This is just another argument about imperfect information. See my earlier response.
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 22:45, Ken Schaefer <[email protected]> wrote: > Government regulations are not necessarily anti-competitive. Property > rights are typically enforced through government regulation, as most other > systems tend to break down in “right is might” chaos.**** > > ** ** > > In some areas, transaction costs inhibit the market: e.g. it simply costs > too much for an individual to do their due diligence on a purchase. So > governments set minimum standards, so that consumers can purchase with a > level of confidence without needing to resort to their own > investigation/verification.**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > *From:* Kurt Buff [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Friday, 9 September 2011 11:59 AM > > *To:* NT System Admin Issues > *Subject:* Re: DigiNotar compromise**** > > ** ** > > Alrighty then. > > > If you want us all to be more precise, I'll restate: > > Laws and regulations that inhibit the free exercise of individual's rights > to their own property and right of contract (and by individuals I don't mean > corporations), deny the ability of the participants in the marketplace > (i.e., those who are buying and selling) to gain a correct signal in regard > to supply and demand. If you can't sell what you have to me at a price and > under conditions agreed to by both of us, we will not be making a > transaction that satisfies our full mutual requirements. One of us, buyer or > seller, will be come out behind on the transaction. > > Government regulations are by definition anti-competitive. > > This is basic economics. > > Kurt**** > > On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 19:53, Andrew S. Baker <[email protected]> wrote:* > *** > > The *market* makes decisions? > > Where is this mythical market? The market is based on people, and if they > can't be trusted to make good decisions without oversight when grouped > together under the banner of government, they cannot be trusted to do so > when grouped together under the banner of corporation or market. > > People, as we have oft observed on this very list, tend to make very bad > decision -- more so in groups. > > *Theoretically* a free market system will operate better than many others > under most circumstances, but in practice, a *little* bit of regulation is > needed to make sure that the rules largely remain throughout the game the > way they did at the beginning of the game. Most regulation, it might > easily be observed, has come about when the leaders in a given market got > too free with said market, to the detriment of other players in that market. > > But hey, don't let reality stop you from fawning over what could be... > > Oh, and I fully expect that in addition to "iPhone thread!" we're now going > to have to endure months of "DigiNotar thread!" > **** > > ** ** > > *ASB***** > > *http://XeeMe.com/AndrewBaker***** > > *Harnessing the Advantages of Technology for the SMB market…***** > > > > **** > > On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 6:28 PM, Kurt Buff <[email protected]> wrote:**** > > And in practice. > > Outside the textbook, laws and regulation which don't respect property and > contract rights robs the market of its ability to make decisions.**** > > > > > **** > > On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 13:28, Andrew S. Baker <[email protected]> wrote:** > ** > > *>>**A free market doesn't guarantee good results, just better results > than anything else.* > **** > > In theory. Outside of the textbook, the abundant use of free market often > requires regulatory intervention... > > **** > > *ASB***** > > *http://XeeMe.com/AndrewBaker***** > > *Harnessing the Advantages of Technology for the SMB market…***** > > > > **** > > On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 3:52 PM, Kurt Buff <[email protected]> wrote:**** > > On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 10:28, Ben Scott <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 11:05 PM, Ken Schaefer <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>> There's no rule that says that has to happen. It would appear > >>> that most people chose price over security, and so far that has > >>> generally meant that those who value security more are left > >>> without any really satisfying vendor. > >>**** > > >> If there's a market, or even if someone thinks there's a market, plus a > >> way to make it profitable, then you can bet someone will start something > up. > > > > You ignore startup costs, network effects, and other barriers-to-entry. > > > > Start, sure. Succeed or see any real adoption? Not so certain. > > The free market is not a panacea.**** > > A free market doesn't guarantee good results, just better results than > anything else. > > Kurt**** > > ** ** > > ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ > ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~ > > --- > To manage subscriptions click here: > http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ > or send an email to [email protected] > with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin**** > > ** ** > > ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ > ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~ > > --- > To manage subscriptions click here: > http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ > or send an email to [email protected] > with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin**** > > ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ > ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~ > > --- > To manage subscriptions click here: > http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ > or send an email to [email protected] > with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin > ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~ --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to [email protected] with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin
