But the fees are a lot lower and it doesn't mean that those protections can't be added back on on a different layer. You can also do a lot more with Bitcoin than with CCs.
Regulation is a public good, therefore it is itself a market failure. Voters don't do hours of research to determine what constitutes rational regulation.
So, if there's a new law that will cost 990 people $1 each and the other 10 people gain 99 each... it will pass, because for 99% of the people it's not even worth an hour of their time to rally against it. However, the 1% that benefit from it can afford to organize entire campaigns to convince the 99% that this new law is for their own good.
It certainly can be. Lots of laws are built to favor small groups who benefit less than the total cost imposed on the rest of the country.
My point is simply that regulation can be overall good and that you can't detect this by having them compete, because even good regulation can't compete.
That's precisely the tragedy of the commons - there is no "someone else" when it comes to things like water and air pollution, so without government regulation, there is no incentive to protect the commons, only use it in a manner to maximally improve one's own economic self interest, in a manner that harms all in an aggregate manner more than the community has been benefited.
It's a net-loss without some form of government regulation.
It's only a market failure, because it's publicly owned. Oceans and air is tricky, but rivers and lakes can certainly be privately owned.
But, regulation is also a public good and therefore also a market failure... so you end up with regulations that harm 99% of the people, like in the case of Uber in France.
This really gets tiresome. Somebody states something pretty obvious, like the fact that the massive environmental harm of leaded gasoline outweighed the minor benefit to drivers, and you're right there asking for evidence without doing any work yourself. But when you make a much more precise and much less obvious claim about a specific set of regulations harming 99% of people, then "it's not a literal statement" and we should, apparently, not even think about asking you to back it up.
Anyone who works with demographics in a serious manner is aware that a 99% split is extraordinarily difficult to achieve.
You're actually saying that the regulations on Uber hurt 99% of the people of France. Children? The mentally ill? Prisoners? Soldiers stationed overseas? Farmers? People too poor to afford taxis in the first place?
Hell, people outside the Uber areas of service, which is apparently just Paris?
Each of these demographic segments pretty much wholly have no interest in something like Uber, and slice off percentage point after percentage point. And even when you take your twenty/thirty/fortysomething urban parisian with the money for car hire, plenty have life patterns that don't need a taxi or uber - they walk or cycle or bus or train it about.
'99%' is utter, utter tosh, both in the literal, and more importantly, in the contextual figurative sense it was given.
Because that "someone else's property" is often shared water/air resources, and when you cause $30 million in damages by causing 10 cents in damage each to 300 million people, there's no way to turn that into a lawsuit, even when tons of other people are doing the same thing and adding up to thousands of dollars of damage per person.
It's even worse than that, I think. I may have missed it since I just skimmed that document, but I don't think it covered violent crime.
It has been shown rather conclusively that overexposure to lead in childhood leads to an increase in violent crime in adulthood. Banning leaded gasoline was the single most significant cause of the large decrease in violent crime in the US in the latter part of the 20th century. Here's one story on this [1]. Cites to peer reviewed journals are available from Wikipedia [2].
Putting extra lead in the environment increases the risk of people coming into contact with larger amounts of lead. Lead has been shown to cause health problems and birth defects.
Banking is the most heavily regulated industry there is. Regulators have offices inside banks, yet it didn't prevent 2008, HSBC and every other billion-dollar scandal.
Protections systems failing isn't a reason to completely get rid of them, it is a reason to reform them.
Using an analogy that has been mentioned elsewhere in this thread, think of your front door lock and your home. Would you get ride of all locks because someone robbed your house? Or would you invest in some other type of lock and security that might not have the same vulnerabilities?
This conversation normally comes up in the context of taxes for #3.
To which I say, if you're willing to allow the government to deport someone who doesn't pay taxes I'd tend to agree with you, but as it stands the balance is actually tipped the other way: Government (usually local) is forced to figure out clean water, last-resort healthcare, schools, etc. simply by people being present, whether they pay taxes or not, yet government has no ability to simply "get rid" of people
I say the libertarians go find a nice area somewhere with a failed state, take it over, prove its supremacy and be a big shining beacon on the hill for libertarians everywhere to finally prove once and for all that it's better, and then I'll care about "taxes as extortion".
Discipline and pressure are not the only ways to prevent laziness (there are also passion, curiosity, and imagination), and the threat of deprivation is not the only way (and is probably not the best way) to teach discipline.
The problem here is what will happen if basic income means that costs for things like garbage collection start to explode.
People think that company profits on a per-employee basis are something like a factor 10. In practice, for the best companies in existence (think google) it's a factor of 3 or so. For most companies it's much lower 10% would be a lot (hiring is already very expensive, just try it). This number is called efficiency of the economy and it's an upper bound on how much more money you can give any significant group of people (assuming labor costs dominate, which is currently true). Of course you could give them more by law, but it would simply result in massive price hikes for everything until we're back in the current situation.
Those people are already not working. So, instead of spending more on officials and offices and paperwork determining if they can have welfare or not, let's just give them the money directly.
If the cost of covering everyone is less than or equal to the current cost, why not?
BI is supposed to cover food and simple housing, people that want to travel, have a large house, or have hobbies will probably need at least part-time jobs to cover that, their incomes will be taxed.
The problem is getting over the idea that some people would be freeloaders, but again, if the total cost is less than the current cost of welfare, it's in our best interests to switch.
I'm not certain that it will work or that it is a good idea, but the counter-arguments seem to be 1. people irritated that they'd be forced to pay for the lazy and would rather lazy people have a shitty life than have less welfare expenses for the state, 2. people who assert without a scientific study that the majority of other people in absence of a job wish to do nothing but watch TV all day every day, and 3. people who just flat-out construct strawman arguments about lazy people having parties all day every day at the expense of the state.
