The difference is the new system doesn't let houses burn
I agree those are issues. That's why I said I think the government has no place making twirly drinking straws- the private market does it better. When we talk about fire departments though I think the issue still should be addressed but it doesn't outright kill the concept. its a negative factor which needs to be mitigated but i believe its possible.
My point is that fires are put out because they are fires and no fire brigades watch a house burn down anymore. You think it means nothing?
Yes I do know that. I nearly mentioned that but didn't. There is of course a wide range of regulation beliefs. Some people do advocate for very little. You are right though, no one does call for no laws or regulation. From that some people can also learn that the ideas I have are not new or alien but are actually just an extension or using the ideas already in place.
No not by magic and it doesn't fix every single problem. But just look at one example if you want to understand my point of view; before fire fighters were socialised, there existed a time in the US where people had to pay private companies or have their house burn down. Socialism didn't magically cure anything but simply removed some of the opportunity for bad things to happen. Can you tell me how your point refutes the fire brigade example?
What I'm talking about when I say that is private ownership and enterprise. When I say unrestrained that means no laws or regulation. For example there are regulations which make companies write the ingredients on food product labels.
lol not negative utility to me- to him! It hasn't hurt my feelings or made me feel like a victim, I'm talking about how someone has misinterpreted and acted out on to the world. Even at that it was such a minor incident that i'm not talking about this in terms of damage done. What i'm really saying is- why is someone acting irrational on a rationality website?
To be honest, I guess my comment was just a complaint with no expected result. It really had no point other than some kind of emotional release
Hmm I see your point- but if what they did was called 'rational' then there has to be another word for the part where they made the mistake. The mistake was they came to so much of a conclusion about something that they acted on it. They were wrong. They caused negative utility. It negatively effected the world and also their understanding of it. What is that called?
Food is important and it is supported with tax payer money by some governments for that very reason. I think government action on it should be considered. Of course no changes should be made if the system isn't broken and and if they do it should be for the better or not at all. I'm not advocating socialism just for the sake of being socialist. When private is better- it's better.
About the straws you fully missed the point. What i'm saying is no matter how bad someone screwed up the straw industry it won't be a serious blow to society. By talking about supply and demand you are changing the subject