Not just regulated. The federal government also designates them, that is, picks them. A very select club. Either you or I with the proper expertise and regulatory compliance can start a local bank (at least in the US, in my state), especially if we think the existing local banks under perform. Similarly we can start an insurance company (not so much an underwriter). But even with perfect regulatory compliance and convincing evidence that we're getting unreliable evidence from existing credit rating firms, we can't become a Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organization without, as far as I can see, extraordinary political blessing akin to an act of God.Office_Shredder said:Credit ratings agencies are regulated by the federal government, and therefore are creatures of the federal government?
mheslep said:Not just regulated. The federal government also designates them, that is, picks them. A very select club. Either you or I with the proper expertise and regulatory compliance can start a local bank (at least in the US, in my state), especially if we think the existing local banks under perform. Similarly we can start an insurance company (not so much an underwriter). But even with perfect regulatory compliance and convincing evidence that we're getting unreliable evidence from existing credit rating firms, we can't become a Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organization without, as far as I can see, extraordinary political blessing akin to an act of God.
GROUNDS FOR DECISION- The Commission shall grant registration under this subsection--
(i) if the Commission finds that the requirements of this section are satisfied; and
(ii) unless the Commission finds (in which case the Commission shall deny such registration) that--
(I) the applicant does not have adequate financial and managerial resources to consistently produce credit ratings with integrity and to materially comply with the procedures and methodologies disclosed under paragraph (1)(B) and with subsections (g), (h), (i), and (j); or
(II) if the applicant were so registered, its registration would be subject to suspension or revocation under subsection (d).GROUNDS FOR DECISION- The Commission shall grant registration under this subsection--
(i) if the Commission finds that the requirements of this section are satisfied; and
(ii) unless the Commission finds (in which case the Commission shall deny such registration) that--
(I) the applicant does not have adequate financial and managerial resources to consistently produce credit ratings with integrity and to materially comply with the procedures and methodologies disclosed under paragraph (1)(B) and with subsections (g), (h), (i), and (j); or
(II) if the applicant were so registered, its registration would be subject to suspension or revocation under subsection (d).
What are you talking about? What absurd idea? That murder, and contracting murder should be illegal?vertices said:I was kind of expecting a more sophisticated justification for this absurd idea.
So if a contract explicitly states that the contractee must kill someone who is not party to the contract, the contract is in and of itself perfectly valid?
Al68 said:What are you talking about? What absurd idea? That murder, and contracting murder should be illegal?
It seems either I made a serious typo somewhere or you have misconstrued something I said.
I said people have a right to enter voluntary agreements. A person obviously can only agree to do those things they could do without the agreement. Such agreements don't legally give anyone any claim against any third party. Is this not obvious?
Meaning personally? As in, "I think the latest California Muni bond issue will likely default"? To what end? Nobody can effectively float a bond on the market without a NRSRO rating attached. As I understand it, the problem is with the buyers: banks and brokers are prohibited from buying unrated debt.Office_Shredder said:You can rate whatever credit you want without getting government approval.
Who is talking about such a thing? I have consistently said otherwise. Do you have me confused with someone else? Mixed up threads?vertices said:So if a contract specifically states that the contractor is to murder a third party, this contract has to be null and void by definition.
So it is meaningless to talk about an absolute, unconditional "right to contract", "independent" of whether or not this contract impinges on the rights of third parties. The idea is even meaningless in anarchic systems, which rely on people 'cooperating' with each other (in a game-theory sense).
Al68 said:Our disagreement was whether merely "affecting" a third party invalidates a contract. Clearly it does not. If an action agreed to in a contract affects a third party by violating their rights, then the contract isn't legal because the actions agreed to violate a third party's rights, not because they merely "affected" a third party.
mheslep said:Meaning personally? As in, "I think the latest California Muni bond issue will likely default"? To what end? Nobody can effectively float a bond on the market without a NRSRO rating attached. As I understand it, the problem is with the buyers: banks and brokers are prohibited from buying unrated debt.
Yes, but that's all irrelevant to the topic at hand, which was subprime mortage securities and their relation to credit rating agencies as connected in post https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2783651&postcount=349" by vertices and my response that they are 'creatures' of government. The non-NRSROs on your list have nothing to do with rating those kinds of (US) bonds, nor can they. Only NRSRO's have anything to do with that, that is those designated by the government. Given the utterly subjective rules in place from the SEC to select them:Office_Shredder said:There exist and have existed credit rating agencies that were not NRSROs.
So if I buy a car from you, and we don't consult everyone else "affected" by that transaction, such as everyone else that wanted to sell me a car and everyone else that may have wanted to buy yours, then we denied them all "personal autonomy" and violated their (human) rights? Baloney.vertices said:If a transaction between yourself and myself affects a third person not party to this transaction, what we are doing, by not even bothering to consult them, is denying them personal autonomy, which is a violation of their (human) rights.
