Mod The Sims - The Evils of Privatization

Oaktree

5th Oct 2010, 07:40 PM

It may be "fairer" in the sense that the wealthy will receive services and the poor will not, but that's not a civilization really. I mean, what are slaves but people who weren't "responsible" enough to manage to not become slaves? If people were "responsible" they'd get out and build their own roads and teach their own children how to read and write. An invading army? A "responsible" person would get off their butts and fight that war for themselves, not for any country!

But again, that's not a government and that's not really a country. That's all the grace and charm of Somalia, or Copper Age Greece. Personal responsibility sounds good, but what you're describing at some point stops becoming a slogan and becomes institutionalized sociopathy. I don't care how how you parse it, society works because people work for each other, not for themselves. They might not recognize it or acknowledge it, they might argue over what they choose to work for or how, but in the end the world runs not on personal responsibility, but social responsibility.

You are assuming that there can be no cooperation in a free society. That isn't true. People will, by nature, work with other people. Partly because we are better at specialization than generalization and partly because none of us is perfect and must at some point rely on others. I'm saying that that cooperation cannot ethically be forced on us. We must be able to choose when to cooperate. Not only is it better for individuals, but by making people take responsibility for themselves, it is better for society.

Even when the vast majority of people are so severely and deliberately under-resourced by the small population of capital holders and employers that they cannot comfortably - or sometimes even possibly - manage that responsibility alongside their other debts? Do all the people who have died from utility shut-offs in Detroit this past winter deserve death for the sins of the capital holders?

The "vast majority"? First off, 13% of people in the US are in poverty. Some of those are not in permanent poverty, but in a temporary state of poverty. The majority of people in poverty are not so far in poverty that they are entirely unable to provide for themselves. Poverty is defined by the amount of money coming into a household, not by the living standard in that household.

Second, people in a state of long-term poverty presumably would not own their own property. They would probably rent, in which case the property owner would likely pay the fee for the sake of protecting his property.

Third, protection of your house is an important priority. A wise homeowner would cover expenses related to the keeping of a house before even electricity bills. You can go without electricity for quite a while and then get it turned back on later just fine. If you lose your house, you can't gain a new one that easily.

The people who have died in Detroit do not deserve death, but there are a few ways to avoid this: the gas/electric company can leave the utility on through the winter, then bill the individual for the cost later; the individual can stay with family or friends; or, lacking that, the individual can approach charitable organizations for help. I would be surprised if there weren't charitable organizations working in the area to help people who can't afford their utilities over the winter. There are always individuals who care about the suffering of others.

Let me clarify a bit: I think personal responsibility as a personal empowerment issue is fine. It's something you should strive for. It's something that should happen in your life if at all possible. It just sucks as a social policy. As a governmental policy it's worse, it's no policy at all. As a practical matter we all realize that not everyone can be ensured by a government to lead a healthy, safe, productive life, but as a policy principle that's entirely what any government (should) strive for. Hell, it's what a debate club at a local high school should strive for if they could manage it, or this website.

The purpose of government is to protect the freedoms of its citizens; the nature of obligatory government defies this objective, therefore it is contradictory to have obligatory government.

It's part of personal responsibility to be socially responsible, because someone who forsakes social responsibility is by default irresponsible to themselves: Humans are social creatures and our greatest achievements are accomplished by people acting together and in concert.

Taxation prevents true social responsibility. People can only be responsible for their own choices; taxation is not a choice, so any good derived from it cannot be ascribed to the taxed people. I believe that people would be "socially responsible" if given the opportunity. Not everyone will, but the majority of people will give to charity or community service programs in varying degrees. People do even now, but to take away all governmental drain on resources would allow people to most appropriately apportion their giving, based on the needs of the surrounding community and the ability of each person to give.

Back to the OP though: A burned down house is a community issue. It endangers other houses while it burns. It drags home values down. It can be a refuge for disease carrying vermin. It releases toxins into the atmosphere. It puts an enormous economic burden on the owner, who might otherwise be a valuable member of the economy. There's a risk of death and injury, during and after - impacting the local community and businesses. I could go on and on.

What happens to society if everyone's house burns down but your own while you're being "personally responsible?"

If the burned down house has a large enough impact on the surrounding community, the neighbors would make a choice to do something about it. Maybe neighbors will pitch in time or money to the clean up job. Maybe they'll try to prevent future scenarios by helping to support their financially insecure neighbors. On the other hand, if the impact on the community is not large enough, they may ignore it.

Further, by your own logic, the man in the story was not being socially responsible. He chose to forego a responsibility and his actions may have a negative impact on the community. Wouldn't it be best that he feel the consequences of his actions (or inactions), in order to teach him to be more responsible in the future? People learn from experience, usually from mistakes.

There may be a temporary impact on the local economy, but I doubt that it would be a heavy, long-term impact. If the man is capable of rebuilding, he'll do it, if not, he'll probably move away.

If everyone else's house is burning down, it is in your best interests to help your neighbors put out their fires. You may choose not to, but that will have an impact on your relationship with your neighbors.

Honeywell

5th Oct 2010, 08:11 PM

If a group of people pool their resources to fund something completely independent of taxpayer contributions then, sure, you can deny your service all you want--I'll think you're a dickhead but it's your right. But to let someones house burn down for the lack of a $75 dollar fee is unconscionable and complete BS. There's no way $75 per homeowner is completely funding that fire department so I think it's ridiculous to pretend the fire departments "private" in the first place.

Nekowolf

5th Oct 2010, 09:20 PM

fakepeeps7

5th Oct 2010, 09:41 PM

The "every man for himself" mentality is one of the things that most bothers me about the U.S.A.

Oaktree

5th Oct 2010, 10:07 PM

"People will, by nature, work with other people."

And people will abuse, use, overpower, and subjugate people too, by nature. It has happened throughout the entire history of man, from the day we started dwelling in caves to this very day. "By nature" is a poor excuse.

What excuse? I was pointing out that people do not require government to have social interaction. Yes, people will do stupid and immoral things by nature, as well, but that wasn't the point of me saying that people will work together by nature.

It's slightly off-topic, but, without government, abuse of the social structure is prevented by social accountability. If you want to be involved in the group, with the benefits gained thereof, you have to avoid making an ass of yourself.

"The purpose of government is to protect the freedoms of its citizens; the nature of obligatory government defies this objective, therefore it is contradictory to have obligatory government."

Since there is no mention of morality (aside from a very broad, vague interpretation) in his post, you must be referring to law. So you are saying we should do away with a government that has any power of law.

I was responding to his assertion that the purpose of government is to ensure healthy, safety, and productivity. Admittedly, this is a matter of each of us having differing underlying opinions that we base our arguments on, but I was giving the reasoning for why I don't think there should be obligatory government.

Maybe it's the term obligatory that you don't understand the context of. What I mean by that is that government should not be something you're forced to participate in. I think that people should have the option to voluntarily join a government, as there are certainly benefits to being involved in a government (though there are drawbacks as well). The reason why it must be voluntary, though, is because a person should not be forced to live with the laws imposed by his neighbors if there is another collection of like-minded individuals who can form a separate social contract that is more amenable to those involved. This doesn't completely undermine rule of law, as a person can morally be punished for wrongdoing, and so the wronged party can muster his community to punish the wrongdoer. People are naturally inclined to punish wrongdoing, particularly when they feel that there is a chance of the wrongdoer doing wrong to them.

"Taxation prevents true social responsibility. People can only be responsible for their own choices; taxation is not a choice, so any good derived from it cannot be ascribed to the taxed people."

This makes absolutely no sense once-so-ever. It is nothing more but an empty point made by someone who does not agree with taxation. If taxes went into schools to teach children, hospitals to heal the sick, securities to help those in need, police to protect the people, fire departments to save the people, courts to do justice on behalf of the people, though not perfect, you are imply we must reject all good that they do because they are funded through taxation. Taxation = no choice = nothing good. Naive and foolish. Like the rest of what you have said.

People can individually choose to pay into those things as they feel is necessary. Why do you think that people go along with taxes in the first place? They think that the money will go to necessary things. In a privatized system, however, the money is spent more efficiently as it is distributed mostly on an as-needs basis. If people see that the school needs new textbooks, they are more inclined to give money to the school for new textbooks because education is something that people overwhelmingly care about. If the roads need fixing, people will pay to have them fixed, because it is terribly inconvenient to drive on roads full of pot holes. Whatever good that can be done through taxation can be done better and more efficiently through private spending.

Oh, and ad hominem. How very mature of you.

We can rely on some people. But then we have people who look out only for themselves. To assume they will magically help is naive of the truth of humanity, that it is something contradictory and two-faced. That there is good, and there is bad. And not everyone would lend a hand to a stranger, or neighbor, or in some cases, even family. Their well-being trumps all the well-being of others, and any assistance they do hand out may well be nowhere near satisfactory for the issue at hand.

Those people who won't help can be disregarded by society, at least so long as they don't harm society. If they harm society, society can punish them. If they retreat into the woods to live as a hermit, they aren't hurting anyone, so there's nothing wrong with them refusing to participate in society. Even a person who lives in a community but only has minimal contact with his neighbors is really not doing any harm or good. I don't see why every person must be forced to participate in society. I say there's nothing wrong with letting the sociopaths decide to retreat from society. It's better than forcing them to interact with society, in which case they may end up hurting people. That's not to say that I think the sociopaths should be forcibly removed from society; if they don't do anything wrong, leave them be.

And you want to rely solely on human nature. That's the craziest thing I have heard all day; but on your defense, my shows aren't on, so I haven't heard what those Teabaggers have said this time.

It isn't solely human nature, but human nature does play into it. We have learned how to organize, we have institutions, and we have moral laws that are passed down by society. These things would all have a hand in a government-less society. Society does not rely on government. It would exist even in the absence of government. Government is simply a construct that placed atop society to organize large groups of people. Why does everyone need to be organized in this manner? Why can't people act individually for their own good and for their own ideals?

EDIT: Well, I'll let the rest of you duke it out with Oaktree. God knows I've done it enough, so it's not something I particularly look forward to.

It won't keep me from responding to you, but you can stop participating in the discussion if you'd like.

potatoehead

5th Oct 2010, 10:35 PM

Maybe it's the term obligatory that you don't understand the context of. What I mean by that is that government should not be something you're forced to participate in. I think that people should have the option to voluntarily join a government, as there are certainly benefits to being involved in a government (though there are drawbacks as well). The reason why it must be voluntary, though, is because a person should not be forced to live with the laws imposed by his neighbors if there is another collection of like-minded individuals who can form a separate social contract that is more amenable to those involved. This doesn't completely undermine rule of law, as a person can morally be punished for wrongdoing, and so the wronged party can muster his community to punish the wrongdoer. People are naturally inclined to punish wrongdoing, particularly when they feel that there is a chance of the wrongdoer doing wrong to them.

Why should government be voluntary? It's like saying you should be able to voluntarily follow a government's laws, which would undermine the authority of the government. What good is a law if you don't have to follow it?

People can individually choose to pay into those things as they feel is necessary. Why do you think that people go along with taxes in the first place? They think that the money will go to necessary things. In a privatized system, however, the money is spent more efficiently as it is distributed mostly on an as-needs basis. If people see that the school needs new textbooks, they are more inclined to give money to the school for new textbooks because education is something that people overwhelmingly care about. If the roads need fixing, people will pay to have them fixed, because it is terribly inconvenient to drive on roads full of pot holes. Whatever good that can be done through taxation can be done better and more efficiently through private spending.

The problem with as-needed spending is that everyone needs certain services, but not everyone can afford them. The cumulative cost of health care, education, fire protection, and so on is quite large, especially in the US, and lower-earning people can't afford them all. Think about it: if a wealthy person gets a disease that is very expensive to treat, like cancer, he will be able to get the best treatment possible. A poorer person, however, will hardly be able to afford any treatment at all and will suffer greatly from the disease. The current system in Western countries is to spread the cost around so that the tax burden is on people who can actually afford to pay. Therefore, everyone is able to get whatever services they need.

Those people who won't help can be disregarded by society, at least so long as they don't harm society. If they harm society, society can punish them. If they retreat into the woods to live as a hermit, they aren't hurting anyone, so there's nothing wrong with them refusing to participate in society. Even a person who lives in a community but only has minimal contact with his neighbors is really not doing any harm or good. I don't see why every person must be forced to participate in society. I say there's nothing wrong with letting the sociopaths decide to retreat from society. It's better than forcing them to interact with society, in which case they may end up hurting people. That's not to say that I think the sociopaths should be forcibly removed from society; if they don't do anything wrong, leave them be.

You're assuming that the people who don't pay are sociopaths, while in reality, they just can't afford to pay.

Oaktree

5th Oct 2010, 10:49 PM

Why should government be voluntary? It's like saying you should be able to voluntarily follow a government's laws, which would undermine the authority of the government. What good is a law if you don't have to follow it?

Maybe I didn't make it clear that voluntary government means that whatever government you voluntarily choose to be a part of (if you choose to be a part of one) would have legal power over you. If you are part of the government, you can be punished by it for breaking its laws. If you are not part of the government, you would still be expected to follow certain rules of the place, such as which side of the road you drive on, and you could still be punished for wrongdoing against a member of that government. Consider what happens under current laws if you break the law in another country: you are punished by that country, and if you flee to another country, you will often be extradited. Something very similar would function under a system of voluntary government.

The problem with as-needed spending is that everyone needs certain services, but not everyone can afford them. The cumulative cost of health care, education, fire protection, and so on is quite large, especially in the US, and lower-earning people can't afford them all. Think about it: if a wealthy person gets a disease that is very expensive to treat, like cancer, he will be able to get the best treatment possible. A poorer person, however, will hardly be able to afford any treatment at all and will suffer greatly from the disease. The current system in Western countries is to spread the cost around so that the tax burden is on people who can actually afford to pay. Therefore, everyone is able to get whatever services they need.

In a free market (one not regulated by government), the cost of necessities is moderated by what the majority can afford. When there is a large open market of people willing to pay for a service, but unable to pay a high cost for the service, there tends to be someone who comes in to fill that niche, so long as what people are willing to pay is at least marginally higher than the cost to provide that thing.

You're assuming that the people who don't pay are sociopaths, while in reality, they just can't afford to pay.

I was giving an example. I'm sorry if I didn't make that clear. Sociopaths are simply one group of people who may retreat from society. There are others who might not participate in society to the fullest extent.

Nekowolf

5th Oct 2010, 10:50 PM

@fakepeeps7

Trust me. I know what you mean; that's like what the whole damn Tea Party is founded on. "Me, me, me! It's my money! You no touch my money!" I doubt they don't even know half of what they talk about.

@Oaktree

Ad hominem, perhaps. I won't lie about it. But frankly, I spoke what I truly see. I find your idea that we can do away with so much and rely on the hospitality of people like it was a guarantee very naive and lacking in the real depth of human nature across the board. You know what's funny though?

What you are advocating, in some prospect, is socialism. You are saying everyone should help each other. That is a key proponent to socialism, that everyone is for everyone. The key difference, granted is that one is done through, largely taxation, while the other is, well, I don't even know what you are trying to advocate for. Barter system? I.O.Us? It's ridiculous, and nonsensical. It doesn't hold up in any reasonable way outside of a very small group; and certainly not a full-scale government or country. You are basically saying, people should help each other, but only out of the goodness of their hearts and only when they feel like it. And that we should rely on that. That's just outright preposterous.

You are right, you do not need government for social interaction. But we do need for everything else. For laws. For protection. Otherwise we would shrink back into tribal times. Good government is a necessarily evil. Bad government, well, that's something different, but in comparison to what else is out there and used to be, I think we could say we're still a relatively "good government," even though its far from perfect.

But mere social interactions is not enough for everything the government does. It's not enough to protect all its people. It's not enough to demand equality. Unless you side with Rand Paul and feel the Civil Rights Act should not apply to private business; in which case, private ownership trumps equality, so equality really wouldn't matter as much as it does now.

And no. You gave no reason why an "obligatory government defies this objective." What it came down to is, "it just does." No. They are not contradictory. By paying taxes, that ensures, in what I want, that everyone has the freedom of life (universal coverage) against corporations who's interests are not patients but profits, and have proven time and again they are willing to cut the sick, and the innocent, for the sake of their profits.

Paying taxes ensures the freedom of property and safety, by supporting police and fire departments. Both of which are essential to the safety of a person and of their property (even though some may not be able to be saved, even though not always can it be saved, that does not negate the sheer importance of such services).

Laws about minimum wage, child labor, civil protections (such as against child abuse), social security, anti-discriminatory laws, they helps cement the possibility of a productive life.

You are advocating we should do away with all laws of this kind, or at the very least, the enforcement of those laws. Because that would be an "obligatory government." Because they are forcing the law, and forcing people to follow, to participate, in those laws. Because enforcing law is what makes an "obligatory government."

And punishment under moral jurisdiction? Who's morals? Mine? Yours? You can't put them to paper and enforce them, that would be a writ of law, and if enforced, makes it obligatory! Which you are against! So who's morals? Oh wait. That's right. You believe morals are objective.

So now, the question becomes, who is right? This scenario sounds awfully familiar.

And roads, police, schools, fire departments, social protections, those are not useful? As they are paid through taxes. And an as-need bases? You mean like charities? Which we need year after year because finances cannot be met? How ridiculous! The idea that removing taxes will magically make everything okay, it's, it's, I cannot even express how ludicrous it is. So tell me? When the economy sours, like it has this time, and everyone is trying to save their money, refusing to spend it, what then? What if it lasts for years, like the Great Depression? Tsk. I don't think I need to say any more on the subject. It's fairly obvious what would happen; those things which need funding would get an incredible lack of it as people struggle to survive and put basic needs and protections over funding of many things that may need them, as their own economic survival is far more important.

Yeah, I don't think I can even continue. I mean, just. Wow. Yeah, if this is what I'm going up against, I don't think my heart can take it. I think my point has been made, at least, to others.

Oaktree

5th Oct 2010, 11:27 PM

@Oaktree

What you are advocating, in some prospect, is socialism. You are saying everyone should help each other. That is a key proponent to socialism, that everyone is for everyone. The key difference, granted is that one is done through, largely taxation, while the other is, well, I don't even know what you are trying to advocate for. Barter system? I.O.Us? It's ridiculous, and nonsensical. It doesn't hold up in any reasonable way outside of a very small group; and certainly not a full-scale government or country. You are basically saying, people should help each other, but only out of the goodness of their hearts and only when they feel like it. And that we should rely on that. That's just outright preposterous.

Socialism is a form of mandatory government in which people are required to support their neighbors. What I am advocating is that individuals be allowed to use their own judgement to determine what they feel they can give and what amount it is right to give. Some people may feel that they need not give anything; those people are unlikely to get help when they are in trouble. Others will give generously and will most likely find support when they are in trouble. This system doesn't always work perfectly, but it is fairer than a system in which you are required to give a certain amount, regardless of your rights to your own earnings. I'm not saying anywhere in my argument that what I'm arguing for is a perfect form of government; there is no such thing. What I'm arguing for is a moral and fair government.

You are right, you do not need government for social interaction. But we do need for everything else. For laws. For protection. Otherwise we would shrink back into tribal times. Good government is a necessarily evil. Bad government, well, that's something different, but in comparison to what else is out there and used to be, I think we could say we're still a relatively "good government," even though its far from perfect.

Laws and protection can be gained through voluntary participation in a community of like-minded individuals. We would not shrink back to tribal times because we have very global societies now. We communicate and exchange with people from all over the world, a variety of different cultures. That globalization is largely due to technology and knowledge, things that won't disappear if government does.

But mere social interactions is not enough for everything the government does. It's not enough to protect all its people. It's not enough to demand equality. Unless you side with Rand Paul and feel the Civil Rights Act should not apply to private business; in which case, private ownership trumps equality, so equality really wouldn't matter as much as it does now.

I think that equality comes with privatization. It is more efficient to hire workers that can do the job, as opposed to hiring workers that are of a race or sex you identify with. There are market pressures to show equality, so a free market promotes it.

And no. You gave no reason why an "obligatory government defies this objective." What it came down to is, "it just does." No. They are not contradictory. By paying taxes, that ensures, in what I want, that everyone has the freedom of life (universal coverage) against corporations who's interests are not patients but profits, and have proven time and again they are willing to cut the sick, and the innocent, for the sake of their profits.

I was uncertain of which part of what I said you were questioning, so I went with the two possibilities that I thought most likely. Apparently I didn't pick the one you were actually getting at.

The reason why obligatory government defies the objective of protecting freedoms is because it defies freedom of choice. Not only does it defy freedom of choice, but all of the protections to other freedoms can be gained through voluntary government, so it is no competition against a system of voluntary government.

Paying taxes ensures the freedom of property and safety, by supporting police and fire departments. Both of which are essential to the safety of a person and of their property (even though some may not be able to be saved, even though not always can it be saved, that does not negate the sheer importance of such services).

Tax-funded police and fire departments exclude other option. It is possible that some people would not want to be under the protection of police or the fire department. Maybe that person feels that it is a more efficient use of his resources to protect his own property. Maybe he would rather hire a detective on a case-by-case basis, when something wrong is done to him. There are other options and no reason to force everyone to support the one option.

Laws about minimum wage, child labor, civil protections (such as against child abuse), social security, anti-discriminatory laws, they helps cement the possibility of a productive life.

Minimum wage, as I've pointed out before, is actually harmful to the working class. There are few jobs now that would benefit from child labor that are particularly dangerous. Most factories are machine-automated. Few things are made by hand. Other jobs that children might take on, such as newspaper delivery and yard work are not objectionable. Children do those things anyway, just sometimes under the radar of the law because the law restricts them from taking on a harmless job to get a little pocket money.

EDIT: Forgot to address the last few points. Protection against things like child abuse can come in the form of community pressure. Back when people used to get to know their neighbors as a matter of course, if your neighbors found out that you beat your wife and/or kids, you would usually become a social outcast. Being a social outcast is a strong psychological, economical, etc. pressure for stopping whatever it is that is making you one. Social security is simply forced saving. People can save money without the help of the government. I've already addressed the economic consequences of discrimination.

You are advocating we should do away with all laws of this kind, or at the very least, the enforcement of those laws. Because that would be an "obligatory government." Because they are forcing the law, and forcing people to follow, to participate, in those laws. Because enforcing law is what makes an "obligatory government."

Under a voluntary government, people are not forced to follow a particular set of laws; they choose to make a promise to follow a particular set of laws based on what government they choose to be part of. If they break those laws, they are breaking their promise. It is entirely different from being born into a particular country and forced to follow those laws when you have no choice in the matter.

And punishment under moral jurisdiction? Who's morals? Mine? Yours? You can't put them to paper and enforce them, that would be a writ of law, and if enforced, makes it obligatory! Which you are against! So who's morals? Oh wait. That's right. You believe morals are objective.

So now, the question becomes, who is right? This scenario sounds awfully familiar.

The morals of the people who determined the social contract for the community. If there is a community that thinks that abortion is immoral, abortion would not be legal in that community. A neighboring community might feel that abortion is moral, however, and choose to allow it. I do believe in objective morality, but laws are really a matter of descriptive/applied ethics, rather than normative ethics and meta-ethics. In essence, I would believe that certain communities' moral standards are wrong, but the freedom to choose another community whose morals I agree with is what matters here.

And roads, police, schools, fire departments, social protections, those are not useful? As they are paid through taxes. And an as-need bases? You mean like charities? Which we need year after year because finances cannot be met? How ridiculous! The idea that removing taxes will magically make everything okay, it's, it's, I cannot even express how ludicrous it is. So tell me? When the economy sours, like it has this time, and everyone is trying to save their money, refusing to spend it, what then? What if it lasts for years, like the Great Depression? Tsk. I don't think I need to say any more on the subject. It's fairly obvious what would happen; those things which need funding would get an incredible lack of it as people struggle to survive and put basic needs and protections over funding of many things that may need them, as their own economic survival is far more important.

Charities, community funds, whatever. What is so ridiculous about the idea of persistent pools of funds for community improvement?

When did I say that it will magically make everything okay? I have made a few axiomatic arguments regarding how such a system would work, but I have also pointed out that no system is perfect.

Part of a free society requires an educated and responsible populace. Economic depressions are not nearly so disastrous when the majority of people save some of their earnings in good times. Those that don't save, may have a rather difficult time, but the rest of society cannot be held accountable for the irresponsibility of those members. In a free society, people cannot live beyond their means without serious repercussions; I think that this is a good thing, as it promotes personal responsibility.

kiwi_tea

5th Oct 2010, 11:32 PM

When did I say anything about poverty. Tried to get by on the average wage with a family and mortgage lately without having to cut some incredibly worrying corners?

Mistermook

6th Oct 2010, 12:57 AM

Oaktree, I'm suspecting that you've read Ayn Rand recently and subscribe to the sociopath's newsletter? It's a shame, you usually seem like you've got a level head on your shoulders but I'm just not sure how to debate you when you've got this John Galt "I'm going to teach that lazy bastard a good lesson by letting his house burn down" nonsense in your head. Look, by your own admission people should help each other, right? I know from before you've got this notion that people are basically just busting at the seams to give out rainbows and hugs or something though, and that's admirable and all that but you are standing here as an example of the sort of jerk who advocates not helping people. Or at the best the sort of person who "helps" someone else by not doing shit and watching their house burn down for some sort of weird principled stand where another person loses everything and you get to scold them for not being responsible.

Pardon my French, but how very fucking big of you. I'm sure the "lesson" really hits home: Oaktree could have done something to save my house, but she's a selfish, self-important bitch who let it burn down because she wanted to make a point.

Frankly, we all have laws and government to protect us from assholes like that.

What I am advocating is that individuals be allowed to use their own judgement to determine what they feel they can give and what amount it is right to give.
Show me a good example, ever, where this worked in practice? Seriously. In all of history. Knock me out with your mad research skillz.

Your political philosophy? It's a unicorn.

Part of a free society requires an educated and responsible populace.
If it "requires" an educated and responsible populace then you must imagine a mechanism for requiring citizens to be those things. How does this mesh with your notion that the, presumably pre-educated, masses determine what they're willing to support? Is this one of those "well, except for that" things? So everyone lives in their perfectly free libertarian utopia except for where they're required to support education against their will and be educated against their will, and be responsible for other people even though as you've amply demonstrated you've got no intention of actually being responsible in that manner yourself?

If you are not part of the government, you would still be expected to follow certain rules of the place, such as which side of the road you drive on, and you could still be punished for wrongdoing against a member of that government.

Or maybe paying for a fire department? Who gets to choose? You? Someone else? Because you seem like you're picking and choosing: After I murder someone I'm picking the version that provides the most "freedom" and screw the rest of you. If you're supporting this by custom or something, then it has no teeth. If you're supporting this with government then it supports itself with classic sovereign power, and you don't get to choose. If you're just slapping this fantasy of "it's government, but I get to opt out" then it's a unicorn. There is no middle ground here. If you think otherwise I demand you produce your unicorn. I'm unconvinced it exists or can.

Finally:
The purpose of government is to protect the freedoms of its citizens
Demonstrate this. This is the root of your unicorn. Freedom has never been essential to an operative system of government. Iran and North Korea demonstrably have government, as did the Romans as did the Greek City States. It's a nice addition to government, if you can manage it, but before freedom existed as an ideal there were still governments... unless you're going to challenge that? I know that I can outline for you the health and safety angle and apply it across a nearly universal cross section of all possible governments demonstrated by history. Do the same for me with your "freedom" notion. It will be a hard fit.

MadforSims

6th Oct 2010, 01:49 AM

Certain services, such as a fire department, an ambulance, should never, ever depend on if you payed a fine or not. I understand. This would not be fair to those who had paid the fines in full and on time, but to let animals and even people suffer and die terrible deaths just over a matter of money! This sounds like it could have been a good idea at first, maybe applying it to small things, but never, should it ever be applied to a situation in which animals and peoples lives are threatened.

fakepeeps7

6th Oct 2010, 02:03 AM

Certain services, such as a fire department, an ambulance, should never, ever depend on if you payed a fine or not.

I think ambulance service is actually fee-based in some areas. Which I find crazy... but then, I'm Canadian, so we can call for an ambulance without having to declare bankruptcy.

What's next? For-profit libraries? Police who won't investigate your murder unless your family pays them? That sort of system seems ripe for corruption and creates an unfair playing field in which only those with money have any rights.

Undercovers_Agent

6th Oct 2010, 02:38 AM

What madness is this??? The rules on fees for fire and rescue operations is dictated that you have to bill the person after services are rendered. This is some serious horse shit. Not only that but you ENTITLED to a fire protection system under the constitution. ;-) Many people don't realise the "To provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare" establishes that you have to be protected, that fee = total total total bullshit.

Also the person tallking about ambulance fees. Genneraly this is for a provate ambulance service, and you're only billed for a public ambulance service if it's to a private hospital.

potatoehead

6th Oct 2010, 02:41 AM

Also the person tallking about ambulance fees. Genneraly this is for a provate ambulance service, and you're only billed for a public ambulance service if it's to a private hospital.

Aren't most hospitals private?

Undercovers_Agent

6th Oct 2010, 03:31 AM

Aren't most hospitals private?
ALL hospitals are private I believe, but in the medical transport world there's private and charity. =-)

simbalena

6th Oct 2010, 04:05 AM

The guy would have been better off if he had run back into the burning house as they firefighters would then have been forced to do something about it. I can't believe they have implemented a policy that encourages people to risk their lives.

Even if they think the house is empty there could still be someone inside. It could even be a neighbour who has paid their fee! Well that was a total waste of money then wasn't it?

I think ambulance service is actually fee-based in some areas.

We have to pay for an ambulance in Australia, but you get charged after they've taken you to hospital so lives are not at risk if people don't have the money.

Doc Doofus

6th Oct 2010, 04:16 AM

If the house next door to you burns down, YOUR HOUSE is in danger, too. That's why it's in your best interest to see that your neighbor's house isn't allowed to burn down, whether or not he can pay to have the fire put out.

Not sure I understand all the circumstances, but did you say that the fire department allowed the house to burn until the neighbor's house caught fire, and then they put that out? I'd be very pissed off about that. What good is it to me to have my dues paid with the local fire department if they won't put out a fire right next door and allow it to spread to my house? Even if they put it out promptly after it catches, it's still a clear avoidable event.

This is just kookooness. There are nuts in this country that think privatization is cool no matter what they apply it to, even if the common public safety is at risk.

When I read the title, The Evils of Privatization, my first thought was Blackwater. During the Iraq War, Blackwater and Halliburton and the other war profiteers got rich off of lucrative no-bid contracts while the rest of our economy went to hell.

Nekowolf

6th Oct 2010, 11:35 AM

That's right. When the fire crossed into the neighbor's yard, they put that bit out, because the neighbor had paid. Furthermore, Oaktree mentioned human generosity? Not only did this guy offer to pay whatever it took to save his house, his neighbor also offered, and they still let it burn.

Here is a second interview with the man. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#39528043

Oaktree

6th Oct 2010, 09:06 PM

When did I say anything about poverty. Tried to get by on the average wage with a family and mortgage lately without having to cut some incredibly worrying corners?

Maybe the mortgage is the problem. Owning a home is nice, but it is more feasible to rent if you can't realistically afford a mortgage on top of your other bills.

Oaktree, I'm suspecting that you've read Ayn Rand recently and subscribe to the sociopath's newsletter? It's a shame, you usually seem like you've got a level head on your shoulders but I'm just not sure how to debate you when you've got this John Galt "I'm going to teach that lazy bastard a good lesson by letting his house burn down" nonsense in your head. Look, by your own admission people should help each other, right? I know from before you've got this notion that people are basically just busting at the seams to give out rainbows and hugs or something though, and that's admirable and all that but you are standing here as an example of the sort of jerk who advocates not helping people. Or at the best the sort of person who "helps" someone else by not doing shit and watching their house burn down for some sort of weird principled stand where another person loses everything and you get to scold them for not being responsible.

Actually, I find Rand's writing to be rather prosaic. When did I say that I would let that man's house burn down? If I were his neighbor, I'd help him try to put it out. My argument is that the government can't be expected to support someone who doesn't fulfill his obligations. I've said a couple of times in my previous posts that people should help out their neighbors, but that they simply shouldn't be forced to. Considering that people give to charity and do community service even when they are not required to, I think that people would still do so even without the influence of a government, and that they would have more resources to devote without a government taking their resources. I am advocating circumstances that would lead to an increase in helping people, and helping people in a more direct manner.

Pardon my French, but how very fucking big of you. I'm sure the "lesson" really hits home: Oaktree could have done something to save my house, but she's a selfish, self-important bitch who let it burn down because she wanted to make a point.

Frankly, we all have laws and government to protect us from assholes like that.

You simply aren't grasping what I'm telling you for you to have come to this conclusion.

Show me a good example, ever, where this worked in practice? Seriously. In all of history. Knock me out with your mad research skillz.

Your political philosophy? It's a unicorn.

People living in isolated communities, away from centralized government, typically rely on one another when things go wrong. You might make the argument that people are becoming more socially isolated, making this a more difficult system to work, but I think that there would be pressures to become less socially isolated under a free society because you would have to rely first on yourself, second on your neighbors, and you would not have a government to rely on.

If it "requires" an educated and responsible populace then you must imagine a mechanism for requiring citizens to be those things. How does this mesh with your notion that the, presumably pre-educated, masses determine what they're willing to support? Is this one of those "well, except for that" things? So everyone lives in their perfectly free libertarian utopia except for where they're required to support education against their will and be educated against their will, and be responsible for other people even though as you've amply demonstrated you've got no intention of actually being responsible in that manner yourself?

Such a society would pressure people into taking up personal responsibility. If you don't have a government hand-holding with you for everything you do, you have to become more self-reliant and more personally responsible.

Education could be slightly more problematic, but it's really only a basic knowledge of subjects that have everyday uses: reading, writing, mathematics, and maybe a little bit of economics. These are things that your parents can teach you, if no other option exists. The more immediate need to be a competent member of society would also place pressures on people to make it more likely that people will learn at least those basic concepts.

Or maybe paying for a fire department? Who gets to choose? You? Someone else? Because you seem like you're picking and choosing: After I murder someone I'm picking the version that provides the most "freedom" and screw the rest of you. If you're supporting this by custom or something, then it has no teeth. If you're supporting this with government then it supports itself with classic sovereign power, and you don't get to choose. If you're just slapping this fantasy of "it's government, but I get to opt out" then it's a unicorn. There is no middle ground here. If you think otherwise I demand you produce your unicorn. I'm unconvinced it exists or can.

You would get to opt out of government if you choose to not participate in it. This would likely require you to live in a non-governed area. I'm saying that, in that non-governed area, you would have to do everything for yourself, except for maybe a trading of goods/services that you might do with your neighbor. In a non-governed area, there might be the issue of murderers going unpunished. But I think it is more likely that those who live in that area would try to run off or kill a murderer because it is in their own self-interest.

Personally, I would want to live in an area with a tightly-knit community, but with few to no government services. I would prefer a system in which people choose to contribute where they feel the community is in need of something, but to not have the requirement of giving resources to an inefficient central government.

Even in a voluntary system, it is possible to have some communities that run under a socialist system, if that is what the inhabitants prefer. A voluntary system simply means that you would not be forced to be part of a government not of your choosing.

Finally:

Demonstrate this. This is the root of your unicorn. Freedom has never been essential to an operative system of government. Iran and North Korea demonstrably have government, as did the Romans as did the Greek City States. It's a nice addition to government, if you can manage it, but before freedom existed as an ideal there were still governments... unless you're going to challenge that? I know that I can outline for you the health and safety angle and apply it across a nearly universal cross section of all possible governments demonstrated by history. Do the same for me with your "freedom" notion. It will be a hard fit.

Free societies flourish. Restrictive societies fail. The people of North Korea live in abject poverty and there is no sign of a turnaround. The people in Communist Russia couldn't get basic necessities like firewood and toilet paper. These governments don't even provide the security that you believe is the role of government because people cannot be secure in their lives when they don't have the most basic necessities.

Nekowolf

6th Oct 2010, 09:13 PM

"Such a society would pressure people into taking up personal responsibility. If you don't have a government hand-holding with you for everything you do, you have to become more self-reliant and more personally responsible."

Remember! If you lost your job because your work collapsed thanks to the economic collapse of loan industries and you have to rely on unemployment because nobody will hire you in a flooded job market where the number of people applying for a single position has spiked dramatically, it's YOUR fault! Take responsibility for your unforeseen and tragically unexpected circumstances, you lazy bastards!

kiwi_tea

6th Oct 2010, 11:20 PM

Maybe the mortgage is the problem. Owning a home is nice, but it is more feasible to rent if you can't realistically afford a mortgage on top of your other bills.
Well, the mortgage might make the problem worse, but it's definitely not THE problem. The same issues crop up for almost all my friends, and we're all renters. My husband and I are on a double income, combined they match the average wage, we rent a cheap studio quite a way out of town so buses cost a lot, but we mainly walk to save money. Rent takes a lot of our money, alongside food, phone and power bills. As long as I'm still a student with majorly reduced healthcare, we can both afford doctor appointments provided they're not after hours. Once I'm no longer a student we will go back to nominating one or the other of us to go to the doctors if we both ever get sick. We can only afford one doctors fee. Our cheap housing with moldy bathroom guarantees we WILL get sick. We can never, ever afford to see a dentist, and haven't seen one in the five years of our partnership/marriage. We're both intelligent, personable people and our respective jobs demand quite complex, unusual skill sets involving grammar, typing, and interpretation of current affairs, but the job is priced so low that during the time I was a manager I had to compromise severely on skill. Until the financial crisis, when the overqualified started coming forward and then quitting the moment they saw something better. I quit my management position because the money wasn't worth hiring the incompetent only to "manage them out" if they were too incompetent, alongside lying to people about whether they can discuss their pay rates openly. The company, of course, is highly successful internationally.

If one of our pairs of glasses breaks, we can't afford to replace them. We cannot afford insurance at all which drives us crazy with worry, because we live in a crime ridden neighbour. There are countless little things that can happen that will destroy us financially, despite our modest savings (which are currently going down not up despite winter having ended). We are waiting impatiently for the cat we inherited to die because that will save us a ton - however I strongly suspect, Oaktree, that you'll say it's our own fault for keeping her. Or does your ideologically-driven cruelty only extend so far?

We're pretty average, for young people. I know people struggling considerably more - like my Asperger's brother-in-law on the miserly NZ invalids benefit.

For someone arrogantly to come in here with these grand utopian ideals, stars shooting around in their eyes, and tell us they want the world to be MORE like this? To be worse for more people, which is the inevitable consequence of free marketeering and it's inbuilt love of short-term profits. Oaktree, you're deluded, and your views are deeply inhumane and destructive. I agree that it sounds horribly as you just read an Ayn Rand novel without laughing your ass off.

Oaktree

7th Oct 2010, 02:47 AM

Remember! If you lost your job because your work collapsed thanks to the economic collapse of loan industries and you have to rely on unemployment because nobody will hire you in a flooded job market where the number of people applying for a single position has spiked dramatically, it's YOUR fault! Take responsibility for your unforeseen and tragically unexpected circumstances, you lazy bastards!

It isn't necessarily your fault that you lost your job, but you should have saved at least a little money for hard times. The market goes through cycles; you have to be prepared for the crashes.

Well, the mortgage might make the problem worse, but it's definitely not THE problem. The same issues crop up for almost all my friends, and we're all renters. My husband and I are on a double income, combined they match the average wage, we rent a cheap studio quite a way out of town so buses cost a lot, but we mainly walk to save money. Rent takes a lot of our money, alongside food, phone and power bills. As long as I'm still a student with majorly reduced healthcare, we can both afford doctor appointments provided they're not after hours. Once I'm no longer a student we will go back to nominating one or the other of us to go to the doctors if we both ever get sick. We can only afford one doctors fee. Our cheap housing with moldy bathroom guarantees we WILL get sick. We can never, ever afford to see a dentist, and haven't seen one in the five years of our partnership/marriage. We're both intelligent, personable people and our respective jobs demand quite complex, unusual skill sets involving grammar, typing, and interpretation of current affairs, but the job is priced so low that during the time I was a manager I had to compromise severely on skill. Until the financial crisis, when the overqualified started coming forward and then quitting the moment they saw something better. I quit my management position because the money wasn't worth hiring the incompetent only to "manage them out" if they were too incompetent, alongside lying to people about whether they can discuss their pay rates openly. The company, of course, is highly successful internationally.

If one of our pairs of glasses breaks, we can't afford to replace them. We cannot afford insurance at all which drives us crazy with worry, because we live in a crime ridden neighbour. There are countless little things that can happen that will destroy us financially, despite our modest savings (which are currently going down not up despite winter having ended). We are waiting impatiently for the cat we inherited to die because that will save us a ton - however I strongly suspect, Oaktree, that you'll say it's our own fault for keeping her. Or does your ideologically-driven cruelty only extend so far?

We're pretty average, for young people. I know people struggling considerably more - like my Asperger's brother-in-law on the miserly NZ invalids benefit.

Part of the problem is that we don't operate under a truly free market. Costs are artificially high, when there would be strong pressures for prices to lower to something feasible for the average person to afford under a free market. Another part of the problem is that there will always be some people who struggle. It is ridiculous for it to be the average person struggling, but under any system it isn't possible to fully eliminate hardship. People with skill sets that aren't in demand get paid less. There is no realistic way to avoid this, as the skill sets in demand are the ones that produce the most profit. The people with those skill sets can then logically be paid more. The people with less in-demand skill sets are not capable of producing the same amount of profit, therefore they cannot be paid as much.

Let me put it this way: is it the fault of other people that some people struggle? Can other people be blamed for the fact that some people aren't capable of producing as much? The answer is no. There can sometimes be a significant gap between the value of a person's products and the amount that they are paid, but that also comes down to supply and demand. If there are a lot of people capable of doing the same thing, there isn't as much incentive to pay as much because the employer can always find someone else to do the job.

I think it's terrible that you and your partner have to live that way; truly I do. But it isn't fair to require other people to support you. It is noble and preferable for people to be supportive of their neighbors, but it isn't right to take away the freedom to choose that and it isn't right to essentially place the responsibility for your own struggle on your neighbor's shoulders.

For someone arrogantly to come in here with these grand utopian ideals, stars shooting around in their eyes, and tell us they want the world to be MORE like this? To be worse for more people, which is the inevitable consequence of free marketeering and it's inbuilt love of short-term profits. Oaktree, you're deluded, and your views are deeply inhumane and destructive. I agree that it sounds horribly as you just read an Ayn Rand novel without laughing your ass off.

The alternative is far worse. Socialism does not raise the quality of life for the poor; it lowers the quality of life for the (formerly) wealthy. It is not a productive system, but the antithesis. In its more extreme forms, it is doomed to critical failure. In its more moderate forms, it is still highly unjust.

Furthermore, while my ideals lean very much toward anarcho-capitalism, as I pointed out, in a system of voluntary government, it is still possible to set up communes or what-have-you should you prefer a more controlling form of government. Voluntary government is about choice. I'm aware that many people would choose socialism if given the choice. I feel that they are misguided, but I wouldn't infringe on their rights to have the government of their choosing so long as they do not infringe on my rights to have a government of my choosing. Currently, I am not allowed to have a government of my choosing.

Doc Doofus

7th Oct 2010, 02:51 AM

I went through my libertarian phase, and by phase, I mean I was all-out immersed in it, including the newsletters, writing my own speeches, attending seminars. I can quote Ayn Rand to you backwards and forwards.

I tell you, it's a religion. It's based on a number of faulty premises which are never inspected very closely, although they are backed up with thin rationalizations that run counter to common understandings of economics and money supply.

The problem with having no government at all is that it doesn't last long. There will be a government, one way or the other, even if that government is the local Crips.

But back to the fire situation. I'm sure that the people who responded to that fire and stood around laughing until the next house caught fire thought they were teaching somebody a big lesson. But I guess nobody learned anything from the Great Chicago Fire. When Mrs. O'Leary's cow kicked over the lantern and started the fire, it wasn't just Mrs. O'Leary's barn that was endangered. Most of Chicago burned down with it. It's a very flawed understanding of the role of personal vs. social responsibility that could allow in today's day and age the risk of something like that happening. That's why modern governments do the best they can to provide for public fire departments.

But let's say just that one woman's house burned down in the example at the top. Just that one. How much does the city save itself by allowing it to burn? It becomes a public eyesore, reducing the value of the neighborhood. The bank holding any mortgage on it is probably out of luck for ever getting its money back because there is nothing to repossess. Furthermore, the value of property in the whole TOWN has to decline from the knowledge to prospective buyers that this is a town where the house next door to you might burn to the ground. There are so many downsides to this that the thrill that comes from teaching a lesson to whomever lived there is totally lost.

By the way, these same kinds of social side effects ruin the lesson to be learned from a number of other libertarian fantasies. Like privately built and funded public roads. When I was involved in libertarianism, one of the recurring problems in discussions of libertarian theory was how a "non-coercive" (i.e., no taxes) government could provide for vital social services like building roads. A number of fanciful theories were provided for all of them, like corporations building roads and then charging people whenever they travel. Gee, that's limited government for you!

Of course, the issue of who gets to build those private roads then becomes an issue of government largesse, because it wouldn't work to have Halliburton building a particular road when BP is trying to build one in the same spot. We would have to have government regulation to appoint some road building sites to some corporations just to keep corporations from fighting wars with each other. Inevitably then, we end up with powerful corporations lobbying government to give them the rights to conduct business at the expense of other businesses and probably at the expense of the public at large, as well, and all this just to avoid the government building roads.

The solution isn't necessarily socialism. But there is a middle ground where some government services just make more sense when provided for the common good by government.

Nekowolf

7th Oct 2010, 03:08 AM

"It isn't necessarily your fault that you lost your job, but you should have saved at least a little money for hard times. The market goes through cycles; you have to be prepared for the crashes."

And tell me? What if these people had money in... banks that failed? What if they LOST ALL THEIR MONEY thanks to the economic collapse?

Save up a little money? That would be like asking to save up money for that one incident you are walking to your mailbox one early morning and suddenly hit by a drunk driver, the damage paralyzing your legs, damaging a lung beyond repair (so you have to get a transplant), and permanent damage that made it so you needed assistance to live.

It would be like saying: "well, he should have expected that to happen and save up several hundred-thousand dollars beforehand for his medical costs."

No average person foresaw this economic collapse. They did not know they may well lose their job. They did not know it would take so long to fix. They did not know it would be so disastrous. They did not know that the job market would be so horrific. They did not know they could lose their money, their house, and their livelihood.

To act like they should have prepared enough to outlast this? You asking something only the Jedi and the Sith are capable of.

kiwi_tea

7th Oct 2010, 03:50 AM

The alternative is far worse. Socialism does not raise the quality of life for the poor; it lowers the quality of life for the (formerly) wealthy. It is not a productive system, but the antithesis. In its more extreme forms, it is doomed to critical failure. In its more moderate forms, it is still highly unjust.

What utter rubbish. The "socialism" you're talking about is moderated capitalism, and occasionally Stalinism and Maoism. Socialism was trialed very briefly in Russia but ended in the 1920s due to a political coup leading to Stalinism, which bears hardly any resemblance to socialism in that it's anti-democratic and nationalistic. You're not talking about "moderate socialism" failing, you're talking about moderated capitalism failing. And I agree. It does. Badly. Hence the loss of these poor people's house for no good reason at all.

Oaktree

7th Oct 2010, 04:38 AM

@Nekowolf: Loss of your job is something you should be prepared for. No one has a truly secure job. That's part of why you save money. Yes, this particular economic downturn is more harsh that might be expected, but have you considered that the harshness of it may be due to the fact that few Americans save money? If few Americans save and many of those who don't save are laid off, those people are not able to inject any money into the economy, except maybe that from unemployment checks. If more people saved, there would be a cushion of money that should keep the economy afloat, or at least soften the fall.

@kiwi_tea: The redistribution of wealth that occurred under Stalinism and Maoism are socialist concepts. Really any government spending is at least a mild form of socialism. Most systems involve a mixture of socialism and capitalism. Stalinist Russia and Maoist China have a far greater socialist slant than capitalist slant. Both were highly collectivist and controlled means of production. These are hallmarks of socialism. Democracy and a lack of nationalism are ideals that are held by many socialists, but are not inherent in the concept of socialism.

Doc Doofus

7th Oct 2010, 04:44 AM

It isn't necessarily your fault that you lost your job, but you should have saved at least a little money for hard times. The market goes through cycles; you have to be prepared for the crashes.

Heh. I read so fast I missed that part. That's pretty good. EXCEPT... Did we already forget September of 2008? That's when the US and world banking system started to collapse. The Bush administration, including some heavy hitters in the theories of limited government and laissez-faire capitalism, were the first ones to come screaming to the government for unprecedented billions of dollars to avoid a worldwide economic collapse. Fortunately for the best-connected businesses, like Goldman Sachs, businesses that had friends on the inside of government, they got the biggest and fastest bailouts.

I wrote a diary on here at the time (which I can't find because search isn't working) mocking a Republican proposal to sterilize welfare recipients. I asked whether we should sterilize CEOs and bankers who took bailout money.

The chairman of the Federal Reserve back then was Alan Greenspan. Now, that's a rather interesting name for libertarians for a number of reasons. Most particularly, he was an acolyte of conservative/libertarian thinker Ayn Rand, and coauthored a book with her that I read... oh, about forty years ago now... called Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, in which he advocated for laissez-faire (no government intervention) capitalism and suggested that the Great Depression was the government's fault, not a flaw in capitalism itself.

Fast Forward a little, October 23, 2008, when he appeared before Congress to explain what he thought happened to cause the credit meltdown that cost every American in this country as much as a new Cadillac just in debt on the bailout money:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/business/economy/24panel.html
[...]But on Thursday, almost three years after stepping down as chairman of the Federal Reserve, a humbled Mr. Greenspan admitted that he had put too much faith in the self-correcting power of free markets and had failed to anticipate the self-destructive power of wanton mortgage lending.

“Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholders’ equity, myself included, are in a state of shocked disbelief,” he told the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform....

[...]"Do you feel that your ideology pushed you to make decisions that you wish you had not made?”

Mr. Greenspan conceded: “Yes, I’ve found a flaw. I don’t know how significant or permanent it is. But I’ve been very distressed by that fact.”

I nearly fell out of my chair when I heard that. "FAITH IN THE SELF-CORRECTING POWER OF LENDING INSTITUTIONS" is the basic premise for all the libertarian and conservative deregulation of Wall Street. See, theoretically, the markets work so well by themselves that they don't need a baby sitter. People just won't invest in corporations that gamble with their money! Or so they said. Except they did, and history is rife with similar examples.

And here's the amazing thing -- the corporations that DID speculate badly got bailed out because it was Mrs. O'Leary's cow all over again. Those same free market libertarians were scrambling for aid from the government and saying if they didn't get help, then other corporations would go down with them, like a line of dominoes.

And it was a valid argument. They were too big to fail. they had to be bailed out. They gave themselves big raises and bonuses for being so crafty about it. Everybody was outraged but there was nothing they could do because their buddies in government wrote the terms of the bailout deals without any strings to prevent it. (That would be big government telling them what to do!)

kiwi_tea

7th Oct 2010, 04:50 AM

Both were highly collectivist and controlled means of production.

Collectivist control over the means of production implies democratic control over the means of production, which is Socialism. There was no collectivist control over the means of production under Stalin or Mao, nor collective governance. Statist, authoritarian control over the means of production and over an undemocratic labour force is Fascism, Authoritarianism, horrible. It's a lot of things, but it's not Socialism.

please_dont_crash_my_game

7th Oct 2010, 06:41 AM

Wow, I leave for a couple days, and the debate escalates at a near-exponential rate. Then again, given the thread title, I had enough reason to suspect that this would turn into more Mortal Debate Kombat between Nekowolf and Oaktree regarding socialism and capitalism. Combo breaker. :P

Oaktree, I'd like to politely suggest that you read The Jungle by Upton Sinclair. Although it is most commonly known for its criticism of health standards in the food industry during the turn of the century, it also is a relatively accurate description of real-world scenarios that immigrants in industrialized Chicago faced; it is an aggregate of the experiences of immigrants whom Sinclair studied. However, if you are going to do so, I would advise you to read no further than chapter twenty-five or twenty-seven; the chapters from then to the final chapter (thirty-one, if I recall correctly), admittedly, devolve into socialist propaganda. The book - until chapter twenty-seven, wherein the book begins to undermine its own point by propagandizing - discusses problems inherent in overprivatization, and shows how even the most well-intentioned free market systems eventually tend to end up being run by anti-competitive, exploitative oligopolies. In short, if you want to understand your "opponent" better, The Jungle is a far better description of the motivations behind socialism than the works of Marx or Engels, which by nature are polarizing.

Not saying this to be a mini-mod or anything: Nekowolf, while I both agree with most of your points from a content standpoint and find them logically valid, your attitude is a bit antagonistic toward Oaktree and is not very conducive to intelligent debate. For example, the thread title is highly polarizing and could probably be changed to something that does not imply that privatization is unconditionally evil - but, at this point, that's probably irrelevant.

Personally, I am convinced that the closer an economic setup gets to pure socialism or pure capitalism, the less it can work with greater numbers of people. Both systems have pitfalls that increase with the amount of people under the system. Under capitalism, more people mean more harsh class distinctions due to the sheer number of lower-class people whom the quickly proportionately dwindling group of wealthy people can exploit; under socialism, the overhead costs completely crush any hope of productivity, and the bureaucracy means that people's situations cannot be considered on a case-by-case basis, removing the idea of empathy and defeating the purpose behind a socialistic system.

The best system, therefore, should utilize the best attributes of both extremes - it should reward those who work harder and are more talented, but should not abandon or allow the exploitation of those with less talent; it should also be flexible enough to allow considerations of specific cases, and ensure that people who suffer unfortunate circumstances out of their control are aided properly. There is no single formula for such a system, however - the biggest pitfall in discussing economic systems is inflexibility, because any fixed, formulaic solution has pitfalls. The element of human empathy is crucial in setting up an economic system, as is compensating for the fact that people will often try to exploit others (or merely refuse to offer aid voluntarily).

I could jump from here into a long-winded discussion of how the duality and polarization of modern politics - both from a social standpoint and an economic standpoint - is what is causing most of the problems present in our nation, but then this post will venture too far into tl;dr territory.

Nekowolf

7th Oct 2010, 09:37 AM

@please_dont_crash_my_game:

Aye, you are probably right.

But yeah. It is certainly not that privatization is inherently evil or anything like that; rather, in certain situations, it is far too easy to abuse for the sake of profit. So that is where we need regulatory laws; but since that is "government interference," conservatives and libertarians are totally against it.

Although I'm Socialist, I certainly don't want a pure socialist governmental or economic structure; it has never truly been done and I doubt it ever will be, and even in that case, will likely fail. Indeed, a hybrid of capitalism and socialism is the best course. What we need is a "social democracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy)." That is what I advocate. It's certainly not Communism, Marxism, Fascism, Maoism, Stalinism, Authoritarian, or Nazi. It's democracy, and in America, will continue to be American democracy.

Sunbee

7th Oct 2010, 05:05 PM

In this particular case, though, there is no fire department in the county. End of story.

Maybe there aren't enough people in the county for it to be financially feasible (you know, if every homeowner has to pay $60,000 annually, that's not going to work). Maybe everyone there read Michael Z. Williamson's Freehold and thought, Hey, that sounds like where I want to live, let's do it. What ever the reason, there is no fire department.
This man, his son, his neighbors, all chose to live in a place where there is no fire department. His son had a fire at his house previously which the family put out themselves because they hadn't paid the fee. This was not news to him.
The only option to get someone else to put out fires is to hire the nearby town's fire department to do it.

I've seen this discussed all over the internet the last few days. Coming from several American fire fighters, the fire department members would have had to use city property (the fire equipment) which they had no right to use (stealing) to fight the fire. Their insurance wouldn't have covered them had they been injured or killed.
Do you still feel that the guy who didn't pay his fee, which would have made it legal and insurable for the firefighters to put out the fire, has the right to have his house protected by them anyway? Given that they'd be risking jail time, huge hospital bills, or death to do so? If they'd put it out, and one had died, would you have been in favor of the dead firefighter's wife suing the guy whose house burned since her husband voided his life insurance trying to protect the guy's house?

There are no guarantees that fire fighters will respond and put out fires. You do the best you can to protect your property, but if they're on the other end of the county dealing with another problem, you're out of luck. If the truck's in the shop for repairs, you're out of luck. Many rural fire departments have only one truck.
It's the same for ambulance and police protection, you know. If the officer is already arresting someone else, you're on your own with the thug who broke in. If the ambulance is taking someone to the hospital and will be back in two hours from that run, you're on your own until then. You all are aware that the police have no legal requirement to respond to a call, only to investigate crimes, right?
There are many places in the US which do not have the tax base to support many services. If someone chooses to live in one, there's a reasonable expectation on that individual to know the situation (is the road plowed in the winter? is there fire service? Is there one police officer, total, and does she have to sleep regularly?) and plan accordingly.

Nekowolf

7th Oct 2010, 06:46 PM

I'm sorry, but this is certainly not the "end of story." This is a very serious matter; if there was a human inside, would they have been told to do nothing? That is a very real possibility.

The thing is, they are civil servants. They are there to protect the people, THAT is also part of their job. Just like a soldier, they knew the risks going into the service of the fire department, they knew that death could be a possibility. Would it be awful for their family? Yes. But they are the ones making the choice to put their lives at risk, not those caught in a fire.

Indeed, it is not a perfect system. But "there are no guarantees that fire fighters will respond and put out fires" overlooks the issue entirely. They responded. And they were told to do nothing. They were there. The man said he would pay the fee. His neighbor said they would pay the fee for him. And yet, they were instructed to do nothing.

This is far from the end of the story.

Undercovers_Agent

7th Oct 2010, 11:45 PM

Do you still feel that the guy who didn't pay his fee, which would have made it legal and insurable for the firefighters to put out the fire, has the right to have his house protected by them anyway? Given that they'd be risking jail time, huge hospital bills, or death to do so? If they'd put it out, and one had died, would you have been in favor of the dead firefighter's wife suing the guy whose house burned since her husband voided his life insurance trying to protect the guy's house?
No I woulden't because you accept all responsibilites including death that may fall upon you as you preform your obligated duties to the public. The wife would have no basis for a case because you accept when you sign the application that you may die.

In addition you get environmental training, you get trained on how to use tools and the land scape to your advatage, the main problem in this case was the fire chief who was the dick and told everyone not to save the guy's house. I think the teamsters or firefighter's union is going to step in cause they're calling bullshit on the cheif. They were pretty much told that if no one is dying then don't save thee house, which tells me he has an agenda, likely to try and put fire protection in that area so he can stop sending mutual aid to the place, I'd guess he just wanted to make an example out of the next guy that didn't have protection.

There are no guarantees that fire fighters will respond and put out fires. You do the best you can to protect your property, but if they're on the other end of the county dealing with another problem, you're out of luck. If the truck's in the shop for repairs, you're out of luck. Many rural fire departments have only one truck.
It's the same for ambulance and police protection, you know. If the officer is already arresting someone else, you're on your own with the thug who broke in. If the ambulance is taking someone to the hospital and will be back in two hours from that run, you're on your own until then. You all are aware that the police have no legal requirement to respond to a call, only to investigate crimes, right?

Just what are you smoking? First off if the truck is in the shop it's called grab the hydrant tool and a lot of 2 1/2 attack lines, get in your cars, and get the hell to the fire. Do not speak of what you do not know. (Well not many people know you can hook up a dual lay from a firehydrant without a pump, that's what the things on the side are for.) You are guaranteed under the united states constitution one thing that sets the ball in motion, and that's the promotion of general welfare.
Welfare or welfare work consists of actions or procedures — especially on the part of governments and institutions — striving to promote the basic well-being of individuals in need. These efforts usually strive to improve the financial situation of people in need but may also strive to improve their employment chances and many other aspects of their lives including sometimes their mental health
Under the constitution he is GUARANTEED HIS WELL BEING. He has no shelter now, that has violated his well being. Same with police and medical protection. The government says the police have to submit to keeping the well being, it is thus meaning that if you get burgalarized and it effects your mental state or property, the police are obligated to restore your well being.

Seriously what are you smoking? Sounds like some strong stuff, oh wait can't have it, may lose my job as a firefighter.

Doc Doofus

8th Oct 2010, 04:00 AM

It's amazing this can seriously be defended, but it is, and I don't think Oaktree is alone. I remember a time when I would have tried to defend it, too, probably, because I believed the same horse manure.

I think Undercovers_Agent above pinpointed what is the likely problem: the Chief. The firefighters who showed up to do their job and were told not to were following orders, and it's hard to fault them for that. But I have a strong feeling that before this is over, we'll find out there's some teabagger conservative crap involved as well, where the chief of the crew thought it would prove a point to let one burn down. Very funny. I bet he's laughing his ass off with his friends over it, and I'm sure he will have some vigorous albeit strange supporters for his decision.

Did you know there are laws against deliberately setting your house on fire? Why is that? It's your house, isn't it? Why can't you burn down your own house? Because it's a danger to everybody else! And that's why firefighters have to put out fires even if the homeowners are jerks who don't pay their taxes.

And, by the way, what's wrong with paying for government services like firefighters through community taxes? It's an elegant solution. It improves the quality of life for everybody in the community, because even if you are fire-safe, you don't need to worry as much about your neighbor and whether his house will catch fire and take yours with it.

Nekowolf

8th Oct 2010, 04:10 AM

"It improves the quality of life for everybody in the community" - that right there is the problem. Community? That sounds an awful lot like Communism. And Communism is evil.

We must embrace a one-for-one government, economy, and culture! Communist dogs be damned!

kiwi_tea

8th Oct 2010, 04:18 AM

The reason taxation can't work is because wages simply won't keep up with the costs imposed by governance, they can't, not if companies want to turn astronomical profits. Most of what should be wages goes into profit, into the hands of the investors, so that they can reinvest. You simply cannot get good, widespread, affordable public services under capitalism, nor can you get good wages for all workers. There are too many contradictions in the model, and too many competing interests. Everything: Money, power, influence, health, education collects abundantly in the hands of the tiny minority of capital holders.

Sunbee

8th Oct 2010, 05:31 PM

fakepeeps7

8th Oct 2010, 06:14 PM

Sunbee, if the resources were there to put out the fire once it spread to the neighbour's house, then your argument kind of falls apart. The fire department had enough resources to do its job; it just chose not to. That's the problem here... not whether or not there was a fire hydrant down the street.

Undercovers_Agent

8th Oct 2010, 08:02 PM

Undercovers Agent--I suppose you live in the city?
Where are these fire hydrants? Ten miles away, within city limits! (That was where they were where I grew up.) I've never seen fire hydrants installed on private wells, I suppose there might be one or two, but as far as I know they require city water systems.
This issue, lack of fire coverage, is not an urban issue. It is a rural issue. It is an issue where there is not a big enough tax base to support the infrastructure. I'm sure you know what the purchase and maintenance costs on the vehicles run. How big a population do you need to support a fire truck and a water truck to supply it with water (we can leave out a pumper truck, because if you're trying to cover everyone you probably won't want something that will only work where there's surface water available) and the personnel to work them, and the other equipment for those personnel? How big an area can you reasonably cover with one equipment set?
I'm not saying that anyone should have to live where there is spotty coverage or no coverage available of these services. I'm saying that if someone chooses to live there, it's their responsibility to handle matters appropriately. This includes maintaining your clearance around your structures, mowing and raking or preventive burning any tall meadow areas that aren't grazed, keeping your burn barrels outside your structural clearance area, and having your own water supply and shovels handy when you do burn. It's not terribly hard to do.
As for smoking, nope, sorry, I don't. You can have a cup of my coffee if you like. Sugar and cream?

Nope sorry, I live in rural Virginia and we have a ladder, pumper, ALS and BLS ambo, Technical rescue (My division) and the Technical supervisor(Me) plus the Chief.
Also your argument has two faults...
Fakepeeps pointed out the first one
Second one is that this is a factor of mutual aid...
In emergency services, mutual aid is an agreement among emergency responders to lend assistance across jurisdictional boundaries. This may occur due to an emergency response that exceeds local resources, such as a disaster or a multiple-alarm fire.
That is mutual aid. The town in question wasn't protected by a fire department and the nearest town had one. Factoring in the size of the fire department, I'd bet that they were spread pretty thin. But what he chief could have done is called in all units busy and routed a different aid. His decision to not do so ultimately lead to why we are currently having this discussion.

Also, sour farm had fire department access I haven't a clue if all farms do though. But this was a subdivided area and there are federal regulations that specifically state fire hydrants in sub divided areas.

Doc Doofus

9th Oct 2010, 05:19 AM

Sunbee, the rest of the country, even rural areas, does fairly well without engaging in these kinds of "let a house burn down just to prove a point" stuff. That was just vindictive and counter to the welfare of the larger public they are supposed to serve, and also unprecedented.

And, what do you know, Teabagger Extraordinare Glenn Beck LOVES this fire department and hates the family whose house burned down.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/glenn-beck-mocks-fire-vic_b_753193.html
Glenn Beck Mocks Fire Victims, Reaches New Depths of Awfulness

[...]Yesterday on his radio show, Beck and Gray not only defended the fire department's refusal to save the Cranick's house, but they also accused Cranick of "sponging" off his neighbors -- all the while mocking and ridiculing Cranick's rural accent. [...]

So this is obviously going exactly where I expected it to go. it's a sick, twisted time in our history.

simbalena

9th Oct 2010, 05:25 AM

The most recent comment in that link is a good one:

I don't understand why don't they have a provision stating that if you don't pay the $75.00 and your house gets caught on fire, we'll save your house and put out the fire, but the penalty will be stiff...lets say $5,000.00 plus any back payment plus a stiff interest penalty on the years you haven't paid?

Undercovers_Agent

9th Oct 2010, 05:36 AM

Well first off I don't get this whole thing of "Pay $75 and get your protection" usually it's the other way around. "Get your protection and pay for it when you use it." Just like idiots that ignore closed roads durring floods, we charge them $300 to save them, if they say yes we go and get their asses and bill them.

Doc Doofus

9th Oct 2010, 05:48 AM

Fine, charge them a penalty. I still think it's better to just pay for it out of the town general fund, but whatever works for you. It's just not cool to allow houses to burn to the ground and put others at risk for reasons of political ideology.

simbalena

9th Oct 2010, 08:15 AM

I still think it's better to just pay for it out of the town general fund, but whatever works for you. It's just not cool to allow houses to burn to the ground and put others at risk for reasons of political ideology.

I agree, even if they are only worried about the money the town fund is only going to decrease if they let their houses burn down.

Sunbee

9th Oct 2010, 05:55 PM

Is it mutual aid if there's no fire department in the area where the fire happens? My understanding of mutual aid is that when a situation gets out of control--such as the Yellowstone Fires in '88--a department can call in other departments from other areas to help.

Undercovers--Anywhere east of the Mississippi is urban in density in my opinion :lol: even though I know it's not technically classed that way. I like my neighbors best when the population density is measured in miles per person, not people per mile. We're cool, don't worry--I think it's better to discuss these sorts of issues, because we all have different opinions and situations, and it's really easy to say 'It works this way here and should work this way everywhere' when it's not possible to do it the same way everywhere.
I do think there's no right to fire suppression in the Constitution, and there's certainly no right to have your own house. This case is going to play out in the courts--the fire chief has precedent on his side (from the incident with the guy's son's house's fire) and it looks like the guy whose house burned has public opinion on his side--but there's definitely some room to argue that he was negligent. I'm sure the insurance companies involved will have plenty to say, too, and given that they're the deepest pockets around, they'll probably get to say the most, unfortunately.

Nekowolf

11th Oct 2010, 12:48 PM

"Is it mutual aid if there's no fire department in the area where the fire happens?" - does this family pay taxes? Do they live in the same state? Then yes, it is.

"no right to fire suppression in the Constitution" - don't get what you mean here. "certainly no right to have your own house" - well, that would depend. If you can't pay for it, that's different (but that is not what this person did). If it was denied based on discrimination, then yes, that would be against the Constitution. Fourteenth Amendment, Equal Protection clause. And furthermore, it could be considered an unenumerated right; the right the property. And by enforcing a policy like they have, and such actions, I could say it is in violation of the Ninth Amendment as it is an expansion of state government that infringes on that right (via willingly allowing the destruction of their property). Also, possibly animal cruelty.

"the fire chief has precedent on his side (from the incident with the guy's son's house's fire)" - maybe I missed something, but was there a case regarding this policy taken to court? Unless there is a previous court case that ruled in favor of the policy, then no, there is no precedence. And if there was a case that ruled against the policy, then the precedence is against the policy.

And if anything, if this policy is favored, it sets up precedence for more policies. Are you being robbed? Ohhhh, you didn't pay your $150 fee for police, sorry, you're on your own. What's that? You're being physically and sexually abused? Can't help you, you didn't pay the $200 fee for help. Raped? $300 or we can't look into it.

fakepeeps7

11th Oct 2010, 07:17 PM

I wonder how long it'll be before firefighters stand by while a person burns to death. Doing nothing when you know animals are in the building is just sick.

Shades of dystopia here. Libertarians scare the crap out of me.

ElementMK

11th Oct 2010, 08:34 PM

I wonder how long it will be until firefighters stand by while they themselves burn to death! Libertarianism can be practically applied, similarly to how socialism doesn't work in every facet of our lives (you can be a socialist libertarian, but that's another discussion entirely). If libertarianism isn't the proper answer to an issue and makes people look like heartless idiots, then we'll apply something new.

Oh, wait, you said Libertarians? Yeah, many Libertarians are such because they do stupid-ass things that anyone sane would deny them the right to do. Either way, never bash a social idea because it's ruined by morons, bash the morons who ruin the social idea (preferably over the head).

Undercovers_Agent

11th Oct 2010, 11:12 PM

I wonder how long it'll be before firefighters stand by while a person burns to death. Doing nothing when you know animals are in the building is just sick.

I'd be the first one to quit then. Burning people is no joke. Just had one a month ago. Some 16ish year old girl burning alive from a car fire screaming, crying, and banging on the firetruck door to help her. I didn't sleep for the next two days and only did so out of sheer exhaustion. I doubt I'll ever be the same again.

Anyways...
Nekowolf... errrr sorry but I'm trying to understand who you were quoting in your last post.
@Sunbee... Yes it was mutual aid, the town's fire department couldn't take the call because there was none, and it gets transfered to the next county.

Doc Doofus

12th Oct 2010, 12:09 AM

And if anything, if this policy is favored, it sets up precedence for more policies. Are you being robbed? Ohhhh, you didn't pay your $150 fee for police, sorry, you're on your own. What's that? You're being physically and sexually abused? Can't help you, you didn't pay the $200 fee for help. Raped? $300 or we can't look into it.

There is a comedy skit (with character actor Hugh Laurie, aka Dr. House) about just that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLfghLQE3F4

Side note to MTS designers: And when is MTS going to enter the 21st century and allow us to embed youtube code? There have been BBCode mods around for years now that permit youtube embedding, yet still we live in the dark ages. And this on a site where making up stories and movies using your game characters has been a huge aspect of gameplay.

Here's one youtube mod. There are plenty of others. The instructions say it takes 1 minute to install.

http://fluxbb.org/forums/viewtopic.php?id=4668

potatoehead

12th Oct 2010, 12:15 AM

Oh God, I love Fry and Laurie! That is really one scary sketch; if anything ever like that happened in real life, I would move to Norway. Anyway, these libertarians remind of something my 8th-grade civics teacher one said- if we ever were in anarchy, she would lock all her doors and hide under her bed.

Nekowolf

12th Oct 2010, 12:37 AM

@Undercovers_Agent: I was quoting Sunbee. I've grown to dislike posts with a ton of quote boxes.

Undercovers_Agent

12th Oct 2010, 01:40 AM

@Undercovers_Agent: I was quoting Sunbee. I've grown to dislike posts with a ton of quote boxes.

oh okay
BTW I'm a sarcastic wise ass a lot
=-P

Sorry I had to.

Nekowolf

12th Oct 2010, 03:04 AM

http://kotaku.com/assets/resources/2007/03/SMACK.jpg

Just kidding. Alright, back on topic then!

Oaktree

13th Oct 2010, 06:15 AM

And furthermore, it could be considered an unenumerated right; the right the property. And by enforcing a policy like they have, and such actions, I could say it is in violation of the Ninth Amendment as it is an expansion of state government that infringes on that right (via willingly allowing the destruction of their property). Also, possibly animal cruelty.

The right to property does not mean that the government must spend their time watching out for your property. The government protects your rights by ensuring that you live in a society that allows you to have and do certain things. For example, you have the right to free speech, not because the government actively supports your right to free speech, but because the government does not restrict that right. In the same manner, the government does not restrict you from owning property, but it need not look after your possessions.

Tell me where in the Constitution it says that the government must support anything other than the three branches of government and a military. The military is for the purpose of defending the Constitution which allows people these freedoms, but it doesn't say in the Constitution that states must provide fire or police services.

please_dont_crash_my_game

13th Oct 2010, 06:44 AM

The right to property does not mean that the government must spend their time watching out for your property.

Yes, but the fact that the government had enough resources to dispatch a firefighting squad to hound a homeowner for a fee means that for those firefighters to stand by and let his house burn is omission of an act that would have saved his house. The firefighters didn't have to dive into his house to save someone, but they didn't have to volunteer to be firefighters either; besides, I'm personally under the impression that they would have at least pointed their fire hoses at the man's house, except for the fire chief's orders not to.

The question becomes, "would the other firefighters have saved the man's house, if not for the fire chief's orders not to?" Again, because the fire department had the resources to dispatch firefighters to the man's house, they almost definitely had the ability to at least shoot water at the fire with fire hoses. Additonally, because the men in the fire department had signed up to be firefighters, they had a duty to put out the fire that they agreed to perform by being on the fire squad.

I am not a lawyer, but this seems like it would probably be grounds for a criminal negligence charge of some sort.

Nekowolf

13th Oct 2010, 12:19 PM

"The right to property does not mean that the government must spend their time watching out for your property."

Perhaps at some level, yes. But when they willingly let your house burn while standing in front of it, that is an entirely different situation; when they let lives be put at risk, that is something entirely different; when it could endanger the lives of others, and affect the rest of the community through other means (such as lower property value), that is something entirely different.

This is not them watching out so your car does not get scratched. This is an event much more serious, and something the government should take responsibility for at least attempting to resolve, as he is a tax-payer, and paid into his State and his Federal government.

And you know what? Social Security, Medicare, minimum wage, unemployment compensation, regulation of food and drugs, those aren't in the Constitution either. So I guess we should do away with those as well? Nor does it say we absolutely MUST have a military, either, so I guess we should get rid of that, too, because it's not a Constitutional requirement (it's only assumed that there will be a military).

Edit: Oh. It could also be considered, letting his house burn, as a cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment, due to allowing his house and all property within, as well as living pets, to burn and die in front of him while fire fighters were instructed to do nothing due to a fee which was offered to be paid on the spot and at that moment, when the previous fire chief had before momentarily waived those fees (precedence).

Oaktree

13th Oct 2010, 08:42 PM

The question becomes, "would the other firefighters have saved the man's house, if not for the fire chief's orders not to?" Again, because the fire department had the resources to dispatch firefighters to the man's house, they almost definitely had the ability to at least shoot water at the fire with fire hoses. Additonally, because the men in the fire department had signed up to be firefighters, they had a duty to put out the fire that they agreed to perform by being on the fire squad.

They agreed to perform that duty under the circumstances dictated by those who give the orders. They must listen to what that fire chief has to say, and the fire chief was probably given orders not to intervene in a fire when someone hasn't paid. It would have been improper for an individual firefighter present to use county or state property to fight a fire that he personally chooses to fight, without consent of the county or state. If you think there is something wrong with this system, it is on the heads of the legislators, not the firefighters.

In any case, in a privatized system, saying that they have a duty to put out the fire regardless is like saying that the plumber has a duty to fix your toilet, whether you pay him or not. This is not the case. It may be that the private institution chooses to make it their duty to help people regardless, in the way that doctors will help very ill people even when those people can't pay, but that is the decision of the private institution. This system is seemingly only partially privatized, but it functions as a private system for those who live in the rural area, so the people who live there must regard it as such and make their decisions on that basis.

Perhaps at some level, yes. But when they willingly let your house burn while standing in front of it, that is an entirely different situation; when they let lives be put at risk, that is something entirely different; when it could endanger the lives of others, and affect the rest of the community through other means (such as lower property value), that is something entirely different.

This is not them watching out so your car does not get scratched. This is an event much more serious, and something the government should take responsibility for at least attempting to resolve, as he is a tax-payer, and paid into his State and his Federal government.

The state typically does not put as much effort into protecting the lives of animals. There were animals that died in the fire because of it. It's sad, but that's the way the government operates. It may be something worth protesting. However, there were no human lives lost. I can't say for certain what the firefighters would have done had there been human lives on the line, but I imagine someone who have tried to save human lives in danger, even if it was defying the explicit orders of his employer. Effects, such as lowered property values, are the responsibility of the homeowner. He knew that he would not have fire protection, so he can't claim that it is the fault of the firefighters.

The state and federal governments can provide services that must be paid for. For example, I have federal college loans that I must start paying back once I graduate from college. The fact that the government uses taxpayer money to disperse federal student loans does not automatically mean that I get free money for college, just because I (or in this case, my parents) pay taxes. In this case, the state government chose to make fire services something that people must pay separately for.

And you know what? Social Security, Medicare, minimum wage, unemployment compensation, regulation of food and drugs, those aren't in the Constitution either. So I guess we should do away with those as well? Nor does it say we absolutely MUST have a military, either, so I guess we should get rid of that, too, because it's not a Constitutional requirement (it's only assumed that there will be a military).

Those things may be done away with, that is the point. The county or state government chose to do away with the concept of entirely tax-funded fire services. It can legally make that choice, as it does not defy the federal constitution, and presumably does not defy the state constitution. If the federal government did away with Social Security, there would be nothing illegal in that action. Many people might not like it, but it would be within the prerogative of the government.

Edit: Oh. It could also be considered, letting his house burn, as a cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment, due to allowing his house and all property within, as well as living pets, to burn and die in front of him while fire fighters were instructed to do nothing due to a fee which was offered to be paid on the spot and at that moment, when the previous fire chief had before momentarily waived those fees (precedence).

Now you're just reaching. It isn't a punishment to let his house burn. To return to the aforementioned plumber example, that's like saying that the plumber not fixing your toilet because you didn't pay him is cruel and unusual punishment. He is not required to do anything for you. In the area mentioned in the news story, the fire department is not obligated to put out a fire if you haven't paid them. That is how business works. Precedence for waiving the fees does not mean that it must be waived at all times. It may be that there were particular extenuating circumstances, or maybe the department changed its policy. It doesn't mean that the department is obligated to do anything for someone who doesn't pay the fee.

fakepeeps7

13th Oct 2010, 11:23 PM

Now you're just reaching. It isn't a punishment to let his house burn. To return to the aforementioned plumber example, that's like saying that the plumber not fixing your toilet because you didn't pay him is cruel and unusual punishment.

Oaktree, I think you're the one who's reaching. A clogged toilet is hardly comparable to a burning house. Nobody's going to die if a couple of turds end up on the bathroom floor.

It doesn't mean that the department is obligated to do anything for someone who doesn't pay the fee.

He offered to pay the fee, right there and then. Are you still going to say that, because of a technicality, he deserves to lose his house and pets? Why should the fire department care when they get the money, as long as they get it? If they'd accepted his $75 (or whatever it was) and saved his house and animals, they'd be heroes... instead of a fire department that's $75 poorer and regarded as a bunch of heartless dicks.

Why did the fire department even come out in the first place if the guy hadn't paid the fee? That's a waste of resources, as far as I'm concerned. If you have enough resources to send out your firefighters to watch a house burn, you have enough resources to put out the fire. Otherwise, you're just wasting the fees that other people paid... and how is that any better than a government that wastes taxpayer dollars?

Nekowolf

14th Oct 2010, 01:14 AM

"Why did the fire department even come out in the first place if the guy hadn't paid the fee?"

Because his neighbor paid the fee, and when it started to reach their house, they came.

And as much as I don't like mass-quoting, I'll do it for this post. These are all from Oaktree.

The state typically does not put as much effort into protecting the lives of animals. There were animals that died in the fire because of it. It's sad, but that's the way the government operates.
Yes, that is sad. But those pets may have been saved if they had done something. And as the man said, they also let a barn full of horses burn. That is downright animal cruelty.

However, there were no human lives lost. I can't say for certain what the firefighters would have done had there been human lives on the line, but I imagine someone who have tried to save human lives in danger, even if it was defying the explicit orders of his employer.
And are you honestly going to say, let's find out? Let's wait till the next fire is allowed to go on because someone did not pay a fee, but this time with a person inside?

Effects, such as lowered property values, are the responsibility of the homeowner.
IF it was by a controlled fault of his own, such as leaving rusty cars out in the yard. It's a freaking fire. He has responsibility for the fire that consumed his house, but the firefighters had no responsibility to put it out which directly affects property values and is something the homeowner may have been unable to put out himself? Hypocrisy. They are all responsible to some extent; especially whom it was that ordered them to not take any action.

He knew that he would not have fire protection, so he can't claim that it is the fault of the firefighters.
He claims he simply forgot. It's very much possible that is the case. So, if we go with that, how can you realize the consequences of that which you cannot even remember doing (or not doing)?

The state and federal governments can provide services that must be paid for.
Yeah. THROUGH TAXES.

For example, I have federal college loans that I must start paying back once I graduate from college. The fact that the government uses taxpayer money to disperse federal student loans does not automatically mean that I get free money for college, just because I (or in this case, my parents) pay taxes.
1. That's a loan. Yes, you have to pay it back. Because it's a loan.

2. He did pay. Again, THROUGH TAXES. The fee was on top of the taxes already paid.

In this case, the state government chose to make fire services something that people must pay separately for.
Or it could have been the county. Either way, he paid taxes to the state, which do get funneled down to the county-level.

Those things may be done away with, that is the point.
The point of, what? Not the Constitution, certainly. No, that's the point of libertarianism. You want to force those with problems out. You do not want them to have any help, you want them to survive or starve. This is social Darwinism. They are the weak. The weak deserve not to survive because they are weak.

But, that is no part of the Constitution. It does not forbid these things, nor support them. To say they should not exist because they are not mentioned within the Constitution is ridiculous. Cue quote from previous post:

Tell me where in the Constitution it says that the government must support anything other than the three branches of government and a military.
It does not say it must support a military. It says that that is a power of the Congress, but that does not necessarily mean it must be enforced (in that they MUST have a military; only that they have the power to raise one). So we can absolve the military and it would not be a Constitutional violation. So an argument that "well it's not in the Constitution" is a ridiculous one, because while raising a military is granted power, it is not a requirement. And since social services like Medicare, minimum wage, and food and drug regulation are not in the Constitution either, there is nothing barring nor requiring their existence. So the "Constitution" is a moot point unless something clearly unconstitutional or Constitutionally-questionable is present. Which in this case, these cases, it is not.

The county or state government chose to do away with the concept of entirely tax-funded fire services.
But he still paid into it through taxation. Therefore, he deserves at least a portion of the service when the service is needed. Otherwise, it's a lose-lose situation; if he doesn't pay taxes, he goes to jail. If he does pay taxes, but forgets to pay the fee, he's still screwed when the time comes that he needs that service. Not that I would expect you to understand such a plight. But this is where the whole punishment thing comes in. Which, if fakepeeps posts are any indication, I will get to soon enough.

It can legally make that choice, as it does not defy the federal constitution, and presumably does not defy the state constitution.
I have, and will not, say it's illegal. I'm saying; it's fucking ridiculous, and dangerous.

If the federal government did away with Social Security, there would be nothing illegal in that action. Many people might not like it, but it would be within the prerogative of the government.
Perhaps the only thing I won't comment on as I actually agree. See quote above.

Now you're just reaching.
Maybe in comparison to your ideology.

It isn't a punishment to let his house burn.
Then why did they not put it out? Because he didn't pay a fee. That is a punishment for not paying the fee; not offering a service he would otherwise have. That is a punishment. If I don't pay my car insurance, and they revoke that insurance, that is a punishment.

To return to the aforementioned plumber example, that's like saying that the plumber not fixing your toilet because you didn't pay him is cruel and unusual punishment.
What fakepeeps said.

He is not required to do anything for you.
He's not a public service funded by public taxes.

In the area mentioned in the news story, the fire department is not obligated to put out a fire if you haven't paid them.
That's the problem, sport. Congratulations.

That is how business works.
A fire department is not a "business." It does not work for profits. It is a non-profit service.

Precedence for waiving the fees does not mean that it must be waived at all times.
True, but that's not the point of precedence, either. The point of precedence is "if it has happened before, why could it not apply now?" Not "will", but "why couldn't it?"

It may be that there were particular extenuating circumstances, or maybe the department changed its policy. It doesn't mean that the department is obligated to do anything for someone who doesn't pay the fee.
Again, that is the whole freaking problem for the the bloody argument. That is what this argument is revolving around, that fact. This is not a point you've stated here, it's nothing more but a reconfirmation of what the argument is about.

Doc Doofus

14th Oct 2010, 04:20 AM

Translate FIRE DEPARTMENT LETTING HOUSE BURN DOWN

to:

HOSPITALS NOT TREATING SICK PEOPLE.

It's the same kind of problem, but we're still stuck arguing about the role of government on an issue that the most of the rest of the world already settled. And the weirdest and dumbest arguments for both situations come from the people who hold extreme and absurd views of the power of the free market, even when it flies in the face of common sense.

kiwi_tea

14th Oct 2010, 02:31 PM

I think Noam Chomsky gave a very good reason why we're unlikely to get anywhere arguing with Oaktree on this issue:

There isn't much point arguing about the word "libertarian." It would make about as much sense to argue with an unreconstructed Stalinist about the word "democracy" -- recall that they called what they'd constructed "peoples' democracies." The weird offshoot of ultra-right individualist anarchism that is called "libertarian" here happens to amount to advocacy of perhaps the worst kind of imaginable tyranny, namely unaccountable private tyranny. If they want to call that "libertarian," fine; after all, Stalin called his system "democratic." But why bother arguing about it?

Oaktree has clearly done exactly this: Defined a kind of tyranny - a tyranny that sees taxed people (in both senses of the word) lose their homes and companions to fire - as "liberty".

Nekowolf

14th Oct 2010, 04:02 PM

Well damn. I don't think I could have put it so plainly yet so truthfully. Nice work.

mangaroo

14th Oct 2010, 05:43 PM

First, my position is that emergency services should never be privatized. But, as Doc Doofus notes, I live in a country that doesn't regard medical care as an emergency service, so clearly the citizenry doesn't agree.

2. He did pay. Again, THROUGH TAXES. The fee was on top of the taxes already paid.

This confuses me. Are you saying that the Cranick family's taxes were already being funneled to the city of South Fulton's volunteer fire department? From the stories I have read, the Cranicks lived in an unincorporated area of Obion County. They were not paying city taxes, and therefore were expected to fund the Fire Department through this $75 fee if they wanted their services.

Again, let me make it clear: I think the $75 fee should be added to property taxes in this area and not be left up to the individual. I also think the city of South Fulton's fire responders should have put out the Cranicks' fire and -- because the Cranicks had neglected to pay the $75 fee -- charged an enormous penalty fee, up to the full cost of the response. But I don't think the Cranicks had already paid through taxes for a service they didn't receive.

Nekowolf

14th Oct 2010, 06:32 PM

But doesn't some of the money from the state get funneled down to the counties? I could be wrong, of course.

Now if you marked up the fee into taxes, that I would support. Because taxes is something much harder to forget.

mangaroo

14th Oct 2010, 07:25 PM

I am not going to request a copy of the city of South Fulton's budget, so I am going to have to assume based on the media reports of this incident that the fire department was municipally-funded and its charter is to serve the city of South Fulton. If any state funds were used to finance the department, I'm sure a lawyer would sniff it out for the family. (The Cranicks don't seem to be vindictive or litigious, but drive-by lawyers loooove looking into this stuff.) As an example, here is how the County of Los Angeles funds its professional fire department (a special county property tax assessment, rather than state funds): http://www.fire.lacounty.gov/DoingBusiness/DoHowFunded.asp

It turns out that Tennessee is one of the states with laws banning what the insurance industry calls "accident taxes" (post-facto billing of recipients of emergency services by a non-profit/governmental agency). So it is entirely possible that my proposal that the Cranicks be helped but assessed a fee covering the cost of services is, in fact, illegal in Tennessee. If that's the case, I can see how the city administrators reached a policy of no fee/no service.

Nekowolf

14th Oct 2010, 08:25 PM

Huh. I see. If that's the case, then I would say it's even more imperative to find another solution that does not force similar decisions as what was done in this, and other, instances. Furthermore, as he said, the former chief did allow temporary waives of this fee, so I don't see why it cannot be an option to pay at that moment. The money goes to them regardless.

The biggest problem would be if it was accumulative, in that they did not pay for several months, then we might have a different problem, which would need to be resolved.

Edit: One that does not involve privatization of the fire departments.

Undercovers_Agent

14th Oct 2010, 11:11 PM

Tell me where in the Constitution it says that the government must support anything other than the three branches of government and a military. The military is for the purpose of defending the Constitution which allows people these freedoms, but it doesn't say in the Constitution that states must provide fire or police services.

Tell me Oaktree, did you ever watch School house rock as a kid?
We the people, in order to form a more perfect union. Establish Justice and ensure domestic tranquility. Provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty, to ourselves and our posterity. To ordain and establish this Constitution, of the United States of America.

Phew...
Ah now the general welfare...
As I stated welfare=well being, if he's deprived of it, it's unconstitutional. Truly a smart girl like you would know that, and not try to counter a person with a really long post. (Sorry I'm really to lazy to read them.)

Nekowolf

14th Oct 2010, 11:34 PM

Undercovers_Agent

15th Oct 2010, 01:23 AM

As MUCH as I hate to say it, isn't that the preamble though? If it is, I don't think it's necessarily a legally binding section. I'm quite sure it's the preamble, but correct me if I'm wrong on its legal power.

It is the preamble, however...
A preamble is an introductory and explanatory statement in a document that explains the document's purpose and underlying philosophy.

Therefore, part of the Constitution is the definition of a persons well being and howthe government provides for it.

Oaktree

17th Oct 2010, 08:29 PM

Oaktree, I think you're the one who's reaching. A clogged toilet is hardly comparable to a burning house. Nobody's going to die if a couple of turds end up on the bathroom floor.

You are taking the analogy too far. The analogy represents private industry, not the relative importance of any particular private industry.

He offered to pay the fee, right there and then. Are you still going to say that, because of a technicality, he deserves to lose his house and pets? Why should the fire department care when they get the money, as long as they get it? If they'd accepted his $75 (or whatever it was) and saved his house and animals, they'd be heroes... instead of a fire department that's $75 poorer and regarded as a bunch of heartless dicks.

To allow people to pay on the spot disincentivizes paying the fee at all until your house is on fire. That would lead to less funding for the fire department, unless they charge the full cost of putting out the fire to every individual whose house catches on fire. That is a valid, and possibly preferable method, but this department is set up more like an insurance agency. People pay into a pool as a safety net and the department hopefully doesn't have to expend more than the total amount paid into the pool. It is a valid method, though it certainly has its problems.

IF it was by a controlled fault of his own, such as leaving rusty cars out in the yard. It's a freaking fire. He has responsibility for the fire that consumed his house, but the firefighters had no responsibility to put it out which directly affects property values and is something the homeowner may have been unable to put out himself? Hypocrisy. They are all responsible to some extent; especially whom it was that ordered them to not take any action.

I believe the story stated that his grandson was burning something in some barrels in the yard. If the fire spread, it seems likely that he did not use proper caution and may have left the barrels unattended. In any case, it is his actions that led to the fire. The fact that he was unable to put it out himself does not mean that others are required to put it out for him.

He claims he simply forgot. It's very much possible that is the case. So, if we go with that, how can you realize the consequences of that which you cannot even remember doing (or not doing)?

Forgetfulness is no excuse. It was his responsibility to remember to pay the fee. No one else can be held accountable for his forgetfulness.Would you really accept forgetfulness as an excuse in other circumstances? If you forgot to do your homework, do you really think your teacher would say that you aren't responsible for it? You are touting an extremely lax view of responsibility.

Yeah. THROUGH TAXES.

1. That's a loan. Yes, you have to pay it back. Because it's a loan.

2. He did pay. Again, THROUGH TAXES. The fee was on top of the taxes already paid.

By your argument, anything the government does through taxes requires no further expenditure on the part of the taxpayer. If that were the case, I would be going to college for free. I am not, because the government can sometimes act as a private institution.

Some of his taxes might have gone to the fire department (though Mangaroo has pointed out otherwise, but, even if some of his taxes were going to the fire department, it still isn't enough to cover the actual cost of responding, without the additional fee. He must pay the additional fee in order to have paid the full fair amount for the service. Clearly this leads to a system in which he might pay some money that he will not get refunded if he chooses not to pay the fee. This is why it is better to go to a department fully funded by the fee, which it seems to be, given what Mangaroo has pointed out.

The point of, what? Not the Constitution, certainly. No, that's the point of libertarianism. You want to force those with problems out. You do not want them to have any help, you want them to survive or starve. This is social Darwinism. They are the weak. The weak deserve not to survive because they are weak.

You are once again attempting to paint me as a terrible person for the political beliefs that I hold. Apparently, you simply can't understand that I want what is best for people and that my political beliefs line up with that. I'm not saying that we need to let the "weak" die. I have pointed out in the past that a free market is favorable to the poor, but you simply don't believe me. Whether you believe me or not, it is childish to continue to paint me as a villain.

But, that is no part of the Constitution. It does not forbid these things, nor support them. To say they should not exist because they are not mentioned within the Constitution is ridiculous. Cue quote from previous post:

It does not say it must support a military. It says that that is a power of the Congress, but that does not necessarily mean it must be enforced (in that they MUST have a military; only that they have the power to raise one). So we can absolve the military and it would not be a Constitutional violation. So an argument that "well it's not in the Constitution" is a ridiculous one, because while raising a military is granted power, it is not a requirement. And since social services like Medicare, minimum wage, and food and drug regulation are not in the Constitution either, there is nothing barring nor requiring their existence. So the "Constitution" is a moot point unless something clearly unconstitutional or Constitutionally-questionable is present. Which in this case, these cases, it is not.

The point is that the Constitution does not require those services to be provided. You keep arguing that it is legally wrong for there not to be a public fire department, but nowhere does it say that there must be one. The argument should be about the merits of public vs. private departments, but you continue to drag it back to "this can't be legal!"

Maybe in comparison to your ideology.

When you grasp at every clause that you think might remotely apply, but that it's clear doesn't, it makes it look like you don't think your arguments through.

Then why did they not put it out? Because he didn't pay a fee. That is a punishment for not paying the fee; not offering a service he would otherwise have. That is a punishment. If I don't pay my car insurance, and they revoke that insurance, that is a punishment.

He wouldn't have otherwise had the service. It is made quite clear that the people who live there only get the service if they pay the fee. You can't argue that his neighbors getting the service, after paying the fee means that he should get the service without paying the fee. For comparison, if his neighbors pay their electric bills, they get electricity. If he doesn't pay his electric bills, he doesn't get electricity. The infrastructure might be in place, but it doesn't mean that you get it automatically.

And you not paying your car insurance and getting it revoked is not a punishment. You don't have the right to car insurance, you must earn it by qualifying and paying for it.

He's not a public service funded by public taxes.

Nor is this fire department a public service. It is privitized.

A fire department is not a "business." It does not work for profits. It is a non-profit service.

A fire department can be a business. The fact that most of them are publicly-funded services does not mean that the publicly-funded part is an inherent part of the nature of fire departments.

True, but that's not the point of precedence, either. The point of precedence is "if it has happened before, why could it not apply now?" Not "will", but "why couldn't it?"

You can also ask "why should this happen?" If you make a mistake, you fix your actions in the future. You don't argue that precedence means that you must continue to make the same mistake.

Again, that is the whole freaking problem for the the bloody argument. That is what this argument is revolving around, that fact. This is not a point you've stated here, it's nothing more but a reconfirmation of what the argument is about.

I am stating the point of the argument. You keep wandering away from the point. There is no legal barrier to having a private fire department, but you keep arguing that it is against the Constitution, or some other nebulous legal point. It is perfectly within the rights of the people living here to have a private fire department. It is also within the rights of the government to charge them a fee if their taxes do not go to the fire department. I will again state: there is no such thing as a free lunch.

Translate FIRE DEPARTMENT LETTING HOUSE BURN DOWN

to:

HOSPITALS NOT TREATING SICK PEOPLE.

Hospitals are not required to treat sick people unless they are especially ill. They are required to treat those who are especially ill because the private organization of doctors chooses to use the Hippocratic Oath. I'm not certain if there are laws that also state that they are required to treat the critically ill/wounded, but those laws would be rather redundant, and difficult to legally defend, as hospitals are often private organizations.

I think Noam Chomsky gave a very good reason why we're unlikely to get anywhere arguing with Oaktree on this issue:

Oaktree has clearly done exactly this: Defined a kind of tyranny - a tyranny that sees taxed people (in both senses of the word) lose their homes and companions to fire - as "liberty".

This is purely rhetoric. There is no logical process in this quote to come to its conclusion. It is simply a statement of personal feeling, and one that looks an awful lot like someone who simply doesn't know how to logically address the arguments that he opposes. Further, what makes a linguist particularly authoritative about government? You are not providing an argument against my views by quoting this.

You are also failing to see the big picture. There are benefits and drawbacks to every system. If a fire occasionally burns a house to the ground under a libertarian society, not only is it something that is is not unique to libertarianism, but it is simply a bad thing that happens sometimes. Bad things happen sometimes under all systems. You also have to weigh the good that will come of any particular system.

Tell me Oaktree, did you ever watch School house rock as a kid?
We the people, in order to form a more perfect union. Establish Justice and ensure domestic tranquility. Provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty, to ourselves and our posterity. To ordain and establish this Constitution, of the United States of America.

Phew...
Ah now the general welfare...
As I stated welfare=well being, if he's deprived of it, it's unconstitutional. Truly a smart girl like you would know that, and not try to counter a person with a really long post. (Sorry I'm really to lazy to read them.)

You missed the part that says "to secure the blessings of liberty". The Preamble doesn't state to what extent the government must promote the general welfare. It can promote the general welfare by simply protecting a free society from would-be conquerors, which would also secure the blessings of liberty, or it can go farther, but the farther it goes, the more it takes away from liberty.

I can't help it if there is a lot to argue against. You may be making one short post, but I'm the only person arguing for my views, while there are several people arguing for your views.

Nekowolf

17th Oct 2010, 09:22 PM

"In any case, it is his actions that led to the fire."

Though carelessness, not arson. He didn't set his own house on fire, on purpose. He may have not been careful enough, true, but people don't expect a fire to happen.

"The fact that he was unable to put it out himself does not mean that others are required to put it out for him."

