NationStates Jolt Archive

What duties do you think the private sector should be assigned, and what duties do you think the public sector should be assigned, and why?

Edit: Incidentally, this is my 900th post. Hurray!

What duties do you think the private sector should be assigned, and what duties do you think the public sector should be assigned, and why?

Public: law and order, national defense, infrastructure (ports, railways, airports, roads, power lines, etc.).

Private: Everything else.

Oh, and in before 100+ pages of flaming.

Public sector?

What public sector?

The only things which the government should handle are the police and the military with of course diplomats and such, but other than that, everything else should be private.

The fewer public programs: the fewer taxes we have to pay. The fewer taxes we have to pay, the more money we have. The more money we have, the more we get to choose what kind of services we want. and that means more freedom.

Less public = less government control over our lives = more freedom.

Public sector?

What public sector?

The only things which the government should handle are the police and the military with of course diplomats and such, but other than that, everything else should be private.

The fewer public programs: the fewer taxes we have to pay. The fewer taxes we have to pay, the more money we have. The more money we have, the more we get to choose what kind of services we want. and that means more freedom.

Less public = less government control over our lives = more freedom.

So you don't think the market should control police, military, and judiciary? I would think that would be the logical conclusion.

At this point in time, I believe that the state should only control the military, judicial systems, roads, basic forms of social securitym currency/central banking, primary education, environmental and corporate regulation (monopolies, workplace safety and consumer protection).

Obviously, if the situation were to change there could be a further reduction in these roles but we are not ready to make such a transition yet.

The public should exercise ownership of and power over the major economic institutions that dominate their lives; anything else is tyranny, and a blatant recipe for exploitation.

Within the public sphere should also be the police and military, though I would envision them as operating somewhat differently than the statist versions today.

The rest should be left to private individuals.

At this point in time, I believe that the state should only control the military, judicial systems, roads, basic forms of social securitym currency/central banking, primary education, environmental and corporate regulation (monopolies, workplace safety and consumer protection).

Obviously, if the situation were to change there could be a further reduction in these roles but we are not ready to make such a transition yet.

I agree with you except for one thing: the government should be responsible for not just primary, but secondary and college level education as well. In the long run, freer--or at least cheaper--college-level education will give a serious boost to the economy thanks to educated peeps. But that's just the way I see it; otherwise, as I said, I agree with you.

Public: police, fire, infrastructure, education, some base level of welfare, military, justice, money (central bank, currency, and the like), corporate management (no monopolies), environmental requirements

Private: the rest

I agree with you except for one thing: the government should be responsible for not just primary, but secondary and college level education as well. In the long run, freer--or at least cheaper--college-level education will give a serious boost to the economy thanks to educated peeps. But that's just the way I see it; otherwise, as I said, I agree with you.

I agree to some extent. Private institutions of education should always be an option...but yes, the government should provide education to all through secondary, and to those who want it to higher levels.

The public should exercise ownership of and power over the major economic institutions that dominate their lives; anything else is tyranny, and a blatant recipe for exploitation.

Within the public sphere should also be the police and military, though I would envision them as operating somewhat differently than the statist versions today.

The rest should be left to private individuals.

What do you mean by "major economic institutions"?

What do you mean by "major economic institutions"?

What do you mean by "you"?

Public: police, fire, infrastructure, education, some base level of welfare, military, justice, money (central bank, currency, and the like), corporate management (no monopolies), environmental requirements

Private: the rest

Do you oppose public control of healthcare?

So you don't think the market should control police, military, and judiciary? I would think that would be the logical conclusion.

The government should be the only thing supported by tax payer monies.

And the government should be an executive branch, a legislative branch, and a judicial branch, and it should support diplomacy and defense (through the police and the military) only.

Do you oppose public control of healthcare?

to some extent, no. To another extent, yes.
What medicare and medicaid do to health care needs to be stopped.

I like the idea, just not any of the executions I've seen so far. As with education, I support a mix of the two, with one filling the majority of the need, and the other allowing choice.

Public sector?

What public sector?

The only things which the government should handle are the police and the military with of course diplomats and such, but other than that, everything else should be private.

The fewer public programs: the fewer taxes we have to pay. The fewer taxes we have to pay, the more money we have. The more money we have, the more we get to choose what kind of services we want. and that means more freedom.

Less public = less government control over our lives = more freedom.
I agree but what about minimum safety assurance such as building inspectors and the like that assure that a minimum quality is maintained on some things

I agree but what about minimum safety assurance such as building inspectors and the like that assure that a minimum quality is maintained on some things

Those are compromises I would be willing to make, but only if it's that the government is making laws regarding it, not in charge of doing it.

Those are compromises I would be willing to make, but only if it's that the government is making laws regarding it, not in charge of doing it.

But who is supposed to inspect compliance? at some level if governments are going to have rules on it someone will have to make sure that those rules are carried out.

National defense, law and order, currency/central banking, infrastructure, education, environmental and corporate regulation (monopolies, workplace safety, anti-discrimination laws, corporate transparency, and consumer protection), intellectual property rights, research and develpoment, preventative healthcare, and a safety net should be provided by the public sector.

Note that the private sector is not necessarily excluded from some of the above. The prevenative healthcare would be done by publically funded vouchers. Much of the infrastructure would be owned privately but would be regulated. Publically funded research would be mostly be basic research.

The public sector should only do for the people what they cannot (not will not) do for themselves. The private sector covers everything else.

I agree but what about minimum safety assurance such as building inspectors and the like that assure that a minimum quality is maintained on some things

I also agree with this...to some degree.

I believe we still need some welfare programs, like Social Security, and other programs. We've already had an economy that the Government had little intervention in, and that led to market failure which brought us into the great depression. I think that the Government should help guide the market, to ensure catastrophic market failure never occurs, such as setting price ceilings and floor on goolds, setting up anti-trust laws, preventing monopolies (Unless it's a natural monopoly that's regulated.), imposing tariffs, and ect...

The public sector should include healthcare, education, social services, infrastructure like building roads and take care of them, law and order and some environment protection programs.

The private sector can take the rest and a certain amount of healthcare to.

The public sector should include healthcare, education, social services, infrastructure like building roads and take care of them, law and order and some environment protection programs.

The private sector can take the rest and a certain amount of healthcare to.
Socialized health care is horrible, have fun waiting 4 hours to see a doctor for a check up if that's what you want. It's fine for extremely low income families, and the elderly, and that is all.

Socialized health care is horrible, have fun waiting 4 hours to see a doctor for a check up if that's what you want. It's fine for extremely low income families, and the elderly, and that is all.

Four hours for a checkup? More like a half hour.

Four hours for a checkup? More like a half hour.
Not if we're to completely socialize health care.

Not if we're to completely socialize health care.
It is. This is Canada. Healthcare is public.

Socialized health care is horrible, have fun waiting 4 hours to see a doctor for a check up if that's what you want. It's fine for extremely low income families, and the elderly, and that is all.

Two years ago I laid in the hospital for three weeks because of a broken lung and I got excellent care and it was all for free. It's not just good for low income families it's good for the whole society because all recive a good quality care and don't have to worry about financial questions. I don't know where you come from but if the social health care is bad there it needs more funding to get better.

It is. This is Canada. Healthcare is public.
That's Canada, and have you not noticed the distinct population difference between our countries? Not only that, but to add on to the problem we've got 11 Million illegal immigrants, who are already ruining Hospitals in the United States.

Besides where will the innovation for new medicines and products come from socialized health care? You think that the Government can really handle it? Sure they can, but things would take forever, the DOE is dragging their feet with testing Cold Fusion, it'd happen in other agencies doing R&D also. You privatize the health care industry, you're not only yielding thousands of well paying jobs, but it will also encourage the faster development of new drugs and technologies.

Two years ago I laid in the hospital for three weeks because of a broken lung and I got excellent care and it was all for free. It's not just good for low income families it's good for the whole society because all recive a good quality care and don't have to worry about financial questions. I don't know where you come from but if the social health care is bad there it needs more funding to get better.
As I said, I agree with it for certain situations, but for every little medical situation I think it's a ridiculous idea. Such exceptions would be for low income families, elderly, and for patients of medium/low income who are in the hospital for a prolonged amount of time (As you would qualify under this exception). But it wouldn't be full coverage in all situations, some of them it would only be partial. But for the middle classed worker, who's bringing in a steady salary, and goes to get a check up? No way.

As I said, I agree with it for certain situations, but for every little medical situation I think it's a ridiculous idea. Such exceptions would be for low income families, elderly, and for patients of medium/low income who are in the hospital for a prolonged amount of time (As you would qualify under this exception). But it wouldn't be full coverage in all situations, some of them it would only be partial. But for the middle classed worker, who's bringing in a steady salary, and goes to get a check up? No way.

I wouldn't have anything against private clinics as long as the goverment doesn't privatize hospitals that already excist. It could solve the queue problems. But if we privatized the health care some people would end up without insurance and prices would go up for smaller check ups. Many people wouldn't afford it and it's a unneseccary risk to take.

I wouldn't have anything against private clinics as long as the goverment doesn't privatize hospitals that already excist. It could solve the queue problems. But if we privatized the health care some people would end up without insurance and prices would go up for smaller check ups. Many people wouldn't afford it and it's a unneseccary risk to take.
Well you would still have government intervention to ensure that companies don't sky rocket their fees. But if they couldn't afford it, well, then they're most likely already part of the lower class which could qualify them for the socialized health care.


Uh no...Hospitals should be privatized....As I said, if they were to go to a private hospital, and if they qualified under those 3 category's, then they Hospital would just charge the bill to the Government.

Oh and the high prices for check ups are already there...just that mostly everyone has health care that covers most of the cost.

Socialized health care is horrible, have fun waiting 4 hours to see a doctor for a check up if that's what you want. It's fine for extremely low income families, and the elderly, and that is all.Four hours for a checkup? More like a half hour.Who waits for checkups? You book an appointment and then go in when it's time for your appointment. Maximum time I've ever waited is 30 minutes. And that's only because it was the end of the day.

Besides most of the things that people go in to see a doctor about could be sorted out by a nurse. It's very rare to wait more than 30 minutes for a random check-up with your nurse.

The state should control the Armed Forces, Utilities, Judiciary,as well as a state funded health care system for the truely needy (possibly means tested) as well as track and road maintenance as well as the little organisations that make these things run. Possibly the nations Flag Carrying Aircraft as well. Education, and Diplomatic Corps goes without saying.

What do you mean by "major economic institutions"?

Everything beyond very small business.

Everything beyond very small business.

But if the goverment controls almoust all businesses, how would the goverment get any money?

But if the goverment controls almoust all businesses, how would the goverment get any money?

You don't think businesses make money?

Public: The public sector should include:
Healthcare (though only for directly health related issues. Sounds stupid I know, but the public should not pay for unnecessary plastic surgery. i.e. breast implants).
Education (though private institutions should be allowed to operate under regulation).
Infrastructure (roads, railways, gas, electricity, water etc).
Fire, Police, Judiciary, Armed Forces, social security, Central Bank (currency), etc.

Private: Anything not covered above.

You don't think businesses make money?

Not if the goverment owns almoust all businesses. It would be a big fat minus in the budget because the goverment would have to pay for all the expences it takes to run a business.

They had a try at it in Soviet and you see how that worked out.

It would be a big fat minus in the budget because the goverment would have to pay for all the expences it takes to run a business.

I don't believe I advocated making everything free.

They had a try at it in Soviet and you see how that worked out.

The Soviets also breathed oxygen. See how that worked out?

I don't believe I advocated making everything free.

No but if all people that shop from stores owned by the goverment also get their salary from the goverment the goverment won't make any money. But the goverment would have to pay for schools, infrastructure, law and order, healthcare and so on and where do you think that money will come from?

No but if all people that shop from stores owned by the goverment also get their salary from the goverment the goverment won't make any money.

The exact same logic could be applied to any economy, including privately-owned ones. There is no difference.

The problem is that you are forgetting that the government buys things from itself - the same way not only the worker's wage, but also the company's profits, are spent.

So, the government attains, say, a trillion dollars worth of revenue. Eight hundred billion are paid to the employees who produce the goods providing that revenue. Obviously, the remaining two hundred billion must come from somewhere, otherwise the government won't consistently make a trillion dollars of revenue - and they do, from the government's own spending of it.

But the goverment would have to pay for schools, infrastructure, law and order, healthcare and so on and where do you think that money will come from?

From the profits from the government-run businesses.

For some reason, people tend to forget that when the government gets money, it doesn't light it on fire - it spends it, and as such puts it back into the economy.

It may spend it stupidly, it may spend it inefficiently, it may spend it for a purpose you find reprehensible, but it spends it anyway.

The exact same logic could be applied to any economy, including privately-owned ones. There is no difference.

The problem is that you are forgetting that the government buys things from itself - the same way not only the worker's wage, but also the company's profits, are spent.

So, the government attains, say, a trillion dollars worth of revenue. Eight hundred billion are paid to the employees who produce the goods providing that revenue. Obviously, the remaining two hundred billion must come from somewhere, otherwise the government won't consistently make a trillion dollars of revenue - and they do, from the govenrment's own spending of it.



From the profits from the government-run businesses.


The same logic can't be used in a free market economy because the owner of the company stands for the expenses and the goverment will profit from it because he and all his employees pay tax. The taxes will fund the goverment and it's activities.

I'm not forgetting that the goverment buys things from itself, infact that's why it won't work. If the goverment buys things from itself it can't make a revenue. Maybe a company like a grocery store will profit but the goverment in general will go minus big times because it pays all peoples wages and the profits from some companies will not cover all expenditures. Have you ever heard someone profit from buying things from himself?

What duties do you think the private sector should be assigned, and what duties do you think the public sector should be assigned, and why?

Edit: Incidentally, this is my 900th post. Hurray!

the mandate of government and public sector should be to serve the interests of the people.

the sole mandate of private sector entities is to make profit to the detriment of others.

The same logic can't be used in a free market economy because the owner of the company stands for the expenses and the goverment will profit from it because he and all his employees pay tax. The taxes will fund the goverment and it's activities.

Forget the government for a second. How are profits made by private investors? After all, their revenue comes from wages, right? And in order to make a profit, they must pay their workers less than their revenue... so they should all be going bankrupt, right?

Obviously, that isn't how it works. ALL the revenue returns to the economy, providing that business owner and other business owners with more revenue - it's just that one portion returns to it through the investor's spending of his or her profit and the other returns to it through the spending of the workers.

I'm not forgetting that the goverment buys things from itself, infact that's why it won't work. If the goverment buys things from itself it can't make a revenue.

The word you want is "profit." And you're right - OVERALL the government will not make a profit. Why would it want to? What's important is that SOME parts of the government make a profit, so as to pay for the other parts.

the profits from some companies will not cover all expenditures.

Then tax income, like we do now. There's no reason that would be impossible.

Forget the government for a second. How are profits made by private investors? After all, their revenue comes from wages, right? And in order to make a profit, they must pay their workers less than their revenue... so they should all be going bankrupt, right?

Obviously, that isn't how it works. ALL the revenue returns to the economy, providing that business owner and other business owners with more revenue - it's just that one portion returns to it through the investor's spending of his or her profit and the other returns to it through the spending of the workers.



The word you want is "profit." And you're right - OVERALL the government will not make a profit. Why would it want to? What's important is that SOME parts of the government make a profit, so as to pay for the other parts.



Then tax income, like we do now. There's no reason that would be impossible.

Profits by private investors are made by people who buy their products. However, the owner of lets say the shop, hasn't given his customers money so they can buy his products. If he had done that, he wouldn't profit anything at all.

The goverment will make a loss. And it won't be enough money to fund all govermental programs.

However, the owner of lets say the shop, hasn't given his customers money so they can buy his products. If he had done that, he wouldn't profit anything at all.

But the government doesn't just give out money for free (with the exception of welfare). If the owner of the shop gave the money to his customers after they had cleaned the shop and helped bring in the produce from the van, before they bought anything at his shop, then he'd be profiting.

But who is supposed to inspect compliance? at some level if governments are going to have rules on it someone will have to make sure that those rules are carried out.

Private groups who will be paid by the person being inspected. This is already done quie frequently at the local level in the US. The only thing they have to do with the federal government is send in the paper saying "This building checked out!"

Private groups who will be paid by the person being inspected. This is already done quie frequently at the local level in the US. The only thing they have to do with the federal government is send in the paper saying "This building checked out!"

It's a bit like instead of having to study for a PhD, just paying someone to say "This doctor checked out!"

It's a bit like instead of having to study for a PhD, just paying someone to say "This doctor checked out!"

That's when criminal charges come in for fraud.

That's when criminal charges come in for fraud.

So who regulates those regulators, then? Hmm?

Hadn't thought that far, I suppose. Keep trying, though.

So who regulates those regulators, then? Hmm?

Hadn't thought that far, I suppose. Keep trying, though.

The US government passes laws about what the standards are.

The inspectors check things out. It is the employer's as well as the client's responsibility to make sure the person has the background to inspect.

If the inspector is a fraud, then the employer and client get in trouble, too. That will make sure the employers and clients check the inspectors.

The inspectors check things out. It is the employer's as well as the client's responsibility to make sure the person has the background to inspect.

If the inspector is a fraud, then the employer and client get in trouble, too. That will make sure the employers and clients check the inspectors.
HOW WOULD THE GOVERNMENT KNOW?
The inspectors wouldn't report themselves to the government, would they?
"Oh, Mr. Government, I accepted a bribe the other day".

Either the government employs inspectors themselves to inspect the private inspectors, in which case we might as well cut out the middle man and have the government inspect the businesses themselves, or the inspectors have the right to do whatever they like. It's a ridiculous concept.

Why do so many people insist on universal health care and other socialistic expenditures? Why? Are you all masochists? Has no one noticed that the more government regulation of the economy there is, the worse off the nation is? Not just money-wise, mind you, but the really statist ones like the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany and Communist China end up killing many millions of their citizens. Do socialists have a pattern-recognition deficiency? Someone please explain this international phenomenon of the last one hundred years that has practically destroyed Europe and threatens to engulf the rest of the world.

Someone please explain this international phenomenon of the last one hundred years that has practically destroyed Europe and threatens to engulf the rest of the world.

No, not until you explain how Europe has been "practically destroyed".

Bonus points if you can explain how not having to pay for an operation is bad.

...snip

Please explain the connection between universal healthcare and Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union?


But the government doesn't just give out money for free (with the exception of welfare). If the owner of the shop gave the money to his customers after they had cleaned the shop and helped bring in the produce from the van, before they bought anything at his shop, then he'd be profiting.

No it doesn't but it wont earn any money and there will always be expenditures that the goverment won't be able to pay. That is if people won't work for free.

Profits by private investors are made by people who buy their products. However, the owner of lets say the shop, hasn't given his customers money so they can buy his products. If he had done that, he wouldn't profit anything at all.

so when a company sells its own products to its own workers it doesn't make any profit on the deal?

Who waits for checkups? You book an appointment and then go in when it's time for your appointment. Maximum time I've ever waited is 30 minutes. And that's only because it was the end of the day.

Exactly...

No it doesn't but it wont earn any money and there will always be expenditures that the goverment won't be able to pay. That is if people won't work for free.

The government doesn't exist to earn money. You're mistaken if you believe that. The service to the shop was supposed to represent government services.

I'd now like you to go back to my correction of your shop metaphor and read each and every word. Then sit back and think about it for a while. If you need to, ask a grown-up what "metaphor" means. It may seem difficult at times, but people like it if you take the time to understand what they're saying to you.

Good luck!

Why do so many people insist on universal health care...?

basic human decency.

and facts and logic, if we want to get to the nuts and bolts of it.

Leave food and religion to the private sector; everything else to the public sector.

Why do so many people insist on universal health care and other socialistic expenditures? Why? Are you all masochists?
No, the opposite. We want to be better off.

Someone please explain this international phenomenon of the last one hundred years that has practically destroyed Europe and threatens to engulf the rest of the world.
I would rather live in Europe than America. We have an equally high standard of living, plus more services.

The government doesn't exist to earn money. You're mistaken if you believe that. The service to the shop was supposed to represent government services.

I'd now like you to go back to my correction of your shop metaphor and read each and every word. Then sit back and think about it for a while. If you need to, ask a grown-up what "metaphor" means. It may seem difficult at times, but people like it if you take the time to understand what they're saying to you.

Good luck!

I know that the goverment doesn't excist to earn money. It excists to provide services to the people and it's financed by taxes. If it didn't get any money it wouldn't be able to finance the services it provides. Private businesses fund the goverment. The goverment can't make any money by buying things from itself as someone said earlier in this thread.

Maybe you should ask an adult or at least someone who knows something about politics why the Soviet Union fell when it was a country full of reasources. There's a reason that USA stands while the Soviet's gone.

Maybe you should ask an adult or at least someone who knows something about politics why the Soviet Union fell when it was a country full of reasources. There's a reason that USA stands while the Soviet's gone.

You think the fall of the Soviet Union was because there suddenly weren't any private companies?

A Brief History of the Fall of the Soviet Union:
Perestroika.

You think the fall of the Soviet Union was because there suddenly weren't any private companies?

A Brief History of the Fall of the Soviet Union:
Perestroika.

I've read the book.

When people get some freedoms they understand that a system where the shelves are empty in the grocery stores maybe isn't the ultimate system.

I've read the book.
What book? Perestroika was a political movement in the USSR.
Perhaps you mean Gorbachev's book on Perestroika.

When people get some freedoms they understand that a system where the shelves are empty in the grocery stores maybe isn't the ultimate system.
Yeah, you're right. People are much better off in the new, improved Russia, brought to you by Gangsters Inc. and Corrupt Oligarchs Ltd.

I should point out that you've changed from blaming lack of private business for the fall of the Soviet Union to presence of private business. If only everyone on the internet was as easy to convince as you.

The government should be the only thing supported by tax payer monies.

And the government should be an executive branch, a legislative branch, and a judicial branch, and it should support diplomacy and defense (through the police and the military) only.

OK, I understand, but I don't see how you can say "These things are better left to private entrepeneurship than the government, and to fund these enterprises by taxation is coercive and reduces freedom" for almost everything, but then turn around and say "Oh, except for police, defense, and judiciary. Those things are special. And taxation is OK to provide for them, because even though it eliminates freedom here, it makes freedom there."

This doesn't seem to be logically consistent. It would make far more sense to either have pure private control, or pure government control of the economy.

You think the fall of the Soviet Union was because there suddenly weren't any private companies?

A Brief History of the Fall of the Soviet Union:
Perestroika.
Not suddenly but yes, the fall of the Soviet Union is partially due to their economic structure and the problems with that structure. The soviet union was having economic problems before perestroika, which is why they gave up on the cold war before then, perestroika was just a measure to try to improve things.

Yeah, you're right. People are much better off in the new, improved Russia, brought to you by Gangsters Inc. and Corrupt Oligarchs Ltd.

Nobody has to say that they would be served better. Everybody knows that the Soviet Union ended up doing a shit job changing its system due to political corruption. Frankly, both Russias sucked but at least the new, improved Russia stands a chance at getting better.

Not suddenly but yes, the fall of the Soviet Union is partially due to their economic structure and the problems with that structure. The soviet union was having economic problems before perestroika, which is why they gave up on the cold war before then, perestroika was just a measure to try to improve things.

Mm. Wasn't Nationalia's point, though.

What book? Perestroika was a political movement in the USSR.
Perhaps you mean Gorbachev's book on Perestroika.


Yeah, you're right. People are much better off in the new, improved Russia, brought to you by Gangsters Inc. and Corrupt Oligarchs Ltd.

I should point out that you've changed from blaming lack of private business for the fall of the Soviet Union to presence of private business. If only everyone on the internet was as easy to convince as you.

That would be the book I read.

Russia's a shithole because it changed system to fast and now it has lots of poor people and few rich people. It wasn't a very smart move to change system over night.

It's easy to convince me. The only thing I need from you to convince me that socialism is a good system is some positive results from socialism in the past. And while you're at it, you can try to explain why China has such an explosive economic development.

If only people could learn from history.

Public: law and order, national defense, infrastructure (ports, railways, airports, roads, power lines, etc.).

Private: Everything else.

Oh, and in before 100+ pages of flaming.



I couldn't have said this better myself...... good job...

Public: law and order, national defense, infrastructure (ports, railways, airports, roads, power lines, etc.).

Private: Everything else.

Oh, and in before 100+ pages of flaming.



I couldn't have said this better myself...... good job...

Russia's a shithole because it changed system to fast and now it has lots of poor people and few rich people. It wasn't a very smart move to change system over night.
Partial credit!


It's easy to convince me. The only thing I need from you to convince me that socialism is a good system is some positive results from socialism in the past. And while you're at it, you can try to explain why China has such an explosive economic development.

Soviet Russia's victory over Nazi Germany.
Communist Vietnam's victory over Capitalist US.
Communist Vietnam's victory over US-funded "Communist" Cambodia.
Venezuela. The first man in space. Improving conditions in South America.
Et cetera.

And as for China, they're economically booming because they've combined authoritarianism with free-market economy. Unfortunately, they beat pregnant women in prison, but we won't talk about that because ECONOMIC SUCCESS IS EVERYTHING!

Of the economy? Ideally, there should be no private sector duties. For people who do not want the ideal, something similar to what Canada or Sweden has would be fine.

Partial credit!


Soviet Russia's victory over Nazi Germany.
Communist Vietnam's victory over Capitalist US.
Communist Vietnam's victory over US-funded "Communist" Cambodia.
Venezuela. The first man in space. Improving conditions in South America.
Et cetera.

And as for China, they're economically booming because they've combined authoritarianism with free-market economy. Unfortunately, they beat pregnant women in prison, but we won't talk about that because ECONOMIC SUCCESS IS EVERYTHING!

I wasn't talking about victory in war. As for Venezuela, well if there is a god Chavez is sent by him. He's currently my favourit leader in the world because all of his actions to fight poverty in Venezuela. So on him I think we both agree.

You are right about China but I've never said that economic success is everything and if you think that I think so, you are mistaken. Just before christmas I finished an essay about China.

I wasn't talking about victory in war. As for Venezuela, well if there is a god Chavez is sent by him. He's currently my favourit leader in the world because all of his actions to fight poverty in Venezuela. So on him I think we both agree.

You are right about China but I've never said that economic success is everything and if you think that I think so, you are mistaken. Just before christmas I finished an essay about China.

Welcome to the wonderful world of socialism.

This doesn't seem to be logically consistent. It would make far more sense to either have pure private control, or pure government control of the economy.
Umm, every time anything like that has been tried, it's always ended up badly. The mixed economy has proven to be the best for citizens.

Welcome to the wonderful world of socialism.

I don't live in any world of ideologies.

I don't live in any world of ideologies.

Yes you do.

Yes you do.

In which one?

In which one?

Erm?

You live on Earth, a world in which many political ideologies exist.

Erm?

You live on Earth, a world in which many political ideologies exist.

Okay then, I live in reality. But I aint commited to a specific ideology.

Okay then, I live in reality. But I aint commited to a specific ideology.

Nobody said you were, son. Nobody said you were.

No, not until you explain how Europe has been "practically destroyed".

Look at the unemployment rate. Look at how low the economic growth is. Look at wage increases over the last thirty years, or lackthereof. We have the same problems in America, but because we aren't quite as socialist they aren't as bad... yet.

Bonus points if you can explain how not having to pay for an operation is bad.

And you get a gold star if you can point to a nation where this is the case. You pay taxes. Taxes pay for universal healthcare. Ergo, you pay for healthcare. The only difference is that on average, services provided by the government cost about 50% more.

Please explain the connection between universal healthcare and Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union?

I was speaking about economic regulation. Universal healthcare is part of that. Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union were huge economic regulators.

basic human decency.

Forcible redistribution of money (stealing) is basic human decency? Interesting.

and facts and logic, if we want to get to the nuts and bolts of it.

But clearly, you don't. Unless claiming to be more decent than everyone who disagrees with you is your definition of facts and logic. Which, I imagine, it is.

No, the opposite. We want to be better off.

So do I. Only, I have a strong inductive argument supporting my case, which I have presented to a degree (I have not given the statistics because I hope you know the basic economic condition of most nations already), as well as deductive arguments that I have not yet presented. None of you, however, have even attempted to present an argument.

I would rather live in Europe than America. We have an equally high standard of living, plus more services.

I am sure your unemployed are as convinced as you that the services are worth more than their jobs.

The goverment will make a loss.

HOW?

Honestly - explain. You are making no sense.

Is it or is it not true that private companies make profits all the time?

If that is true, then what is logically untenable about government companies making profits, too?

If government companies can make profits, why can't the government use those profits to pay for expenditures elsewhere?

Forcible redistribution of money (stealing) is basic human decency? Interesting.

How is it stealing?

Forcible redistribution of money (stealing) is basic human decency? Interesting.
I swear every thread turns out like this, unless it's Israel/Palestine.

I swear every thread turns out like this, unless it's Israel/Palestine.

You don't like it? I find it entertaining, especially if it's in one of my threads.

You don't like it? I find it entertaining, especially if it's in one of my threads.
It's just an observation. Nothing more, nothing less.

HOW?

Honestly - explain. You are making no sense.

Is it or is it not true that private companies make profits all the time?

If that is true, then what is logically untenable about government companies making profits, too?

If government companies can make profits, why can't the government use those profits to pay for expenditures elsewhere?

In a mixed economy, goverment companies can make money because private companies can buy from them. A socialist state follows completelly other patterns. The goverment isn't interested in making any profit because the goal is a class free society. People wouldn't work hard or educate themselves because the goverment would provide them with all they need.

How is it stealing?

How is it not? Forcibly taking someone's money, regardless of what you do with it, is stealing. To preempt any argument you may have that the government can't steal, I present the following: http://www.impel.com/liblib/NNLFAQ.html#7

The goverment isn't interested in making any profit because the goal is a class free society.

The second part is true, more or less... but it does not lead us to the first part.

People wouldn't work hard or educate themselves because the goverment would provide them with all they need.

What does this have to do with what I originally said?

And people, in modern societies anyway, tend to desire a whole lot more than basic necessities... not to mention the fact that productive activity can be its own reward.

How is it not? Forcibly taking someone's money, regardless of what you do with it, is stealing. To preempt any argument you may have that the government can't steal, I present the following: http://www.impel.com/liblib/NNLFAQ.html#7

Call it what you want but taxes make the society work.

That was not a rebuttal.

So, the ends justify the means? Would you support genocide if it made society work? Just trying to see what point of view you are coming from...

Look at the unemployment rate. Look at how low the economic growth is. Look at wage increases over the last thirty years, or lackthereof. We have the same problems in America, but because we aren't quite as socialist they aren't as bad... yet.
Look at America's murder rate! Look at [random problem] in [insert random country]! It surely proves that their system is the worst ever! :rolleyes:

No country is perfect.

And you get a gold star if you can point to a nation where this is the case. You pay taxes. Taxes pay for universal healthcare. Ergo, you pay for healthcare. The only difference is that on average, services provided by the government cost about 50% more.
You pay taxes too, and get less for it.

I was speaking about economic regulation. Universal healthcare is part of that. Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union were huge economic regulators.
Nazi Germany built motorways, and the USSR built houses. Evil things, both of them!

Forcible redistribution of money (stealing) is basic human decency? Interesting.
It's better than the alternative, which is apparently sending people home (or back to their cardboard box on the street, you'd like that as well) to die because they can't afford an operation.

So do I. Only, I have a strong inductive argument supporting my case, which I have presented to a degree (I have not given the statistics because I hope you know the basic economic condition of most nations already), as well as deductive arguments that I have not yet presented.
Funny how everyone who disagrees with me has a degree on the subject.

None of you, however, have even attempted to present an argument.
Reality is my argument.

I am sure your unemployed are as convinced as you that the services are worth more than their jobs.
Unemployment was higher back in the 19th century when there was no universal healthcare. The link between it, and employment is rather tenuous.

What does this have to do with what I originally said?

And people, in modern societies anyway, tend to desire a whole lot more than basic necessities... not to mention the fact that productive activity can be its own reward.

Productive activity woun't be it's own reward if you don't get payed for it. It's how humans work. Noone will work hard if they don't get payed for it.

Can you please explain to me before i discuss this further, how had you imagined a totally controlled economy to work?

The "How Many Men" argument refers primarily to income tax, which, by the way, the United States did fine without until 1913. In fact, most nations did not have one until around that time.

How is it not? Forcibly taking someone's money, regardless of what you do with it, is stealing.

Really? So if I steal money from you and you forcibly take it back, that's stealing?

To preempt any argument you may have that the government can't steal, I present the following: http://www.impel.com/liblib/NNLFAQ.html#7

There are dozens of differences between the government and the other examples. Here are a few, off the top of my head:

1. The government is under democratic control, and as such represents society and is supposed to pursue the public good; the thieves are not, do not, and are not.
2. The government is the protector of your property rights in the first place; indeed, the only real sense in which something is "yours" is that the government grants you certain rights over it.
3. Government taxation comes as no surprise to anyone, and the choices you make anticipate it.
4. The government will put the money taken from you to some useful purpose (theoretically, anyway); the thieves will use it for their own selfish ends.
5. The government provides public services to you; the thieves do not.

That was not a rebuttal.

So, the ends justify the means? Would you support genocide if it made society work? Just trying to see what point of view you are coming from...

The ends justify the mean if it prevents anarchy which is excactelly what will happend if there are no taxes.

Productive activity woun't be it's own reward if you don't get payed for it. It's how humans work. Noone will work hard if they don't get payed for it.

Are you getting paid for arguing with me?

Can you please explain to me before i discuss this further, how had you imagined a totally controlled economy to work?

First, explain what you mean by a "totally controlled economy," so we know what we're actually talking about.

How is it not? Forcibly taking someone's money, regardless of what you do with it, is stealing. To preempt any argument you may have that the government can't steal, I present the following: http://www.impel.com/liblib/NNLFAQ.html#7

If living in East Palo Alto doesn't mean I consent to a "social contract" which includes having my car broken into, then living in the US doesn't mean I consent to a "social contract" which includes income taxes.
That's because "your car will be broken into" is not written anywhere in the law of East Palo Alto. "You will be taxed at n%" is written in the law of the US. Tax is like rent.

First, explain what you mean by a "totally controlled economy," so we know what we're actually talking about.

Goverment owns absolutelly all businesses and takes care of all that has to with social welfare, law, education and healthcare.

EDIT: And our argument isn't very productive.:)

The "How Many Men" argument refers primarily to income tax, which, by the way, the United States did fine without until 1913. In fact, most nations did not have one until around that time.
If they had to start one in 1913, everything was probably not fine.

OK, I understand, but I don't see how you can say "These things are better left to private entrepeneurship than the government, and to fund these enterprises by taxation is coercive and reduces freedom" for almost everything, but then turn around and say "Oh, except for police, defense, and judiciary. Those things are special. And taxation is OK to provide for them, because even though it eliminates freedom here, it makes freedom there."

This doesn't seem to be logically consistent. It would make far more sense to either have pure private control, or pure government control of the economy.

Biblical precedent is my first answer.

Plus, if the governement is there to make laws about how the people are to behave, how can they enforce it without executive powers (militray, police, and dipomats) and judiciray powers? Answer: they can't.

The purpose of government is to protect the people and they should have what they need to do their jobs well without taking away the responsibilities of the people.

HOW WOULD THE GOVERNMENT KNOW?
The inspectors wouldn't report themselves to the government, would they?
"Oh, Mr. Government, I accepted a bribe the other day".

Either the government employs inspectors themselves to inspect the private inspectors, in which case we might as well cut out the middle man and have the government inspect the businesses themselves, or the inspectors have the right to do whatever they like. It's a ridiculous concept.

No, not really. Why do you think there is more accountability if the goverment does it? The government agent is just as likely to accept a bribe to give a clean bill of health.

When the building collapses, the government pulls out the paper work and says, "Inspector 37241, Mr. Smith, inspected that building. Give his contact information to the police so they can investigate it." And the police would investigate to see if the inspector was at any fault.

Goverment owns absolutelly all businesses and takes care of all that has to with social welfare, law, education and healthcare.

So by "totally controlled" you mean "totally government controlled," as opposed to "totally privately controlled"? Why does private control not count as control?

EDIT: And our argument isn't very productive.:)

It gives me utility - as, indeed, it must, for otherwise I would not participate in it. Thus, it is productive.

You pay taxes. Taxes pay for universal healthcare. Ergo, you pay for healthcare. The only difference is that on average, services provided by the government cost about 50% more.
Except in health care. Interesting point, but if you go to an NHS hospital in the UK you will walk in and receive that operation at no further expense than the taxes you have already paid, but wait, those taxes have also paid for your Police, Fire Service, Armed Forces, and all manner of other public services and yet those taxes are of a very similar amount to that which you would pay for health insurance, so in that respect the cost of government services are signifcantly less than those of the private sector.

Look at America's murder rate! Look at [random problem] in [insert random country]! It surely proves that their system is the worst ever!


We are not talking about murder rate. We are talking about the economic effects of socialism. It is logical to connect economic effects to economic policy. If you want to talk about the United State's crime policy, fine. But don't pretend it has anything to do with economics unless you provide support.


No country is perfect.


Stop the presses!


You pay taxes too, and get less for it.


And to think, we just got those presses running again.


Nazi Germany built motorways, and the USSR built houses. Evil things, both of them!


Straw man, for several reasons. One, because I was merely answering a question regarding the link between those to nations and universal healthcare. I explained that I was speaking of economic regulation (healthcare just happened to be in the same paragraph because it is an economic regulation), which the Nazis and Soviets were big on. Two, I never said healthcare was evil. I said that government should not be involved in it though.


It's better than the alternative, which is apparently sending people home (or back to their cardboard box on the street, you'd like that as well) to die because they can't afford an operation.


There is this thing, you may not have heard of it, called charity. Unlike your forcibly taking other people's money, it is voluntary. Also, you are saying that the ends justify the means. Taking that to its logical conclusion, to use an extreme but nevertheless accurate example, you must believe that raping puppies would be not only ok, but required of us, if it were to save an equal number of poor people as the number of puppies raped.


Funny how everyone who disagrees with me has a degree on the subject.


Or maybe they have just, I don't know, thought about it? You should try it some time.


Reality is my argument.


Bacon, or possibly cheese. Cheddar is preferable.


Unemployment was higher back in the 19th century when there was no universal healthcare. The link between it, and employment is rather tenuous.


I never linked unemployment soley with universal healthcare. I linked it with government economic regulation in general. Anyway, you are not accounting for technological progress. Instead, you should examine the level of economic regulation of many nations (accounting for advantages like natural resources and available technology) and compare this with their economic well-being. You will see a pattern if you actually look earnestly.

Really? So if I steal money from you and you forcibly take it back, that's stealing?

No. If you look at what I wrote again you will see that I said if you forcibly take "someone's" money is is stealing. That is possessive. If I took that money back it would be my money I was taking, not the vague and abstract, "Someone's."



There are dozens of differences between the government and the other examples. Here are a few, off the top of my head:

1. The government is under democratic control, and as such represents society and is supposed to pursue the public good; the thieves are not, do not, and are not.
2. The government is the protector of your property rights in the first place; indeed, the only real sense in which something is "yours" is that the government grants you certain rights over it.
3. Government taxation comes as no surprise to anyone, and the choices you make anticipate it.
4. The government will put the money taken from you to some useful purpose (theoretically, anyway); the thieves will use it for their own selfish ends.
5. The government provides public services to you; the thieves do not.

1. In the scenario, if you bothered to read it, the thieves are voting. So it is "democratic."
2. Obviously you have not read John Locke's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property) philosophy on the matter. Scroll down to the part where it says "John Locke 1600's."
3. Admittedly, this was not accounted for in the scenario, but I can easily do so. Assume the thieves give you warning.
4. This was accounted for in the scenario. I really am begining to suspect you didn't read it.
5. Same as above.

The ends justify the mean if it prevents anarchy which is excactelly what will happend if there are no taxes.


You didn't answer the question.

That's because "your car will be broken into" is not written anywhere in the law of East Palo Alto. "You will be taxed at n%" is written in the law of the US. Tax is like rent.

I didn't sign anything that said I would have to pay "rent." Nor did I force my way into someone else's building. I was born here. The thieves could write something down, vote on it, and call it a law too.

If they had to start one in 1913, everything was probably not fine.

If the Germans started killing the Jews in 1941 than obviously they needed too. See where your logic goes?


L-rouge, perhaps you have not done the math. Just because it might cost you, one person, less under government than the private sector, does not mean that it does for everybody. Also, note that the quality of healthcare is lower in countries such as the UK, as opposed to the healthcare in the US. You get what you pay for.

No. If you look at what I wrote again you will see that I said if you forcibly take "someone's" money is is stealing. That is possessive. If I took that money back it would be my money I was taking, not the vague and abstract, "Someone's."

And what's the basis for that distinction? By what right is something yours?

1. In the scenario, if you bothered to read it, the thieves are voting. So it is "democratic."

Not the thieves alone. Society as a whole.

2. Obviously you have not read John Locke's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property) philosophy on the matter. Scroll down to the part where it says "John Locke 1600's."

Actually, I have... so what? Tell me why John Locke was right.

(Off the top of my head, I can think of two reasons he wasn't - firstly, none of his arguments for the idea that labor provides a right to property are very good, and secondly, actually-existing property in the real world has simply not been acquired as he imagines.)

3. Admittedly, this was not accounted for in the scenario, but I can easily do so. Assume the thieves give you warning.

Assuming the warning was years in advance, I would have no objection to their action on the basis of property rights.

If they used the property for some good purpose that exceeded its use to me, I would fully support their action.

4. This was accounted for in the scenario. I really am begining to suspect you didn't read it.

I did read it, but overly quickly this time, it seems; I have seen it before, but forgot several crucial points.

Actually, I would have no objection to them taking money from me for the sake of helping those in need.

5. Same as above.

It's more the other way around - society gives me a car, and demands a bicycle.

Also, note that the quality of healthcare is lower in countries such as the UK, as opposed to the healthcare in the US.

However, people don't have to mortgage their houses to get an operation in the UK. Furthermore, private hospitals aren't illegal, so if you like paying to live, you're welcome to.

L-rouge, perhaps you have not done the math. Just because it might cost you, one person, less under government than the private sector, does not mean that it does for everybody. Also, note that the quality of healthcare is lower in countries such as the UK, as opposed to the healthcare in the US. You get what you pay for.

Excuse me? Have you ever had any operations in the UK, or do you have any direct knowledge of UK healthcare?
And actually because it costs me, one person, less under the Government than the private sector does mean that it does for everybody because, shock horror, everybody pays the same percentage toward the cost of the NHS so guess what, it costs less.
You might have done maths, but did you pass?

Biblical precedent is my first answer.

Interesting, that, seeing as how the era of the Judges was essentially one without a real government but rather of decentralized leadership, and that Israel's problems started with the coronation of King Saul, and that it slid downhill from there. Not to mention the recollections of Jewish persecution under Pharaoh and other empires.

Plus, if the governement is there to make laws about how the people are to behave, how can they enforce it without executive powers (militray, police, and dipomats) and judiciray powers? Answer: they can't.

Why have a government? Why can't the market do it itself, in your view?