Al68 said:So if I buy a car from you, and we don't consult everyone else "affected" by that transaction, such as everyone else that wanted to sell me a car and everyone else that may have wanted to buy yours, then we denied them all "personal autonomy" and violated their (human) rights? Baloney.
Are we through with this nonsense?
That's exactly why I used this example: A third party is "affected" but does not have his rights violated.vertices said:But our transaction will not materially affect these 'third parties' - nobody else* will have gained or lost anything, let alone personal autonomy, as a direct result of our transaction.
Al68 said:That's exactly why I used this example: A third party is "affected" but does not have his rights violated.
The right to contract is the right to agree to actions that each party to the contract is at liberty to perform. The parties are not at liberty to violate a third party's rights, and the right to contract doesn't change that.
The right to contract, even an absolute right to contract, does not endow the parties to it with any extra liberties regarding third parties. That's just not what the word contract means.
Galteeth said:The action that causes the consequence must be considered independent of the contract.
However, not all consequences of an action are an active restriction of the liberty of the third party. Note the key word "active." I think even most die hard right wing libs would admit that say, dumping poison in a water supply is an aggressive act.
The line then becomes murkier as you abstract the consequences more. For example, releasing chemicals into the air that are potentially harmful, but not enough so to kill someone in a short period of time.
What a libertarian does not believe is an active violation of liberty is all possible consequences of action, which would render the principle of individual responsibility meaningless. For example, if one were to argue that by me giving money to person x, I created the consequence of person y dying because I did not give person y the money he needs for medicine, a libertarian would not find that an active restriction of person y's liberty.
For an action to be aggressive, it must cause active direct harm that is unavoidable by person being aggressed upon, meaning that in the absence of that action, direct harm (of the type caused by the action) does not come. Aggression is not indirect harm (harm caused through some chain of events as oppossed to a direct cause-effect relationship) nor is it harm that would not necessarily be removed by not doing the action.
If they gained or lost something directly in the transaction, then they are by definition not a third party.vertices said:I use the word 'affected' in a very literal sense - namely being materially affected, ie. whether the person has gained or lost anything of value, perhaps capital, if you will.
You haven't even specified what actions you oppose, much less why. You claim a third party has risk "transferred" to them. That's simply not a description specific enough to have any logical meaning relevant to this issue.The point is simply this: an unregulated free-market is not free at all - in such a system, entities that we call corporations essentially become externalising machines, transferring risk to others, not party to their transactions.
Huh? I haven't defined them at all. I used murder as an obvious example, not as a comprehensive list of possible violations.I do think that you (like Al68) are defining these rights too narrowly.
Still making no sense. A person directly involved in a transaction is by definition not a third party to it.A transaction that ignores the opinions and wishes of affected third parties does by definition violate their rights to personal autonomy.
Because that's logically coherent. It's not logically coherent to suggest that a contract itself, instead of the actions performed by the parties to it, violates the rights of a third party.vertices said:why?Galteeth said:The action that causes the consequence must be considered independent of the contract.
Al68 said:If they gained or lost something directly in the transaction, then they are by definition not a third party.
Because that's logically coherent. It's not logically coherent to suggest that a contract itself, instead of the actions performed by the parties to it, violates the rights of a third party.
Of course, I never said otherwise. And polluting the environment violates our rights regardless of any contract. That was my whole point: The right to contract doesn't give the parties to it any extra liberties it didn't already have. A contract between a paper mill and OfficeMax, for example, has no effect whatsoever on whether either of them has the right to pollute the environment or violate others' rights in any other way. Yes, they both have the right to contract. But a paper mill can't obtain a right to pollute from OfficeMax in a contract between them, because OfficeMax doesn't have that right to give.vertices said:You said it! So, going back to Galteeth's example, if a corporation pollutes the environment (a 'public good' that everyone shares), the general public are all directly involved in this 'transaction', no?
It's only legally enforceable against the parties to it. That's why there is no basis for denying the right to contract, because everyone who could ever be sued for contract default agreed to the contract.In legal parlance though, a contract is something that is legally enforceable.
The leader worship characteristic of facism does seem to be present in totalitarian socialism cases, including:RenasontsMan said:Adolf Hitler's party was the Social Democrats. You cannot have socialism without fascism.
Impossible. Witness North Korea, and of course that Democrat nirvana, Cuba.
RenasontsMan said:Since libertarianism is toward the right extreme of the political spectrum, while socialism is toward the left extreme, libertarian socialism would seem to be the equivalent of wet dryness, cold heat, and black white.
Adolf Hitler's party was the Social Democrats. You cannot have socialism without fascism.
Impossible. Witness North Korea, and of course that Democrat nirvana, Cuba.
RenasontsMan said:Since libertarianism is toward the right extreme of the political spectrum, while socialism is toward the left extreme, libertarian socialism would seem to be the equivalent of wet dryness, cold heat, and black white.
Adolf Hitler's party was the Social Democrats. You cannot have socialism without fascism.
Impossible. Witness North Korea, and of course that Democrat nirvana, Cuba.
