LOL. See? That wasn't so hard! I think you enjoyed it even...
Ok... So basically what you are saying is that these guilds would have to be based on a minimum standard of service asnd quality rather than a maximum level of service and quality. Good idea! Guys like Bob would be free to innovate and improve market conditions, while remaining restricted from using horsemeat to cheap out their product at the consumer's expense.
You mentioned that industry associations already exist, and I'm not suggesting otherwise. In fact, in fields too complex for government to understand, there are actually REGULATORY associations that fill the void left by federal ignorance. For the most part, however, the existing associations serve the purpose of lobbying the government. They protect their members from government heavy-handedness and industry specific ignorance. Not quite the same thing, is it?
Another good idea you had though: lack of government (third party) oversight. I'm addressing my responses in order of interest and importance, by the way, and this one was already addressed. I never indicated the government role would be reduced to distant, disconnected hand waving, did I? No, you invented that to lend credibility to your end of the argument.
Just as the guilds are initiated by adoption of minimum standards and a corresponding break in the punitive portion of the tax (more than required to obviate the move into guilds) to which thy're subject, that waving hand is also able to press that big red button that turns that extra tax back on. THAT's oversight, not management or regulation. That's a direct, punitive response to bad faith, like carpet bombing rather than regime change followed by a puppet-government. Companies still get to run themselves, but they do so at a forced loss of profits due to their inability to do so well.
Now, moving on to me running naked through the streets, smearing syrup on my body while on my way to burn down a public library... Not my bag, baby, but other than the library part (which I haven't actually done yet, and stupid ideas shouldn't really be against the law, should they? I mean, how am I gonna pull that off with syrup?) Laws limit freedom ONLY. You lean authoratarian while I trend libertarian, and I can't change that. Laws aren't about what only I or you can do. You like laws because they limit what everybody else can do, and I prefer the maximum levels of choice for everyone. I would rather lower our "social safety net" down a bit from the level of a couch one can sit on instead of being productive to a level just above death due to legitimately falling through the cracks. I'd put some bounce in the thing, to help "the unfortunate" get back on track. No, this doesn't mean I'd shoot those truly incapable of production... that should be privatized as well...
"Health codes. Building codes..." I didn't ask for examples of government regulation. I know those exist. Are they working as well as they could? No. The difference between third-party oversight and third-party regulation is that oversight has one negative response and regulation sets limits across the board which discourages innovation. Regulators are not experts. Experts in any industry won't take the pay cut to work for government. Regulators, in general, limit the innovation of professionals. Limitation is the sum total of their job. The knowledge gap is huge. By arranging thigs so that the experts from companies A-F are seting the limits for the guy at company G, the threshold for innovation is lowered, and safety/quality is managed by those actually qualified to do the job.
You can choose to live in a fantasy world where regulators get government jobs because they're accomplished experts in their fields, but that's your choice, not reality. This is just another area where power can override knowledge, and I'd like to see that reversed.
Finally, you made another intentional misunderstanding when you brought up Bob and Bill and their twelve friends. I said NATIONAL groups, which doesn't preclude statewide or regional sub-groups, but definitely leaves out Bob, Bill and the gang functioning as a "guild." As I said before, there's a lot of questions you could be asking, and many more valid holes you could be poking at. One notable example is the internal structure of a guild. It would have to be divided in levels, likely according to market-share and regional penetration, to avoid Microsoft being able to use monopolistic tactics to drive lesser companies out of business. Leveling could also, if done well, force fair play on the largest corporations in a way federal anti-trust laws are obviously incapable of doing. Again, look at Microsoft.
I think I've addressed your issues. If I missed something, let me know. I didn't really give you the background on Gator or 4-ranters or that other stuff... I figured you weren't acually interested. If you feel it's pertinent, I could explain more. You keep pointing out the hole you find, and I'll keep helping you fill them in.
Oh, and FS: Me and another poster were the one's that killed Gator. It was an ill-conceived attempt to prove a mostly moot point. I do dumb things sometimes... :/ It got a little out of hand when Vince and a few other folks didn't realize we were pulling a prank. We took it a bit too far which crossed the line between funny and mean. I think Vince's still pissed at me... Well, that and he thinks I got him "fired" from Newsfilter. Since the original scheme was to prove to folks like Vince that the people on the other side of his screen are real, and not just toys for his amusement, I guess maybe it served it's purpose to a point...
Threaded Mode