The purpose of government is to protect the people and they should have what they need to do their jobs well without taking away the responsibilities of the people.

OK. But why can only the government protect the people? Why can't the people cooperate to protect themselves, just as they cooperate to manufacture cars, build buildings, grow food, perform operations, and all the myriad of other complex tasks in the world?

Interesting, that, seeing as how the era of the Judges was essentially one without a real government but rather of decentralized leadership, and that Israel's problems started with the coronation of King Saul, and that it slid downhill from there.

There's an excellent passage from 1 Samuel that's relevant here:

11 And he said: 'This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: he will take your sons, and appoint them unto him, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and they shall run before his chariots. 12 And he will appoint them unto him for captains of thousands, and captains of fifties; and to plow his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and the instruments of his chariots. 13 And he will take your daughters to be perfumers, and to be cooks, and to be bakers. 14 And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants. 15 And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants. 16 And he will take your men-servants, and your maid-servants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work. 17 He will take the tenth of your flocks; and ye shall be his servants. 18 And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king whom ye shall have chosen you; and the LORD will not answer you in that day.'

Interesting, that, seeing as how the era of the Judges was essentially one without a real government but rather of decentralized leadership, and that Israel's problems started with the coronation of King Saul, and that it slid downhill from there. Not to mention the recollections of Jewish persecution under Pharaoh and other empires.



Why have a government? Why can't the market do it itself, in your view?



OK. But why can only the government protect the people? Why can't the people cooperate to protect themselves, just as they cooperate to manufacture cars, build buildings, grow food, perform operations, and all the myriad of other complex tasks in the world?

Okay, let's make a distinction. You, in this last post, are talking about a utopia (of course there will be strife in it: it's in this world, but a utopia none the less) which I want as a "final goal"

What I have been speaking of this entire time is what the best thing is if we are going to preserve our current states. Theocratic anarchy with a little republican twist is the best system we can have, in my opinion. But, if we are still going to have the United States, France, the UK, etc. we have to have some form of centralization.

And what's the basis for that distinction? By what right is something yours?

Labor. Also, by what right is my car society's?

Not the thieves alone. Society as a whole.

You kinda of seem to miss the point of the "How Many Men" thing, don't you?

Actually, I have... so what? Tell me why John Locke was right.

If you work for something it is yours. How can anyone say that it is not?

Assuming the warning was years in advance, I would have no objection to their action on the basis of property rights. If they used the property for some good purpose that exceeded its use to me, I would fully support their action.

Ok, I am warning you right now. Two years from now I am going to come to your house, take it, and convert it into a church. Oh, I'm sorry. You don't think that's a good cause. Well, too bad.

It's more the other way around - society gives me a car, and demands a bicycle.

Either you have a friend in high place in government or you are delusional. The government does not have some multiplication machine where it can take a 200$ item and spit out a 10,000$ one. No wonder people are socialists. They seem to think the government has magic powers... but they only work if you give them some money.

Excuse me? Have you ever had any operations in the UK, or do you have any direct knowledge of UK healthcare?
And actually because it costs me, one person, less under the Government than the private sector does mean that it does for everybody because, shock horror, everybody pays the same percentage toward the cost of the NHS so guess what, it costs less.
You might have done maths, but did you pass?

Yes, did you? Percentage is is not the same as amount. People over a certain income level, therefore, pay more now. Before you sarcastically say, "boo hoo, poor rich people," realize that the money the save doesn't just sit around doing nothing. It is either invested or spent. This creates business and job growth, among other things.

Labor.

So you made everything you own, from absolutely nothing?

And where does the right from labor come from, anyway?

Also, by what right is my car society's?

If it's not yours, why shouldn't it be used for the public good?

You kinda of seem to miss the point of the "How Many Men" thing, don't you?

Do you not see the difference between democracy and an arbitrary majoritarian political arrangement?

Democracy proposes that EVERYONE within the given political community be allowed to participate... not a few who arrogate themselves the right.

If you work for something it is yours. How can anyone say that it is not?

Because work, like every other activity, doesn't in and of itself give you a right to anything at all.

Ok, I am warning you right now. Two years from now I am going to come to your house, take it, and convert it into a church. Oh, I'm sorry. You don't think that's a good cause. Well, too bad.

If it isn't a good cause, you have no right. If it is, you might, depending on the circumstances (does the benefit outweigh the harm?) I don't think building a church qualifies as a good cause at all, and certainly, any derived benefit doesn't exceed the harm done to me.

As for "too bad," if your action doesn't adhere to my principle, it can hardly be advanced as an argument against my principle.

Either you have a friend in high place in government or you are delusional. The government does not have some multiplication machine where it can take a 200$ item and spit out a 10,000$ one.

The government's role as guarantor of order, protecter of property, and, more generally, enforcer of the basic norms that make social interaction (including economic interaction) possible certainly far exceeds its cost.

We are not talking about murder rate. We are talking about the economic effects of socialism. It is logical to connect economic effects to economic policy.
Do you really want to get into the negative effects of American capitalism?

If Europe is destroyed by social democratic policies (an absolutely laughable claim), then why are the peoples of countries in the Middle East, Asia, Africa and South America not better off due to their (mostly) more capitalist systems?

And to think, we just got those presses running again.
Surely this serves my point better than yours? In countries with universal healthcare, the citizens pay less in tax for more service. The US , it seems, spends quite a lot of taxpayer money on health without actually providing universal healthcare.

Straw man, for several reasons. One, because I was merely answering a question regarding the link between those to nations and universal healthcare.
Did Nazi Germany have a healthcare system? I'm sure the Soviet Union had a system of very poor quality, but fortunately the economies of the countries of Europe are nothing like the soviet economic model.

I explained that I was speaking of economic regulation (healthcare just happened to be in the same paragraph because it is an economic regulation), which the Nazis and Soviets were big on.
You seem to be trying to say that regulations are bad just because Nazis and Soviets did it. Which is certainly a fallacy.

Two, I never said healthcare was evil. I said that government should not be involved in it though.
Should the government not be involved with roads? (going back to the autobahns)

There is this thing, you may not have heard of it, called charity.
Check my signature.

Unlike your forcibly taking other people's money, it is voluntary.
It's also less effective. Victorian Britain had charities too, and they still had droves of people dying on the streets.

Also, you are saying that the ends justify the means.
You're saying that the means justify the ends, and the results of that are very real and very bad.

Or maybe they have just, I don't know, thought about it? You should try it some time.
Or maybe they're liars.

Bacon, or possibly cheese. Cheddar is preferable.
I hate analogies.

I never linked unemployment soley with universal healthcare. I linked it with government economic regulation in general. Anyway, you are not accounting for technological progress.
Alright, how about China? Pinochet's Chile? All free-market shitholes.

Instead, you should examine the level of economic regulation of many nations (accounting for advantages like natural resources and available technology) and compare this with their economic well-being. You will see a pattern if you actually look earnestly.
You'll have to show us because nobody is seeing it.

I didn't sign anything that said I would have to pay "rent."
Your taxation form, I assume.

Nor did I force my way into someone else's building. I was born here.
You're free to leave at any time, and you always have been. That's actually what happened to the Labour government that ran Britain in the late 1970s; they became too socialist, so the rich just left in droves.

The thieves could write something down, vote on it, and call it a law too.
How does this make any sense? The thieves don't represent society. The people didn't vote for an armed gang to appear from nowhere and steal your car.

If the Germans started killing the Jews in 1941 than obviously they needed too. See where your logic goes?

I knew you would say that. If you compare the backgrounds of the two situations, you will see that there were actual reasons for imposing taxes in America in 1913, whereas all the Nazis had was bigotry.

Yes, did you? Percentage is is not the same as amount. People over a certain income level, therefore, pay more now. Before you sarcastically say, "boo hoo, poor rich people," realize that the money the save doesn't just sit around doing nothing. It is either invested or spent. This creates business and job growth, among other things.

It's theoretically invested or spent. You're acting on assumptions with no basis in fact.
And that money paid as tax to the government is, guess what, invested or spent so creating business and job growth, among other things.
The NHS receives, on average, £400 per household. This is only slightly more than a person would be expected to pay on an average Health Insurance Premium (average UK household size of about 2.36 people according to 2001 census) but guarantees you any treatment that might be required. Find me a health insurance scheme that costs less and provides full and comprehensive cover.
To use a specific example, Dental Health Care in the UK subisidises the majority of NHS treatment. Price bands for NHS treatment are 3, £15.50, £42.40, £189. Private insurance on the otherhand costs a minimum of £10 per month, or £120 per annum, decidedly less I'm sure you'd agree, and also requires you to pay extra for individual treatment as that £120 only covers check-ups, scale and polishes, and x-rays, any further treatment is subsidised, but not paid for.

