fullest extent possible and the dispersal and distribution of whatever power cannot be eliminated — a system of checks and balances. By removing the organization of economic activity from the control of political authority, the market eliminates this source of coercive power. It enables economic strength to be a check to political power rather than a reinforcement.

What an excellent quote to demonstrate the problems with Libertarianism.  The total refusal to see that coercion can come from non-state entities. Through out the history of the US tyranny has not come from the government, but from individuals.  Millions of people lived in a state of chattel slavery.  Not slaves of the government, but slaves owned by private individualism.  It was the concentration of government power that freed them.

The Friedman quote doesn't say that coercion comes only from government sources.  Rather, it says that concentration of power is a threat to freedom, and therefore power shouldn't be concentrated more than necessary (though of course, even if among those who agree with this in principle, there's a lot of room to disagree about how much concentration of power is "necessary"), and proposes free economic markets as a means of lessening concentration of power in the government.

The founding fathers (with a few exceptions) would certainly agree that it was dangerous to concentrate too much power in the federal government.  But when they came to the conclusion that the Articles of Confederation didn't concentrate enough power in the federal government, they replaced the Articles with the Constitution, which while still a federal system, gave far more power to the central government--in other words, they came to the conclusion that more concentration of power than provided for by the Articles was necessary.

[Razgovory]

The Freidman quote doesn't use any examples of coercion that aren't governmental.