You would rather see it burn to the ground than help, is that it? Is that too "big government" for you? The purpose of a fire department is to put out fires people cannot put out themselves (and save them if necessary, or even when it's not but still a viable danger).

And you're right. He forgot. That is his fault, yes. BUT he freaking offered to pay, RIGHT THERE. And they were told, "don't help him." There is no excuse there, either. The payment was offered. More than the payment, even. He said he would pay whatever it would take. Still they were ordered to hold back.

No. I'm not going to sit here and argue.

You know what? I will say it now. Libertarianism, your kind, is dangerous and naive. It expects the improbable. It expects people to be completely self-sufficient, the government as nothing more than a near-powerless entity, who's sole purpose to stay the the fuck out of any and everything, unless absolutely necessary. It gives free reign to corruption and oppression. It's all about ME! ME! ME! It's the philosophy of me and only me. Taxes are evil because it goes to other people! Welfare is evil because it causes laziness! Regulation is evil because it's like Communism!

In the word of Abraman Lincoln, we are "and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." - The Gettysburg Address.

That is not what you are. You may claim that that is what you want, but not what you are. This kind of Libertarianism that you believe in:

It is of the "people," now that corporates are just like people, only better. THANKS, Supreme Court (Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission). So now corporations, conceivably even foreign entities, can pump millions and millions, or even billions, into campaigns to elect who THEY want into office, absolutely flooding, drowning out, their opponents and the people who supports him/her. And all while completely anonymous.

It is "by the people," but only if you're a modern conservative/libertarian, or Christian. Or white. After all, you have people like Ron Paul saying he believes private business should be allowed to discriminate against blacks. And some Republicans even saying the Civil Rights Act of '64 should be looked at or even a few who consider a repeal. After all, that's "big government," isn't it? The government forcing people to accept everyone? That's a lot like regulation of business, after all. The Supreme Court also ruled that the Cross could be a secular symbol; yeah, so could Jesus. (Salazar v. Buono). So why not throw up the Ten Commandments in front of a courthouse and call that secular, too?

And "for the people?" What a load of bullshit. For the people? That sounds an awful lot like socialism, being "for the people." What would be "for the people?" Social security. Universal health care. Universal college/university. Unemployment benefits. Consumer protections. In some ways, yes, even business regulations (but it mostly falls under consumer protections). Instead, you would rather have people:

Not pay taxes, so the government gets no funding. Force people to pay fees or throw themselves into the face of possible danger and even death. Remove social safety nets. Allow business to continue with whatever practice they possibly want, much like obscene credit card rates and fees, payday loans, horrifically bad deals with contracts no regular person could understand, corporations gambling on the market while altering it for the benefit of their profits, regardless of how many people are butchered in the process.

And "shall not perish from the earth?" A government structure based on modern conservatism and libertarianism, it would be the bane of America. It would be crushed beneath its own weight; the middle class would be torn apart until there was only the poor and the rich. It would no longer be "America: Land of the Free." It would be "America: Fuck you, poor people!" It would be a country where social Darwinism would be a way of life; if you're poor, screw you. Because the unfortunate, they do not deserve help if it costs me any money. It's my money, and they can go eat dirt! It's their fault for being poor in the first place! If they couldn't afford an education, if they lost their job, if they got injured, if they were born into poverty, it's their fault! They do not deserve the help that welfare would give them! Because welfare is an inherent evil, just like everything socialist.

Doc Doofus

18th Oct 2010, 01:21 AM

To allow people to pay on the spot disincentivizes paying the fee at all until your house is on fire. That would lead to less funding for the fire department, unless they charge the full cost of putting out the fire to every individual whose house catches on fire.

And that's why this story proves just how absurd the idea of a fully privatized fire department is. When you, Oaktree, are put in the position of having to explain the necessity for doing something destructive, illogical, and inconsistent with public safety for the sake of logical consistency, you effectively do everybody else's work for them in invaliding the whole concept.

Back during the Vietnam War, they used to say, "We had to burn the village in order to save the village," as if that could possibly make any sense to any logical person who wasn't already committed to defending an indefensible position. Now it's just "We had to let the house burn down in order to save the house." A fire department that lets houses burn down doesn't do its function. It's a contradiction in terms. The fact that it's less profitable to do its business this way is irrelevant.

This is how libertarianism always shoots itself in the foot, with its willingness to take things like this to extremes. Just a little bit of moderation and common sense might make something like this workable, but, no, it has to be permissible to let houses burn to the ground just to prove a point. No wonder they scare the crap out of normal people.

Oaktree

18th Oct 2010, 02:59 AM

Though carelessness, not arson. He didn't set his own house on fire, on purpose. He may have not been careful enough, true, but people don't expect a fire to happen.

I'm not saying that he intentionally set the house on fire, but he did start the fire that caused the house fire, and his - presumably negligent - actions led directly to it. If someone commits a crime through negligence, that person is still held responsible for it. In the same way, the grandson can still be held responsible for his negligence leading to this fire.

You would rather see it burn to the ground than help, is that it? Is that too "big government" for you? The purpose of a fire department is to put out fires people cannot put out themselves (and save them if necessary, or even when it's not but still a viable danger).

And you're right. He forgot. That is his fault, yes. BUT he freaking offered to pay, RIGHT THERE. And they were told, "don't help him." There is no excuse there, either. The payment was offered. More than the payment, even. He said he would pay whatever it would take. Still they were ordered to hold back.

That isn't it. The government cannot help in this situation and still be fair to those who pay the fee, or to people living in the area in the future. As I pointed out in my last post, allowing people to pay on the spot would lead to a collapse of the particular organization of the fire department. People would be required to pay the full cost of putting out their house fires, as opposed to a nominal fee. And you know what? That would be harder on the poor. Instead of paying $75 a year, they would have to pay probably a few hundred dollars every time their houses caught on fire. The current setup of that department minimizes costs for everyone by spreading them out. Isn't that precisely what you want in a social-capitalist government?

You know what? I will say it now. Libertarianism, your kind, is dangerous and naive. It expects the improbable. It expects people to be completely self-sufficient, the government as nothing more than a near-powerless entity, who's sole purpose to stay the the fuck out of any and everything, unless absolutely necessary. It gives free reign to corruption and oppression. It's all about ME! ME! ME! It's the philosophy of me and only me. Taxes are evil because it goes to other people! Welfare is evil because it causes laziness! Regulation is evil because it's like Communism!

It allows people to be self-sufficient. In our system, people are stuck in a rut. There are massive disincentives for people to rise up the economic ladder, so people remain where they are. In a free market, a person's wealth is directly correlated with the worth of their work. There are incentives for people to get better educated and to work harder, so they can earn more wealth.

Selfishness is not inherent in libertarianism. Selfishness is a trait possessed by some people that can translate to their behavior under any social system. Socialism does not eliminate selfishness, nor does it punish it. It punishes hard work and enterprise.

In the word of Abraman Lincoln, we are "and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." - The Gettysburg Address.

Lincoln was for big government. Whether he wanted a government of the people or not, he did not espouse it in his political ideals.

It is of the "people," now that corporates are just like people, only better. THANKS, Supreme Court (Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission). So now corporations, conceivably even foreign entities, can pump millions and millions, or even billions, into campaigns to elect who THEY want into office, absolutely flooding, drowning out, their opponents and the people who supports him/her. And all while completely anonymous.

Are you trying to use this against me? This isn't a libertarian ideal. First, it uses the Supreme Court as its authority. I am arguing that there should not be mandatory government, so you criticize me by trying to pin the actions of a branch of government on me?

And you might want to check who is getting donations from corporations before you use it as an example. Democrats are receiving massive donations from corporations as well.

It is "by the people," but only if you're a modern conservative/libertarian, or Christian. Or white. After all, you have people like Ron Paul saying he believes private business should be allowed to discriminate against blacks. And some Republicans even saying the Civil Rights Act of '64 should be looked at or even a few who consider a repeal. After all, that's "big government," isn't it? The government forcing people to accept everyone? That's a lot like regulation of business, after all. The Supreme Court also ruled that the Cross could be a secular symbol; yeah, so could Jesus. (Salazar v. Buono). So why not throw up the Ten Commandments in front of a courthouse and call that secular, too?

Didn't I just get through saying that government should be voluntary so that it can be representative? You are once again attempting to criticize me with an argument that is diametrically opposed to my own. I do not claim that we currently live in a free society. We have some of the trappings of one, but government has grown far to large and powerful for it to truly be one.

And "for the people?" What a load of bullshit. For the people? That sounds an awful lot like socialism, being "for the people." What would be "for the people?" Social security. Universal health care. Universal college/university. Unemployment benefits. Consumer protections. In some ways, yes, even business regulations (but it mostly falls under consumer protections).

Liberty is also "for the people" and, I would argue, more beneficial for the people. You act like you have the corner on goodness and that everyone who disagrees with you is selfish and evil. You are demonstrating a quality that you attribute to me: naivete.

Instead, you would rather have people:

Not pay taxes, so the government gets no funding. Force people to pay fees or throw themselves into the face of possible danger and even death. Remove social safety nets. Allow business to continue with whatever practice they possibly want, much like obscene credit card rates and fees, payday loans, horrifically bad deals with contracts no regular person could understand, corporations gambling on the market while altering it for the benefit of their profits, regardless of how many people are butchered in the process.

"Social safety net" is not an accurate analogy. It's more like a barrier. It prevents you from facing danger, but it also prevents you
from growing. It also makes the assumption that you are too stupid to determine what is and is not too dangerous. Social programs suck wealth out of the economy, preventing many people from increasing their wealth, while simultaneously assuming that people can't support themselves, that they need a government to hold their hands.

As for throwing people into possible danger and death, to apply it specifically to this case: when was the last time you faced a house fire? Have you ever seen a fire truck on your street? If you have, I would guess that it has only been there one or two times for a real fire. People do not face so much danger in their day-to-day lives that they need a constant government presence in their affairs. People can generally handle their own affairs. By taking away a little bit of support, support that someone would have been paying for anyway, you let people choose to evaluate the risks they face so that they can save a little money over the blanket approach.

If there weren't so many incentives to blow money, people would be more cautious about spending and credit cards would have to compete with better rates. Frankly, credit cards are not a necessity, anyway, but a luxury for those who want something in the heat of the moment. Payday loans are an even more idiotic thing to do. But, again, there are essentially incentives to mishandle money, so people don't care.

And "shall not perish from the earth?" A government structure based on modern conservatism and libertarianism, it would be the bane of America. It would be crushed beneath its own weight; the middle class would be torn apart until there was only the poor and the rich. It would no longer be "America: Land of the Free." It would be "America: Fuck you, poor people!" It would be a country where social Darwinism would be a way of life; if you're poor, screw you. Because the unfortunate, they do not deserve help if it costs me any money. It's my money, and they can go eat dirt! It's their fault for being poor in the first place! If they couldn't afford an education, if they lost their job, if they got injured, if they were born into poverty, it's their fault! They do not deserve the help that welfare would give them! Because welfare is an inherent evil, just like everything socialist.

Now your just spouting doom and gloom. A free market has to adjust to the everyman because he is a powerful force for spending. Corporations have to compete with each other for employees by offering fair rates, because, if they don't, some other corporation will snatch up the workers. Vendors must meet the needs of the everyman because they will purchase things in large quantities, which is far more stable and profitable than a small group of customers purchasing a few high-profit items.

You really like associating the phrase "Social Darwinism" with Libertarianism, but you haven't provided any reasoned argument why this would be the case. You're simply spouting irrational emotional appeal.

Have you seen me say that socialism is evil and leave it at that? I have provided reasons why socialism is a bad idea. If anyone is being an ideologue, it is you.

A fire department that lets houses burn down doesn't do its function. It's a contradiction in terms. The fact that it's less profitable to do its business this way is irrelevant.

The problem is that it is far more inefficient to have a publically-funded fire department and it removes freedom of choice. Government spending often runs counter to supply and demand. A fire department might be over-funded, simply because the government is automatically taking the money from everyone, when it may be that a substantial percentage of the population won't have any need of it and otherwise wouldn't pay the fee. The excess funding that is going into the fire department could have gone to a privatized police force, or development, or goods that are in-demand. Instead, it is wasted where it isn't needed. It might seem like a silly little thing to care about that waste, but when you combine the waste that goes into every governmental endeavor, you have an incredible margin of waste that could be going back into the economy and improving the lot of many people.

kiwi_tea

18th Oct 2010, 02:04 PM

It might seem like a silly little thing to care about that waste, but when you combine the waste that goes into every governmental endeavor, you have an incredible margin of waste that could be going back into the economy and improving the lot of many people.

That's not how Capital has ever worked, and I sincerely doubt that this "margin of waste" is magically going to start trickling down to workers under a truly free market. It's more profit. Full stop. More profit has never meant appropriate and tolerable wages for workers. How is that suddenly going to be the case? How is this not just more money and power left to collect in a tiny number of ruthless, private hands?

"Social safety net" is not an accurate analogy. It's more like a barrier. It prevents you from facing danger, but it also prevents you
from growing. It also makes the assumption that you are too stupid to determine what is and is not too dangerous. Social programs suck wealth out of the economy, preventing many people from increasing their wealth, while simultaneously assuming that people can't support themselves, that they need a government to hold their hands.

It has nothing to do with stupidity and everything to do with my former point. Capitalism, as a model, thrives on sociopathic behaviour, not just "selfishness": International price-fixing is already a problem that's nearly impossible to fix, and businesses love high unemployment because it allows them to push down wages. When it's work or starve, and there is little or no work available, it's pretty freakin' rich to accuse the starving of "stupidity".

Selfishness is not inherent in libertarianism. Selfishness is a trait possessed by some people that can translate to their behavior under any social system. Socialism does not eliminate selfishness, nor does it punish it. It punishes hard work and enterprise.

You've got a nerve to cry "Pure rhetoric" and then to turn around and say this. You would think giving everyone a solid democracy, a constitution outlining their right to the necessities of life, allowing them to associate freely in control of the means of production, and allowing workers' councils to compete for supply contracts without the punishment being "You get no medical care, or a decent diet", would not destroy all human ingenuity. Isn't the real difference here that hard work and enterprise, though it may exist and be rewarded any number of ways, can't build you into a inordinately rich sociopathic tyrant who deliberates over the lives of others according to how much richer he or she can get?

How? How does Socialism, in theory, punish hard work and enterprise?

Are you still conflating Socialism with Stalinism?

Oaktree

18th Oct 2010, 02:59 PM

That's not how Capital has ever worked, and I sincerely doubt that this "margin of waste" is magically going to start trickling down to workers under a truly free market. It's more profit. Full stop. More profit has never meant appropriate and tolerable wages for workers. How is that suddenly going to be the case? How is this not just more money and power left to collect in a tiny number of ruthless, private hands?

I beg to differ. Workers get paid an appropriate wage. They get paid what the business can handle based on the profitability of their labor. That wage doesn't always meet the "standard of living", but the standard of living tends to assume that everyone in living in relative luxury. People can live just fine by being frugal and intelligent about where they choose to live, where they choose to work, and what they choose to buy. If you're making minimum wage, it's not likely that you can afford to live in New York City, unless you're in public housing. But you can afford to rent in the suburbs and commute to New York.

Some work is less profitable than others. That means that the people doing that work can't get paid as much. While you might not like that, it is perfectly appropriate and all that the system can tolerate.

It has nothing to do with stupidity and everything to do with my former point. Capitalism, as a model, thrives on sociopathic behaviour, not just "selfishness": International price-fixing is already a problem that's nearly impossible to fix, and businesses love high unemployment because it allows them to push down wages. When it's work or starve, and there is little or no work available, it's pretty freakin' rich to accuse the starving of "stupidity".

Price-fixing doesn't last. Eventually, someone is too tempted to compete for business and lowers their prices. Particularly when you don't have a lot of people who can afford the artificially high price.

When large numbers of people take a cut in the amount they make, a lot of businesses have to respond by lowering their prices, making the lower wage livable. This is because, as I pointed out before, the common man is a powerful economic force.

You've got a nerve to cry "Pure rhetoric" and then to turn around and say this. You would think giving everyone a solid democracy, a constitution outlining their right to the necessities of life, allowing them to associate freely in control of the means of production, and allowing workers' councils to compete for supply contracts without the punishment being "You get no medical care, or a decent diet", would not destroy all human ingenuity. Isn't the real difference here that hard work and enterprise, though it may exist and be rewarded any number of ways, can't build you into a inordinately rich sociopathic tyrant who deliberates over the lives of others according to how much richer he or she can get?

How? How does Socialism, in theory, punish hard work and enterprise?

Are you still conflating Socialism with Stalinism?

I explained it in my last big debate with Nekowolf, but I will repeat it here. We are entitled to the fruits of our labor, yet government takes them away in a socialist system. In every kind of socialist system, as socialist systems rely on taxation. Therefore, the government is depriving you of your right to your own wealth, and moreso the more money you make. It is a scaled punishment that worsens the more you make, which means that it punishes those who work hardest and have the best business sense. It also disincentivizes making more money, as you're not going to get a lot more wealth to compare to a lot more work you put in.

That is a disincentive for things like college, as college costs a lot of money, so people need to make a lot of money to pay it back. If you get a smaller and smaller portion of your paycheck, it becomes less and less attractive to spend that on college loans. This is why the middle class faces hardship in America. The tax scales are supposed to punish the obscenely wealthy, but they are set up in a way that the middle class gets put down, too. The middle class can't take as much of that financial pressure as the upper class, so the middle class is screwed.

Tempscire

18th Oct 2010, 04:41 PM

People can live just fine by being frugal and intelligent about where they choose to live, where they choose to work, and what they choose to buy. If you're making minimum wage, it's not likely that you can afford to live in New York City, unless you're in public housing. But you can afford to rent in the suburbs and commute to New York.
Yeah, because people making minimum wage are known for their ability to just pack up and move to another city at a whim and to commute long distances every day to work that minimum wage job.

Therefore, the government is depriving you of your right to your own wealth, and moreso the more money you make. It is a scaled punishment that worsens the more you make, which means that it punishes those who work hardest and have the best business sense.
Obviously the U.S. is not a wholly socialized system, but we do use a progressive tax structure described here. 1) The highest earners, even after taxes, are still the highest earners. 2) The government is charging you for services rendered that everyone has been using: roads, police, fire department (after all, it's not just federal government levying taxes), all kinds of infrastructure that, along with everyone pooling their resources and making small sacrifices to their personal freedoms for the sake of the whole to work, is how we have civilization as we know it. Society today evolved from people developing this system of designating a governing body with the ability to take money from everyone (except the people who have no money to take) in order to create resources that everyone can use.

Nekowolf

18th Oct 2010, 04:46 PM

So, I am -really- sick of quote-comment-quote-comment-quote-comment, etc. Could someone, out of the kindness of their hearts, perhaps sum up what she said?

But I will go into her last comment to Kiwi.

"Nothing is free." You said that before, didn't you? I don't recall, I know I've heard it said. Basically, social programs are not free. That is correct. The really funny thing here is, you are acting like money collected from taxes, well, like it disappears. Like it's actual theft.

Take the irony of this: "That is a disincentive for things like college, as college costs a lot of money, so people need to make a lot of money to pay it back." - the irony? In a socialist system, one that I would want, one like Denmark, college is free. In that, it's entirely paid for through taxes. No tuition, it's already paid for! In fact, for good grades, you earn money! So not only is it available to everyone of any income, and without having to go through loans, which makes it easier to go to college, which is an incentive, you also get money for good grades, which is also an incentive.

Loans? What loans? We don't need loans! You say you cut people's paychecks, yes, but look at what they get out of it, as well? Furthermore, imagine the educational explosion we'd have if college suddenly became open to everyone, without the worry of loans, without having to go into debt over the costs. Same with health care. $100,000 hospital bill? Well you won't have to go into debt over it!

And you know what's great? People won't go into debt. Meaning they are more stabilized. Sure, they'll still have to pay for somethings, of course. But things like education and medicine, both of which are HUGE debt-burdens, that'd be a great relief off of people. And yeah, sport, that includes YOUR health care, too. And YOUR education. I mean everyone's. Not a single person should be discriminated out of these programs.