Okay, let's make a distinction. You, in this last post, are talking about a utopia (of course there will be strife in it: it's in this world, but a utopia none the less) which I want as a "final goal"

Mmmmm, OK. I'm not sure how it's a utopia- I don't expect people to become suddenly pure good, like a "New Socialist Man" or something, and I do expect evil to still occur, just with a different way to handle it, but alright.

What I have been speaking of this entire time is what the best thing is if we are going to preserve our current states. Theocratic anarchy with a little republican twist is the best system we can have, in my opinion. But, if we are still going to have the United States, France, the UK, etc. we have to have some form of centralization.

Mmmm, alright. I can kind of see what you're going for. But why not try to meet your ideal, instead of staying at second best?

That's when criminal charges come in for fraud.

So you want to increase the burden on the criminal justice system by adding a whole new level of fraudulent compliance cases because some dumb inspector wants to make some money on the side seems to me would cost more money that way... Specially sense as is the inspections are at least partially payed for by the inspected

Mmmmm, OK. I'm not sure how it's a utopia- I don't expect people to become suddenly pure good, like a "New Socialist Man" or something, and I do expect evil to still occur, just with a different way to handle it, but alright.

Excuse me, I'm sorry. Utopia figuratively, not truly.

Mmmm, alright. I can kind of see what you're going for. But why not try to meet your ideal, instead of staying at second best?

I do try to meet my ideal, but I must take small steps. Even with my small steps, I'm dismissed as a useless radical, so why would I push it by jumping to the final stage? When asked (as with you) of course I must tell the "final goal" but why volunteer information that will just scare people away? It's not an issue of salvation, or God's glory, or personal safety, is it? So, convince them they need to do A, then once they're confortable with that, convince them to move to B, etc.

So you want to increase the burden on the criminal justice system by adding a whole new level of fraudulent compliance cases because some dumb inspector wants to make some money on the side seems to me would cost more money that way... Specially sense as is the inspections are at least partially payed for by the inspected

Bribery and fraud are already criminal offenses. And the employer and client are also in some way accountable, they would be more likely to take fewer chances and make sure their inspector is qualified and doing his job properly.

Excuse me, I'm sorry. Utopia figuratively, not truly.

'Tis OK.

I do try to meet my ideal, but I must take small steps. Even with my small steps, I'm dismissed as a useless radical, so why would I push it by jumping to the final stage? When asked (as with you) of course I must tell the "final goal" but why volunteer information that will just scare people away? It's not an issue of salvation, or God's glory, or personal safety, is it? So, convince them they need to do A, then once they're confortable with that, convince them to move to B, etc.

I can see the logic of your incrementalist approach, and I can't fault you for it, but I feel that if I show the unmasked entirety of my political feelings that I am more likely to influence people over to my corner of the debate than otherwise. If there is some reason that they don't want to or can't head over entirely, I can try to convince them and work them through one step after another. If I scare people away, then I scare people away; it's not certain that they would have been receptive to my ideas in the first place. I suppose in the end, though, it's just a matter of preference.

If it's not yours, why shouldn't it be used for the public good?

If it is not the public's, why shouldn't it be used for my good? See, two can play at this game. However, since I have advanced an ACTUAL argument (labor) and you have not, we will go with property being private until you give reason to believe otherwise.

Do you not see the difference between democracy and an arbitrary majoritarian political arrangement?

No. Democracy is arbitrary.

Democracy proposes that EVERYONE within the given political community be allowed to participate... not a few who arrogate themselves the right.

Sigh. Have you still not read the scenario? In it they give you the choice to vote. But, like me and other libertarians, the person in the scenario is always outvoted by the gang of thieves. Before you respond, please just read the damn thing.

Because work, like every other activity, doesn't in and of itself give you a right to anything at all.

If you made something you might not have perfect claim to something, but you have more than anyone else. It as, at the very least, partially yours, because it was partially made by you.

If it isn't a good cause, you have no right. If it is, you might, depending on the circumstances (does the benefit outweigh the harm?) I don't think building a church qualifies as a good cause at all, and certainly, any derived benefit doesn't exceed the harm done to me. As for "too bad," if your action doesn't adhere to my principle, it can hardly be advanced as an argument against my principle.

See, this is where your system falls apart. Because what is a "good" may not be something we agree on. Perhaps I don't think universal healthcare is a good cause (not exactly true, just not a good idea), so are we going to make your house a hospital or a church? Majority vote, it ends up a church. Have you learned anything yet? This is why we let leave people alone to their own devices, as long as they don't violate other's rights the government shouldn't mess with theirs.

The government's role as guarantor of order, protecter of property, and, more generally, enforcer of the basic norms that make social interaction (including economic interaction) possible certainly far exceeds its cost.

All of which can be done without income tax. In fact, for the majority of human history it was so. But no, like history, logic is one of the many things that must be cast away in the name of "progress."

Bribery and fraud are already criminal offenses. And the employer and client are also in some way accountable, they would be more likely to take fewer chances and make sure their inspector is qualified and doing his job properly.

Yeah but there would be a whole new level responsible ... the load has to go somewhere

Like I said in some way if the government makes the rules they have to enforce them or add another layer of complexity watching those that enforce them

So either reduce the rule set or enforce them ... don't make another whole complex structure and enforcement just because it sounds better

Yeah but there would be a whole new level responsible ... the load has to go somewhere

Like I said in some way if the government makes the rules they have to enforce them or add another layer of complexity watching those that enforce them

So either reduce the rule set or enforce them ... don't make another whole complex structure and enforcement just because it sounds better

You miss the point. No one is watching them. It's the responsibility of the cleint and the employer to watch. Not anyone in the government. The government only punishes if there is a breach.

What about murder? The government doesn't go around checking up on everyone to make sure they aren't going to murder someone. It's the responsibility of the people to protect themselves from threat. And if a threat comes anyway, then the government comes in and protects and punishes.

It should be the same way with everything else.

What duties do you think the private sector should be assigned, and what duties do you think the public sector should be assigned, and why?

Edit: Incidentally, this is my 900th post. Hurray!

private sector should be assigned everything that can be assigned to it,Ive even developed methods to have a privatetized road system.

Ive even developed methods to have a privatetized road system.

Really? Do tell.

Do you really want to get into the negative effects of American capitalism?

American what? America has not been even close to capitalist since FDR.

If Europe is destroyed by social democratic policies (an absolutely laughable claim), then why are the peoples of countries in the Middle East, Asia, Africa and South America not better off due to their (mostly) more capitalist systems?

Thank you for at least making an argument, however poor. Africa and South America certainly are not anywhere near capitalist, so I will ignore them. Asia isn't really either, except for Japan, South Korea and a few other nations that happen to all be well off. (Note that Hong Kong under British capitalism thrived while China did poorly, and North Korea sucks while South Korea does not.) As far as the Middle East goes, they only have one resource, for example. They can't use petroleum and related products for all electricity. And when they want to build nuclear power plants we interfere with their research.

Surely this serves my point better than yours? In countries with universal healthcare, the citizens pay less in tax for more service. The US , it seems, spends quite a lot of taxpayer money on health without actually providing universal healthcare.

If I were defending the United States as opposed to attacking socialism this might be an issue.

You seem to be trying to say that regulations are bad just because Nazis and Soviets did it. Which is certainly a fallacy.

If you read the original post you would see that I am saying that the Nazi and Soviet atrocities seem to be a symptom of socialism. Otherwise countries that heavily regulate their economies wouldn't by far bear the majority of the responsibility for genocides in the twentieth century. Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, Communist China, that's around ninety million just with them, at least eighty million of which were their own citizens.

Should the government not be involved with roads?

It should not.

Check my signature.

Good for you. However, my question was rhetorical.

It's also less effective. Victorian Britain had charities too, and they still had droves of people dying on the streets.

First, take technology into account. Second, their are still people dying on the streets today. Have you not noticed that organizations like the Red Cross do far more than governments? In fact, Wal-Mart, of all groups, did a better job during Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans than the United States government. So even when government has good intentions it does a poor job.

You're saying that the means justify the ends, and the results of that are very real and very bad.

No, if I were saying that the means justify the ends I would be saying that being nice justifies everyone dying, or something to that effect. The means justify the means and the ends do not need to be justified since they are results, not actions. Not stealing people's property is justified by the fact that you are not stealing someone's propterty. Economic recovery does not need to be justified.

Or maybe they're liars.

Accusing people of being liars for knowing more than you? I am sure that has gotten you real far.

I hate analogies.

And I hate when people call typing the word "reality" an argument.

Alright, how about China? Pinochet's Chile? All free-market shitholes.

I would hardly call China a free-market, even now, but they have improved their economy since shedding many of their communist laws. As far as Pinochet's Chile, I have not purused the economic statistics before, during and after his reign, so I cannot comment on that at the moment.

You'll have to show us because nobody is seeing it.