You pay for everyone else, and they pay all of it for you. Now of course, you have programs like Social Security, but it hasn't been updated in like freaking forever. So of it's failing; it needs to be upgraded, but the internet is too shitty. It's like using the processor from my old, old Windows 3.1 on my Windows Vista. Of course it's not working!

Now I would appreciate if someone would correct me, as I'm not sure myself, but what I heard was that originally, social security was meant to work in that; you put in so much throughout your lifetime. And you get that amount back when you reached, what was it, 65? Now I don't know for sure. If that is the case, the problem isn't quite the program as in everything around it. Cost of living has gone up dramatically, so has life expectancy. But if we're investing the same amount as we are, say, 50 years ago, then that isn't taking any of that into account, so to make up for it, that money has to be drawn from others. But as the baby boomers are cashing in, it's getting more and more depleted, because it hasn't been, as I said, upgraded. It's not a perfect system, but if it was actually routinely maintained, it would be a whole hell lot better.

Y'know, something caught my eye. I will reply to one more comment:

"Price-fixing doesn't last. Eventually, someone is too tempted to compete for business and lowers their prices."

Except you want a completely deregulated market. Monopolies; they buy out or otherwise get rid of competitors, they're the only ones left on the board, they price-fix at will. Easy.

RoseCity

18th Oct 2010, 07:27 PM

I read through the thread as best I could because I wanted to bring up a failed attempt at privatization in my state. (The city of Hartford, Connecticut hired a company to run its public schools. It didn't work out very well). Also I'm constantly worried about the attempts to privatize the Social Security system in the US. To me privatization is a bad way to go, because there are some things that, for the public good, aren't suitable to be privatized i.e. run for profit. That's what a government should be for - to administer health care, etc.
I'm not sure if I'd agree that letting the house burn down was about privatization. As Mangaroo said, the house was outside the town's tax district. Letting it burn was a callous act, but maybe now with all the negative publicity, they'll allow firefighters to put out fires when the homeowner hasn't paid the $75.

mangaroo

18th Oct 2010, 08:00 PM

The problem is that it is far more inefficient to have a publically-funded fire department and it removes freedom of choice. Government spending often runs counter to supply and demand. A fire department might be over-funded, simply because the government is automatically taking the money from everyone, when it may be that a substantial percentage of the population won't have any need of it and otherwise wouldn't pay the fee. The excess funding that is going into the fire department could have gone to a privatized police force, or development, or goods that are in-demand. Instead, it is wasted where it isn't needed. It might seem like a silly little thing to care about that waste, but when you combine the waste that goes into every governmental endeavor, you have an incredible margin of waste that could be going back into the economy and improving the lot of many people.

This just doesn't work. In fact, it doesn't work so much that I think I must be misunderstanding you, so let me tell you what I'm reading here. You seem to be saying that rather than running the risk of overfunding an emergency response service through public funds, it is preferable to privatize the service so that only that percentage of the population which "needs" the service will pay.

Could you explain to me which percentage of the population doesn't need an emergency service?

Emergency services require training and equipment prior to an emergency. Therefore, they need funding in advance of any emergency, and even in the complete absence of an emergency. If my city goes a year without a fire, fabulous. I want the fire department to be fully staffed and the equipment to be maintained because I don't count on luck or God to make that blessing last two years.

And the notion of privatizing police services baffles me. How does that work, exactly? They only investigate crimes where the victim has funded the department? I don't know about you, but if I'm paying a $250 annual fee to my privatized police department, I would just as soon have them investigate the rape of my (non-paying) neighbor before the rapist gets to me. So now I'm paying for criminal investigations for all the people who "forget" or are willing to allow other people to carry the burden of funding public safety? That's fairer than a shared tax burden?

Oaktree

18th Oct 2010, 11:14 PM

Yeah, because people making minimum wage are known for their ability to just pack up and move to another city at a whim and to commute long distances every day to work that minimum wage job.

If you're renting, I don't see how it's so hard to pack up and move somewhere else. Commuting might be difficult to piece together, but given the ubiquitous bus and metro routes on the East Coast, it isn't impossible. I can't comment on the Midwest, the South, or the West Coast, but I do know that the cost of living is almost universally cheaper there than it is on the East Coast (I spend a lot of time in Northern Virginia, which has one of the highest costs of living in the country; New York has the highest) and people do get by here.

You can also choose to live in an area that has a low cost of living. From what I hear, Iowa, Ohio, and a variety of Midwestern states have a pretty low cost of living. If you can't afford to live in the city, don't live in the city.

Obviously the U.S. is not a wholly socialized system, but we do use a progressive tax structure described here. 1) The highest earners, even after taxes, are still the highest earners. 2) The government is charging you for services rendered that everyone has been using: roads, police, fire department (after all, it's not just federal government levying taxes), all kinds of infrastructure that, along with everyone pooling their resources and making small sacrifices to their personal freedoms for the sake of the whole to work, is how we have civilization as we know it. Society today evolved from people developing this system of designating a governing body with the ability to take money from everyone (except the people who have no money to take) in order to create resources that everyone can use.

I'm aware that the highest earners are still the highest earners with graduated tax brackets, at least in most cases (the people who are right along the tax bracket divides are screwed, but we'll ignore them for the time being). The problem is that you have to put in more and more effort and money to get to the point where you are making more. Someone with a high school diploma might be making $30,000, while someone with a bachelors degree might be making $50,000, with loans to repay. The person making $30k has a 15% tax bracket and brings home $25,500. The person making $50k has a 25% tax bracket and is bringing home $37,500 and has college loans taking a chunk out of that. The person who got a job fresh out of high school has also been working at least four years longer and has possibly gotten a few raises and saved up some money. The person with the bachelors has no work experience and no savings. That person put in the additional effort of four years of college in order to come out with only a very slight advantage over the person who started working out of high school. The advantage will improve as time goes on, but many people don't think that long-term. Some people will find that the degree is still more attractive, but not as many people as would in a system without graduated tax brackets.

So, I am -really- sick of quote-comment-quote-comment-quote-comment, etc. Could someone, out of the kindness of their hearts, perhaps sum up what she said?

The quote-comment format is much clearer and allows me to address specific points.

"Nothing is free." You said that before, didn't you? I don't recall, I know I've heard it said. Basically, social programs are not free. That is correct. The really funny thing here is, you are acting like money collected from taxes, well, like it disappears. Like it's actual theft.

Technically speaking, it is extortion, as it is the government forcing you to pay them under threat of prison. And it doesn't disappear, but it is badly mishandled.

Take the irony of this: "That is a disincentive for things like college, as college costs a lot of money, so people need to make a lot of money to pay it back." - the irony? In a socialist system, one that I would want, one like Denmark, college is free. In that, it's entirely paid for through taxes. No tuition, it's already paid for! In fact, for good grades, you earn money! So not only is it available to everyone of any income, and without having to go through loans, which makes it easier to go to college, which is an incentive, you also get money for good grades, which is also an incentive.

I imagine that college is only available to those who test into it in Denmark. Those who don't test into it don't get the advantage of free college, or any college, while still having to pay into the tax system supporting free college for everyone who does test into it. What if that person was simply born with a low IQ? He can't help that he isn't able to grasp complex concepts, but he is forced to put some of his pay into something that will not benefit him. Considering that he probably isn't making much money without a college education, he would be much better off keeping his money for his own uses. In a free market system, he would be allowed to keep his money. You keep saying that I'm advocating Social Darwinism, but your beloved system has plenty of its own biases.

Loans? What loans? We don't need loans! You say you cut people's paychecks, yes, but look at what they get out of it, as well? Furthermore, imagine the educational explosion we'd have if college suddenly became open to everyone, without the worry of loans, without having to go into debt over the costs. Same with health care. $100,000 hospital bill? Well you won't have to go into debt over it!

There wouldn't be loans, but there is the danger of putting far more money into college than is necessary. Under a system that pays for college, there may be people that wouldn't otherwise need college for their chosen fields who go to college simply because it is available. You end up with the whole country paying for people who have no use for that college education, meaning that you make the whole country poorer because that is waste.

In a free market society, people will go to college if they have the intelligence and drive to pursue a job that requires it. Those people borrow money if they need to, and that debt forces people to consider whether they truly have the dedication and need to go to college. This cuts down on waste. If people want to use excess money on college, then they can go to college for a non-career-related reason.

People can also learn without going to college. There are bookstores and the internet, and maybe people might choose to invest in a community library. Independent learning is not only very feasible, but far more effective than schooling that people feel forced into.

And you know what's great? People won't go into debt. Meaning they are more stabilized. Sure, they'll still have to pay for somethings, of course. But things like education and medicine, both of which are HUGE debt-burdens, that'd be a great relief off of people. And yeah, sport, that includes YOUR health care, too. And YOUR education. I mean everyone's. Not a single person should be discriminated out of these programs.

They go into debt to a government. That government demands a certain portion of their paychecks for the rest of their lives. And they have no say into what their money is going. People should be able to choose what they put their money into. And health care and education must compete in the free market alongside other services, so those things would be affordable. More affordable healthcare means more affordable insurance, and education is worth it to take out a loan.

You pay for everyone else, and they pay all of it for you. Now of course, you have programs like Social Security, but it hasn't been updated in like freaking forever. So of it's failing; it needs to be upgraded, but the internet is too shitty. It's like using the processor from my old, old Windows 3.1 on my Windows Vista. Of course it's not working!

Now I would appreciate if someone would correct me, as I'm not sure myself, but what I heard was that originally, social security was meant to work in that; you put in so much throughout your lifetime. And you get that amount back when you reached, what was it, 65? Now I don't know for sure. If that is the case, the problem isn't quite the program as in everything around it. Cost of living has gone up dramatically, so has life expectancy. But if we're investing the same amount as we are, say, 50 years ago, then that isn't taking any of that into account, so to make up for it, that money has to be drawn from others. But as the baby boomers are cashing in, it's getting more and more depleted, because it hasn't been, as I said, upgraded. It's not a perfect system, but if it was actually routinely maintained, it would be a whole hell lot better.

The biggest problem with Social Security is government corruption; in the 70's, Congress decided that they had the right to spend Social Security money on other things, making a nebulous promise to put the money back someday, and it never happened. There are a variety of other problems. Inflation is a major disincentive and problem with saving, both governmental (which is essentially what Social Security is) and private. There are several things that cause inflation: an increase in production costs, national debt, overprinting money, etc. Production costs increase when the government tries to regulate corporations because many, if not most, regulations cost corporations money. When corporations are cost, that cost is transferred to the customer. National debt drains money from a country because that country has to pay the loan back with interest. Overprinting money has a very obvious effect on monetary value.

Why can't people simply be allowed to save money for themselves?

Except you want a completely deregulated market. Monopolies; they buy out or otherwise get rid of competitors, they're the only ones left on the board, they price-fix at will. Easy.

Except that there will always be other companies that pop up. It is nearly impossible to have the only supply of a particular product (at least, unless you have crazy copyright/patent laws :rolleyes: ). If there is a demand for something, someone will always pursue the profit that can be gained from providing that thing.

Also I'm constantly worried about the attempts to privatize the Social Security system in the US. To me privatization is a bad way to go, because there are some things that, for the public good, aren't suitable to be privatized i.e. run for profit. That's what a government should be for - to administer health care, etc.

It would be hard to screw up Social Security more than the government has. But, if you think about it, Social Security is simply government regulated saving. People can do their own saving.

This just doesn't work. In fact, it doesn't work so much that I think I must be misunderstanding you, so let me tell you what I'm reading here. You seem to be saying that rather than running the risk of overfunding an emergency response service through public funds, it is preferable to privatize the service so that only that percentage of the population which "needs" the service will pay.

Could you explain to me which percentage of the population doesn't need an emergency service?

Some people may keep themselves prepared for a fire, or a medical emergency, or whatever it is. Some people might feel that there isn't enough of a risk to justify spending the money. Privatization is merely giving people choice in the matter.

Emergency services require training and equipment prior to an emergency. Therefore, they need funding in advance of any emergency, and even in the complete absence of an emergency. If my city goes a year without a fire, fabulous. I want the fire department to be fully staffed and the equipment to be maintained because I don't count on luck or God to make that blessing last two years.

That's why this fire department went with the pooled money approach, instead of the individual payment. In the approach taken by this fire department, they have the money ahead of time, so they can do training and upkeep, and it is still fair because people have a choice to pay into it and receive the benefits or not.

And the notion of privatizing police services baffles me. How does that work, exactly? They only investigate crimes where the victim has funded the department? I don't know about you, but if I'm paying a $250 annual fee to my privatized police department, I would just as soon have them investigate the rape of my (non-paying) neighbor before the rapist gets to me. So now I'm paying for criminal investigations for all the people who "forget" or are willing to allow other people to carry the burden of funding public safety? That's fairer than a shared tax burden?

You could pay for a private investigator if you are worried about it. We still have private detectives now, what's so different between them and cops, other than arrest powers?

mangaroo

19th Oct 2010, 12:11 AM

You could pay for a private investigator if you are worried about it. We still have private detectives now, what's so different between them and cops, other than arrest powers?

The cops are a permanent, trained, publicly-funded force tasked with investigating and preventing crime. I live in a city and I am, in fact, deeply concerned about my safety. I suppose I could keep a private investigator on permanent retainer to prowl the streets solving crimes in my neighborhood, or I can spread that cost across all beneficiaries through taxation. I prefer the solution where the safety of 103,000 people doesn't rest solely on my dime. While I concede that people willing and able to hire private security guards may enjoy a greater degree of personal security, I do not believe that public security is best served by small pockets of intensely-protected people and large masses of ... well, gunholders praying for safety, I suppose. It's a little too wild west for me.

Mostly, though, I think your personal risk-assuming approach to emergency services confuses intervention with insurance. Overlooking for the moment that insurance is required by law in some situations where policymakers have decided the individual cannot be trusted to assume all financial responsibility for potential harm, in most cases, only the insured benefit from insurance. Therefore it is right that insurance be an individual's choice. However, we all benefit from intervention, and therefore it is right that the costs for such intervention be shared by all citizens.

Nekowolf

19th Oct 2010, 12:21 AM

"The quote-comment format is much clearer and allows me to address specific points."
Bah. Fine, fine. I'll get back to you later, as much as it pains me.

RoseCity

19th Oct 2010, 01:17 AM

...It would be hard to screw up Social Security more than the government has. But, if you think about it, Social Security is simply government regulated saving. People can do their own saving...
Happy birthday, Oaktree! (I saw that in the 'how old are you?' thread.) I agree that the government has used the fund to fund itself. I wouldn't call it 'government regulated saving' - more like government regulated insurance. A person usually ends up taking out more than they put in. Because it's very difficult to save enough to fund one's entire retirement, especially for low income people.

Some people may keep themselves prepared for a fire, or a medical emergency, or whatever it is. Some people might feel that there isn't enough of a risk to justify spending the money. Privatization is merely giving people choice in the matter.

I don't understand how you're defining 'privatization'. It means having things that are traditionally run by the government run by private companies. Your tax money just goes to the company, not the city, state or federal entity. There's no choice involved.

That's why this fire department went with the pooled money approach, instead of the individual payment. In the approach taken by this fire department, they have the money ahead of time, so they can do training and upkeep, and it is still fair because people have a choice to pay into it and receive the benefits or not.

Do you think however many $75 payments they collect would adequately fund anything? It's probably more like an insurance payment based on the odds of fires occurring in that area.

It seems like you think a citizen of a town, state and country has no obligations to share in the costs of running that town, state or country. Or is it because the administration of these programs is never perfect?

Tempscire

19th Oct 2010, 01:51 AM

If you're renting, I don't see how it's so hard to pack up and move somewhere else. Commuting might be difficult to piece together, but given the ubiquitous bus and metro routes on the East Coast, it isn't impossible.
It's not a matter of not renewing a lease on an apartment. Moving is expensive. You need to have the time to do it, the money to pack everything up and physically haul it around, you need to be able to find the next place (and the further away you try to move, the harder that is). Commuting has its own costs as well: it may not be feasible to pay for transportation--train or bus passes, or gas for a car-- for a 2 hour trip to a minimum wage job.

The problem is that you have to put in more and more effort and money to get to the point where you are making more.
Isn't that kind of a libertarian screed? People who work harder are rewarded according to that effort?

The advantage will improve as time goes on, but many people don't think that long-term.
And yet so many people are enrolling in college anyway, specifically for those long-term benefits (that admittedly they'd like to get right away, but still). More than ever (http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/28/college-enrollment-rate-at-record-high/), actually.

Some people will find that the degree is still more attractive, but not as many people as would in a system without graduated tax brackets.
Pure speculation, and possibly not even accurate, by a later poster's refutation.

Consider the position of the colleges, too. This article (http://www.usnews.com/education/articles/2010/01/15/rich-students-will-get-more-college-acceptance-letters-in-2010.html) posits that colleges are looking to accept more wealthy students to help their own budget issues. With more public dollars helping the colleges, perhaps there'd be more equity for poor mediocre students to compete with wealthy mediocre students.

Oaktree

19th Oct 2010, 02:32 AM

The cops are a permanent, trained, publicly-funded force tasked with investigating and preventing crime. I live in a city and I am, in fact, deeply concerned about my safety. I suppose I could keep a private investigator on permanent retainer to prowl the streets solving crimes in my neighborhood, or I can spread that cost across all beneficiaries through taxation. I prefer the solution where the safety of 103,000 people doesn't rest solely on my dime. While I concede that people willing and able to hire private security guards may enjoy a greater degree of personal security, I do not believe that public security is best served by small pockets of intensely-protected people and large masses of ... well, gunholders praying for safety, I suppose. It's a little too wild west for me.

If you live in a community that is particularly concerned about safety, I doubt that you would be the only person to pay into an investigator. It would be similar to the fire department in this story. There is a community of people, many, if not most, of which feel the need for fire protection. Therefore they all pay into the department and minimize their costs. The only difference between that and a tax-based system is the power of choice.

Mostly, though, I think your personal risk-assuming approach to emergency services confuses intervention with insurance. Overlooking for the moment that insurance is required by law in some situations where policymakers have decided the individual cannot be trusted to assume all financial responsibility for potential harm, in most cases, only the insured benefit from insurance. Therefore it is right that insurance be an individual's choice. However, we all benefit from intervention, and therefore it is right that the costs for such intervention be shared by all citizens.

As far as police go, people can and do figure out where police enforcement is minimal or not enough to cover the crimes in the area. In that sense, police do not always act as intervention, even if you are paying the taxes that go into the department. I used to live in a small suburban town that only had three cops. The county somehow didn't see a reason to assign more to the area. The crime rate wasn't bad, but it was picking up by the time I got into my teenage years. There was some drug-dealing, and sometimes there would be suspicious cars just sitting out on the curb or repeatedly driving through, seemingly casing the neighborhood. Three cops weren't equipped to handle this. Even in well-policed areas, that isn't always a deterrant to crime. Most places in the US have at least some police presence, with many having a strong police presence. There is still crime. People do not get equal police protection wherever they are. I think it makes far more sense for people to be able to judge whether they think the police protection in the area is worth spending money on. I can tell you that there is at least one police department near me that I wouldn't pay to protect me even if there were no alternative because they are the laziest police I have ever seen.

Happy birthday! (I saw that in the 'how old are you?' thread.)

Thank you. :)

I agree that the government has used the fund to fund itself. I wouldn't call it 'government regulated saving' - more like government regulated insurance. A person usually ends up taking out more than they put in. Because it's very difficult to save enough to fund one's entire retirement, especially for low income people.

I haven't really seen any statistics on how much people put in vs. take out and it seems strange that it works out that way, but I suppose it's possible if a number of people are dying before getting Social Security benefits.

It may be difficult to fund one's retirement, but it is certainly possible. The best advice you can follow is to alway take 10% of your pay, put it away, and don't touch it. There are always ways to save. I'm planning on getting an apartment with several friends next year, thus saving me money on rent and allowing me to save a greater chunk of my paycheck/take out less loan money, thus allowing me to save more money. Now, I'm sort of ignoring my own advice at the moment because I haven't been saving anywhere near 10% of my paycheck, but that's because I've been slightly irresponsible in the amount of money I'm willing to spend when I go out with friends. :P That said, a person who is necessarily financially independent (I am still partially dependent) would presumably feel greater pressure to save, as saving is incredibly important.