Well, I have already given the examples of South Korea and Hong Kong above. I will add Japan and even the United States to that given they are less socialist than Europe and yet do far better. If I get around to it I will post more tomorrow. I doubt I will, though, because I am preparing to leave on Tuesday morning to, of all places, Europe.

Your taxation form, I assume.

That assumes two things. I will ignore the one, as it will not remain the case, and instead point out that it is coercive. Few people would sign anything of the sort if they were not threated with jail. The landlord does not have that power, fortunately.

You're free to leave at any time, and you always have been. That's actually what happened to the Labour government that ran Britain in the late 1970s; they became too socialist, so the rich just left in droves.

It seems you have not read the "How Many Men" argument either. You shouldn't have to leave town just because there are thieves about. It might be a wise thing to do, but it would be nice to just throw the thieves in jail. Metaphorically speaking, of course.

How does this make any sense? The thieves don't represent society. The people didn't vote for an armed gang to appear from nowhere and steal your car.

The thieves DO represent society. the people DID vote for an armed gang to appear and steal your car. Read the argument. The Thieves ARE the people and you are one of them. Unfortunately your one vote is overridden by their many votes. Just like in real life.

I knew you would say that. If you compare the backgrounds of the two situations, you will see that there were actual reasons for imposing taxes in America in 1913, whereas all the Nazis had was bigotry.

I would love to hear some of these reasons.

If it is not the public's, why shouldn't it be used for my good?

Because human beings are equal, and exclusive ownership is a denial of human equality by setting one ruler above the others.

No. Democracy is arbitrary.

Hardly. Democracy springs quite naturally from the notions of self-determination that right-libertarians hold so dear. If I have the right to make decisions concerning myself rather than have them imposed on me, then a given population should have the right to make social decisions that concern them.

Sigh. Have you still not read the scenario? In it they give you the choice to vote. But, like me and other libertarians, the person in the scenario is always outvoted by the gang of thieves. Before you respond, please just read the damn thing.

Yes, I read it. It's still arbitrary.

The DEMOCRATIC thing to do would be to ask the community as a whole (not small, arbitrarily selected portions of the community), "what property rights should we establish, and what kind of violations should be tolerated?" Since the thieves are contradicting the law (the will of the community, theoretically anyway), they are behaving undemocratically, not democratically.

If you made something you might not have perfect claim to something, but you have more than anyone else. It as, at the very least, partially yours, because it was partially made by you.

Why? Why does activity give me a right to anything? Why does altering something make it mine? Sure, I made it what it is... but so what? Why does that mean that other people must respect my right to it? Did they ask me to alter it?

There are only two kinds of right to property that I can see - the right to the property necessary for basic freedom (the necessities of life and the basic personal possessions essential to maintaining individuality), and the right of rational expectations, that when I make a deal to work for a certain number of hours for a certain quantity of pay, I should actually get that pay, for otherwise I have been denied my freedom. But since I know about taxation when I make the deal, taxation hardly violates that right.

See, this is where your system falls apart. Because what is a "good" may not be something we agree on.

So? Whether or not we agree on it has no bearing on whether or not it is good.

Perhaps I don't think universal healthcare is a good cause (not exactly true, just not a good idea), so are we going to make your house a hospital or a church? Majority vote, it ends up a church.

Your argument here seems to be that the population cannot be trusted to make good decisions - but since the public good is generally a good cause, and the population can be trusted, more or less (just as individuals can be trusted), to know what is best for it, democracy is a pretty good way to deal with property. Certainly it is better than the arbitrary will of whoever happens to own it.

All of which can be done without income tax.

So? Certainly corporations are CAPABLE of providing me goods without charging me, yet surely you would not say that they have no RIGHT to charge me?

Because human beings are equal, and exclusive ownership is a denial of human equality by setting one ruler above the others.

It does not deny human equality. Saying that I don't have to dedicate my labor to others does no such thing. Also, on what do you base your assertion that all human beings are equal? I agree, but I don't think you are religious, and from a purely naturalistic point of view human beings are not equal. Was Hitler equal to Ghandi? Is a mentally retarded person equal to Einstein?

Hardly. Democracy springs quite naturally from the notions of self-determination that right-libertarians hold so dear. If I have the right to make decisions concerning myself rather than have them imposed on me, then a given population should have the right to make social decisions that concern them.

The DEMOCRATIC thing to do would be to ask the community as a whole (not small, arbitrarily selected portions of the community), "what property rights should we establish, and what kind of violations should be tolerated?" Since the thieves are contradicting the law (the will of the community, theoretically anyway), they are behaving undemocratically, not democratically.

Two things: One, this is an analogy and the thieves represent the whole community. That is why it is called “How Many Men?” Two, This is why democracy is arbitrary, because nothing makes the whole community valid to decide for everybody than for one person to decide for himself. That is true self-determination. Deciding for yourself only.

There are only two kinds of right to property that I can see - the right to the property necessary for basic freedom (the necessities of life and the basic personal possessions essential to maintaining individuality), and the right of rational expectations, that when I make a deal to work for a certain number of hours for a certain quantity of pay, I should actually get that pay, for otherwise I have been denied my freedom. But since I know about taxation when I make the deal, taxation hardly violates that right.

So, even though the only way you can make money (self-determination) is by being taxed, it is ok because you know this ahead of time?

So? Whether or not we agree on it has no bearing on whether or not it is good.

I agree. But unless you believe governments are infallible they are going do things that aren’t good.

Your argument here seems to be that the population cannot be trusted to make good decisions - but since the public good is generally a good cause, and the population can be trusted, more or less (just as individuals can be trusted), to know what is best for it, democracy is a pretty good way to deal with property. Certainly it is better than the arbitrary will of whoever happens to own it.

Far less individuals have killed themselves throughout history than groups of people have killed their members. I would think this would be sufficient evidence to convince any logical person that individuals know what is best for themselves far more than the hive mind.

So? Certainly corporations are CAPABLE of providing me goods without charging me, yet surely you would not say that they have no RIGHT to charge me?

They have a right to charge you because you don't have to buy their goods. They don't have to sell their goods, either. The government, however, is a third party that, like the mafia, demands protection money so you can work at/run a business.

You miss the point. No one is watching them. It's the responsibility of the cleint and the employer to watch. Not anyone in the government. The government only punishes if there is a breach.

What about murder? The government doesn't go around checking up on everyone to make sure they aren't going to murder someone. It's the responsibility of the people to protect themselves from threat. And if a threat comes anyway, then the government comes in and protects and punishes.

It should be the same way with everything else.
What? Yes they do the cops are on patrol all the time making sure that people don't murder people all the time. As well as other law infractions such as speeding.

Ive even developed methods to have a privatetized road system.

Oh, cool! Can you tell me what it is?

Well, I could think of several if he doesn't get around to telling you:

1. Tolls.
2. Companies could buy up property and sell passes to be one their property. They would be large and you would stick them on your car so everyone could see you were not breaking the law. They would have the expiration date in large print and you could get short term passes. Violators would be shot... or fined. It could go either way, really.

In case you didn't know, I pulled that second one out of my ass. It does show promise, though.

Well, I could think of several if he doesn't get around to telling you:

1. Tolls.
2. Companies could buy up property and sell passes to be one their property. They would be large and you would stick them on your car so everyone could see you were not breaking the law. They would have the expiration date in large print and you could get short term passes. Violators would be shot... or fined. It could go either way, really.

In case you didn't know, I pulled that second one out of my ass. It does show promise, though.

I usually go with GPS tracking, and that neighborhoods will build their own roads with shares (to raise capital) available to those that live in the area so as to cover part of their travels.

You didn't answer the question.

The answer is sometimes

I usually go with GPS tracking, and that neighborhoods will build their own roads with shares (to raise capital) available to those that live in the area so as to cover part of their travels.
No one's GPS tracking me, not a company, not the government, thank you very much.

Well, I think, private or public property isn´t actually the problem, instead, the power one can gain through economic institutions is the important factor.
I consider myself to be an anti-authoritive democrat and a libertarian left and therefore think that what is important is to oppose power monopolisation. And that is possible both with private and public property.
So whether you´ve got an huge public sector, but decentrally, paticipatory democratic organiced, or an private sector, which is regulated through democratic institutions to minimise power differences and exploitation, isn´t that much of a difference.
And the other way round: Both centralised state socialism and monopoly capitalism are able to minimice the freedom of the majority of the population to make it possible for a small elite of capitalists or coordinators to exploit the rest of the population.
So it doesn´t matter whether there´s private or public property, what matters is the power difference (often also causing social differences) some economic systems create.

If you read the original post you would see that I am saying that the Nazi and Soviet atrocities seem to be a symptom of socialism. Otherwise countries that heavily regulate their economies wouldn't by far bear the majority of the responsibility for genocides in the twentieth century. Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, Communist China, that's around ninety million just with them, at least eighty million of which were their own citizens. Given the fact that socialism isn't defined by government regulation of the economy, I'm not sure what your point is here.