I don't understand how you're defining 'privatization'. It means having things that are traditionally run by the government run by private companies. Your tax money just goes to the company, not the city, state or federal entity. There's no choice involved.

You don't have to pay that company, though. In this story, the guy didn't pay the fire department, which, in this case led to negative consequences, but he did make that choice. I would bet that there are many other people in that town who don't pay the fire department and have had no problems. There is a greater risk of disaster in that scenario, but those people have the power to exercise choice and weigh their options.

Do you think however many $75 payments they collect would adequately fund anything? It's probably more like an insurance payment based on the odds of fires occurring in that area.

In some sense, it is a gamble. They don't know that there might be more fires in the year than can be covered by the $75 fee collected from everyone who wants the protection. The governmentally run fire departments operate in the exact same manner, though. They get a certain amount of funding per year and they don't have too many options to exceed that funding. Same goes for every other government agency. I vaguely recall hearing about FEMA not having enough allotted funding years ago when Katrina hit (probably part of why it took so long to clean up from Katrina). Government organizations do not have an endless stream of money. Yet the government (usually) manages to fund their organizations by collecting something similar to the $75 dollar fee from everyone. Truly the main difference between public and private is that private allows choice.

It seems like you think a citizen of a town, state and country has no obligations to share in the costs of running that town, state or country. Or is it because the administration of these programs is never perfect?

I don't think that there should be anything more than the bare minimum of government involved in a town, state, or country. In my ideal world, the US wouldn't so much be a government as a collection of relatively like-minded people. I think that we should operate more like communities of individuals that freely trade amongst themselves and with other countries, where it is beneficial. Really, I would hope for a united world, but I don't realistically think that it would happen.

Now, I don't know that this ideal can be fully realized because it is still necessary to have something that is similar in function to a military, for defensive purposes (though not aggressive purposes, unless it is quite clear that that is the only way to deter a threat). I'm inclined to think that it is possible to have a privatized military, though there is a problem in the usage of such a force. If a large portion of the country were to desire the force to attack another country, that is something that I would not agree with and something that I would not want to be held responsible for. Yet it does make sense for everyone protected by the military to pay for it. Of course the same issue applies with a government-controlled military as well. Essentially, I'm not sure about the most moral and fair way to utilize a military, but I'm sure that we need one in the world that we live in. Of course, given the popularity of socialist ideology at present, my ideal for a free society isn't likely to happen anyway.

It's not a matter of not renewing a lease on an apartment. Moving is expensive. You need to have the time to do it, the money to pack everything up and physically haul it around, you need to be able to find the next place (and the further away you try to move, the harder that is). Commuting has its own costs as well: it may not be feasible to pay for transportation--train or bus passes, or gas for a car-- for a 2 hour trip to a minimum wage job.

Isn't that kind of a libertarian screed? People who work harder are rewarded according to that effort?

Perhaps I didn't phrase that clearly enough. What I was getting at is that people have to put in more effort in a socialist system to make the same amount under a free market with less effort. There is a certain point at which it simply isn't attractive to work harder.

And yet so many people are enrolling in college anyway, specifically for those long-term benefits (that admittedly they'd like to get right away, but still). More than ever (http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/28/college-enrollment-rate-at-record-high/), actually.

This is probably due to the fact that many jobs won't hire people who don't have a college degree, whether they need it or not. My knowledge of economics honestly fails me at this point, to explain this trend. I don't see why employers would hire employees that they would have to pay more just so the employees can pay back their college loans, when that liberal arts degree really doesn't do anything for the job.

Pure speculation, and possibly not even accurate, by a later poster's refutation.

Consider the position of the colleges, too. This article (http://www.usnews.com/education/articles/2010/01/15/rich-students-will-get-more-college-acceptance-letters-in-2010.html) posits that colleges are looking to accept more wealthy students to help their own budget issues. With more public dollars helping the colleges, perhaps there'd be more equity for poor mediocre students to compete with wealthy mediocre students.

Wealthy families have the extra money so that their children can go to college whether they need it or not. But if you look at the middle class, middle-class students don't get the kind of aid that lower-class students get and aren't able to afford college out of pocket like the wealthy kids. To further pressure the middle class by making them pay out 25% to 33% of their income in taxes is squeezing out the middle class. And looking at this (http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm), the tax bracket percentages rise most sharply in the range occupied by the lower middle class. There is a 10% rise between wages that are considered poverty level for a family and wages that you could support a family on, but that you'd have to be shrewd about. That is the biggest rise in percentage in the brackets. Given the ideals that many people have been espousing in this thread, you'd think the largest rise would be in the highest income brackets, not in the relatively low brackets where it can be crushing.

Tempscire

19th Oct 2010, 04:12 AM

I don't see why employers would hire employees that they would have to pay more just so the employees can pay back their college loans, when that liberal arts degree really doesn't do anything for the job.
I've seen it rationalized as showing the ability to complete a serious undertaking, willingness to learn, and of course, in the classical sense, liberal arts teach about the various facets of life, making a person well-rounded intellectually, especially if you want to get into the concept of "college is not supposed to be job training." Of course, in economic terms, there is the supply/demand issue: lots of supply of college degrees = less value per each than they once had. But that's a whole other topic, I think.

That is the biggest rise in percentage in the brackets. Given the ideals that many people have been espousing in this thread, you'd think the largest rise would be in the highest income brackets, not in the relatively low brackets where it can be crushing.
In the movie version of the musical 1776 (haha), someone delivers a line about how people would rather "protect the possibility of becoming rich than face the reality of being poor." So between political interests who have been influenced by the wealthy to give them lower tax rates, and the people who are in that lower middle-class but have been convinced to vote against their best interests, there isn't as steep a jump for the upper levels as there arguably should be. For example, I have hazy recollection of Obama's proposed tax strategy from a year or so ago, and there was all this rhetoric about it raising taxes for most people, when in actuality it lowered taxes for basically everyone earning below $250k. That sort of thing. Personally I'd be all for having a sharper rise, but it's not solely up to me. :king:

Edit: actually, I've drifted fairly off topic now, I think. Oh well.

Nekowolf

19th Oct 2010, 01:35 PM

Socialist Countries Set to Recover Quicker from Recession (http://www.thedailybanter.com/tdb/2009/08/socialist-countries-set-to-recover-quicker-from-recession.html)

Let's do a little math here. Let's take, oh I don't know... I often talk about Denmark, so let's take Denmark, and the US. I'll use easy numbers, and this is more for the sake of theory and explanation than anything else. I'll try out this new attachment system, as I couldn't get the chart I made to work here (what with all the spaces and such).

So yeah, attachment. It a .rar, with an .rtf document

EDIT: In case the point was missed - yes, socialist countries like the Scandinavian countries may pay more in taxes, quite a bit more. However, they also receive more benefits from such a heavy taxation.

And you know? It's sort of funny. In a way, libertarianism is like Marxism (or at least Marx himself). He believed that, when the Proletariat inevitably usurps the Bourgeoisie, they, the Proletariat, will elect intellectual leaders until the time which was the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. During that time, the Proletariat would have developed skills and become so capable for themselves, that the leadership would no longer be necessary, and would simply be phased out into true classless Communism. How is libertarianism like Marxism? Well, as Oaktree has demonstrated, the belief is that, there does not need to be government "interference" as people will come together to benefit each other out of the goodness of their hearts, and that the banks will eventually come to a time where they are so capable that they can regulate themselves effectively. Both ignore the simple fact that humans as a whole are power-hungry, stupid, self-interested, and irrational creatures. That we have just as much capability, if not more, to destroy what we created or even cherish. Both ignore the precedence of history.

Doc Doofus

20th Oct 2010, 02:43 AM

Privatized police... What an idea. The reason we have a public police department is to PROTECT us from people with their own privatized police forces. Like the Crips and the Bloods and the Mafia. In fact, that's how mobs and gangs form -- they evolve to fill in gaps in the criminal justice system.

Did you ever see Godfather 2? Remember the story of young Vito Corleone, coming to 1900 America, and how the local Italian-American community was at the mercy of whatever thug came along telling them "All I want is enough to wet my beak." In a community like that, where the police were inadequate and corrupt and unwilling to get involved, it made sense for local Italian vigilantes to assemble to protect themselves, their neighbors, and to wet their own beaks in the process.

We think of Crips and Bloods as criminal gangs, but that's from the perspective of those of us on the outside dependent on the local police. From the POV of inner city minorities in an area like South Central, it's safer (to many people, not all) to have a gang roaming the neighborhood ready to shoot at any car passing through flying the wrong colors. If you can't rely on the local police, it's better than nothing, and besides, you may know some of the members and be able to trust them to protect your ass if things get complicated.

So private police departments and justice departments do exist, you're just not used to thinking of them that way.

Now imagine Bill Gates, though, with his own police department. And Apple with its own police department. They have enough money they can afford it, certainly. Imagine that, without any government police to intercede and stop them from fighting with each other over a dispute about who has ownership of a new chip technology worth billions, one they both claim. They both accuse each other of being thieves! Which police department do you trust to resolve the problem? What if a firefight breaks out between the two and people are killed: who is going to investigate and arrest the perpetrators?

Private police departments aren't a new idea. It's just historically associated with a breakdown in civilization. Unchallenged, a private police force can mutate into a private army and from there you go to private fiefdoms.

Would you be freer under a system like that? Would you have more choices? Yeah, you could choose to create your own police department, or go beg Bill Gates (kiss his ring first) to protect you. Is that an advance in freedom?

Tempscire

20th Oct 2010, 03:06 PM

Privatized police... What an idea. The reason we have a public police department is to PROTECT us from people with their own privatized police forces.
Police do not exist to proactively protect anyone. They can only react to crime that has happened by investigating or hopefully apprehending the proper transgressor, and their ability to do that is limited by budget or even just simple facts of reality (someone steals cash from you probably won't be tracked down, for instance). They have the effect of protecting us, kinda, as a result of the aforementioned activities, but directly protecting people? No. For example, someone is stalking you. You can report it and file a restraining order, but there's nothing the police can really do until the person is/has done something violent to you.

They both accuse each other of being thieves! Which police department do you trust to resolve the problem?
Neither. The police are only there to stop the shouting and one way or another get them peaceably into court where a judge can settle the claim, perhaps bringing them into court themselves for any relevant charges they may have racked up along the way.

Mistermook

20th Oct 2010, 04:56 PM

Police do exist as a proactive protection, as much as they represent the justice system they're pledged to serve. A cop on a corner isn't preventing crime, but he's certainly reminding people of the consequences of committing crime. Neighborhoods that never see police come through ever? It's probably fairly easy to imagine that committing a crime in those places might not draw a police response.

I'm not a big fan of cops, but that's in implementation and exceptions for abuse. The notion of police is a good one, and "private police" is a terribly bad one for all the reasons previously mentioned.

Doc Doofus

21st Oct 2010, 12:14 AM

Police proactively protect people all the time. Did you ever watch Cops? Police respond to a report of a Domestic Disturbance, wife and husband shouting and throwing things and getting ready to kill each other. The crime is "domestic disturbance," but that is really an excuse for the police to intervene before a worse crime takes place.

A man on a plane makes a joke about how maybe his shoes will explode because his feet hurt. Everybody knows its a tasteless joke, but the air marshall wrestles him to the ground, shoots him up with valium, and sits on him until they get to the ground and arrest him.

You evict your renter. He won't leave, so you get an armed Marshall to come to the house, break down the door, and haul him out, throwing him onto the street. But he's not arrested or charged with a crime.

The police intervene in all kinds of ways. You show up for a peaceful rally against the war. The police are standing in the street wearing riot gear, telling you to disperse or you'll be arrested. Nobody has been injured, no property damaged, but the law is such that they can order you off the street.

You're driving home on New Year's Eve. A police car comes up behind you and flashes its lights, ordering you to pull over. You don't. They call in reinforcements and being a pursuit until you're forced out of your car to the ground, hands behind your head. You weren't drunk. You just didn't pull over your car when they asked. Crime committed? Not pulling over when a cop asked you to.

I'm wasting my time. There are too many examples. The fact is, the police are a powerful force for coercive action. And whomever is paying those police is in a powerful position. If it's not the government, if it's a private police department serving a large corporation with its own ends and purposes, then you have no vote or say in what happens.

pinketamine

21st Oct 2010, 12:35 AM

Honestly, I don't really know where the USA is going to... Privatizing everything is a REALLY bad idea, in my opinion.

Oaktree

21st Oct 2010, 04:15 AM

I've seen it rationalized as showing the ability to complete a serious undertaking, willingness to learn, and of course, in the classical sense, liberal arts teach about the various facets of life, making a person well-rounded intellectually, especially if you want to get into the concept of "college is not supposed to be job training." Of course, in economic terms, there is the supply/demand issue: lots of supply of college degrees = less value per each than they once had. But that's a whole other topic, I think.

If a company thinks that that chance of having a more dedicated worker is worth the extra money, that's their choice. I think there is somewhat of a gap between what companies can afford to pay and what people need to earn to pay for college in our current system because government intervention makes it very expensive to hire new workers. I think that the gap would be better bridged in a free market because the two would have a more direct link.

In the movie version of the musical 1776 (haha), someone delivers a line about how people would rather "protect the possibility of becoming rich than face the reality of being poor." So between political interests who have been influenced by the wealthy to give them lower tax rates, and the people who are in that lower middle-class but have been convinced to vote against their best interests, there isn't as steep a jump for the upper levels as there arguably should be. For example, I have hazy recollection of Obama's proposed tax strategy from a year or so ago, and there was all this rhetoric about it raising taxes for most people, when in actuality it lowered taxes for basically everyone earning below $250k. That sort of thing. Personally I'd be all for having a sharper rise, but it's not solely up to me. :king:

Edit: actually, I've drifted fairly off topic now, I think. Oh well.

I think a lot of what people talked about regarding the tax increase was the fact that he couldn't settle on a number. He said 250,000 at one point, 200,000 at another, and people were worried that he was going to keep decreasing that number. As it is, Obama hasn't kept many of his campaign promises so far, which is in some ways good (in my opinion) and in other ways quite terrible. For example, he didn't run on his labor union connections, but he's certainly been doing everything in his power to make them happy since entering office. But now I'm drifting off topic, too.

Socialist Countries Set to Recover Quicker from Recession (http://www.thedailybanter.com/tdb/2009/08/socialist-countries-set-to-recover-quicker-from-recession.html)

I honestly don't have the time to do the research about the claims of this article. I can tell you that socialist programs do not always work. The New Deal did very little to help the US out of the Great Depression - it was the war and the sudden availability of work that did that. Also, money doesn't magically appear out of nowhere. Paying people 70-80% unemployment is a massive drain on the system. You are taking money from people who are working a producing valuable goods and services and giving it to people who are producing nothing. Production is what creates new wealth. By paying such high unemployment rates, you are reducing the overall capability for the creation of wealth in that country. Maybe after my upcoming exams I'll come back to this and do more research on the matter.

Let's do a little math here. Let's take, oh I don't know... I often talk about Denmark, so let's take Denmark, and the US. I'll use easy numbers, and this is more for the sake of theory and explanation than anything else. I'll try out this new attachment system, as I couldn't get the chart I made to work here (what with all the spaces and such).

So yeah, attachment. It a .rar, with an .rtf document

I can't view this on the computer I'm using right now. I'm still working with my dad's netbook since my laptop broke, and he doesn't have any sort of unpacking program on here.

EDIT: In case the point was missed - yes, socialist countries like the Scandinavian countries may pay more in taxes, quite a bit more. However, they also receive more benefits from such a heavy taxation.

Not nearly comparable to the benefits that people could be receiving through their own labor under a less restrictive system.

And you know? It's sort of funny. In a way, libertarianism is like Marxism (or at least Marx himself). He believed that, when the Proletariat inevitably usurps the Bourgeoisie, they, the Proletariat, will elect intellectual leaders until the time which was the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. During that time, the Proletariat would have developed skills and become so capable for themselves, that the leadership would no longer be necessary, and would simply be phased out into true classless Communism. How is libertarianism like Marxism? Well, as Oaktree has demonstrated, the belief is that, there does not need to be government "interference" as people will come together to benefit each other out of the goodness of their hearts, and that the banks will eventually come to a time where they are so capable that they can regulate themselves effectively. Both ignore the simple fact that humans as a whole are power-hungry, stupid, self-interested, and irrational creatures. That we have just as much capability, if not more, to destroy what we created or even cherish. Both ignore the precedence of history.

People do what is in their own best interests first. They do need to work within the interests of others as well, though, because their own interests are at least partially reliant on the interests of others. Free trade involves a transaction that is best for both parties. Thus, both parties come out richer. In this way, extreme selfishness can't persist because people can't effectively make business interactions with others if their intent is to suck the other guy dry. That is the main point that I wish to convey. However, there are always going to be human emotions involved. Sometimes people do what is not necessarily in their "best interests" simply out of a desire to do good. That is why there are thriving charity organizations. Of course there will be people that do bad things as well, but society can punish those people, even without a government, by ostracizing them. By being self-interested, but moderating that self-interest based on the reality of the way society works, people can do what is best both for themselves and for others.

I disagree that a libertarian society ignores the precedence of history. The early American government was very sparse. There was very little government interference into the lives of citizens. Yet, America quickly became one of the most successful countries, not only of the time, but in the history of the world. America's technologies grew faster, its economy was stronger, and its society was, in most regards, more forward-thinking. Slavery certainly marred some of that forward-thinking, but overall, American society was more free than others.

Privatized police... What an idea. The reason we have a public police department is to PROTECT us from people with their own privatized police forces. Like the Crips and the Bloods and the Mafia. In fact, that's how mobs and gangs form -- they evolve to fill in gaps in the criminal justice system.

<snipped for length>

If you consider a community, it is most likely that everyone in that community who feels threatened by a private police force would pay into the private police force in order to be protected by it. It is unlikely that a small community would be able to put together the funds for a large and well-armed private police department to terrorize those who aren't under its protection. In a larger community, you would probably desire police protection anyway, as large communities tend to have more crime.

Further, there may be some people who prefer not to pay for a private police department whether the rest of the community uses one or not. Some people may simply decide that they don't want a part of it and they can defend themselves if the police department tries to terrorize them.

And finally, police departments are composed of people. People tend to have moral sentiments that are generally against harming others. While power tends to corrupt, there is a smaller gap in power between the police and the people in a free society. Police don't have the presupposition of legal authority that might make them feel like they can do anything they want. They also would, like anyone else, prefer to keep their lives. If two companies are warring over a product (a rather fruitless effort under a system with limited or no patent laws), it's not likely that they would be able to get a lot of people to fight their war for them, unless it was a very sweet deal. Even then, people can recognize that tangible gains don't help them much if they're dead. I would say that most wars are due to jingoism, propaganda, and similar extreme ideological influences. I doubt that Microsoft and Apple would find it very easy to get people riled up over a few lines of command script.

Alright, this is really finally: what you are suggesting would happen with corporations is analogous to dictatorship. People historically have not stood by under severe oppression for very long. If a company tried to gain that kind of power, it would lose so much more quickly because all it would take is people not buying their product. Power structures are never all-powerful. The iron-fisted ones always benefit far fewer people than they screw over, giving them far more enemies than allies.

Honestly, I don't really know where the USA is going to... Privatizing everything is a REALLY bad idea, in my opinion.

The US isn't going toward privatization of everything. It is moving very much in the opposite direction right now, particularly with the healthcare bill and the strong governmental favoritism toward the unions, but for far more reasons than that.

ElementMK

21st Oct 2010, 06:25 AM

Let's do a little math here. Let's take, oh I don't know... I often talk about Denmark, so let's take Denmark, and the US. I'll use easy numbers, and this is more for the sake of theory and explanation than anything else. I'll try out this new attachment system, as I couldn't get the chart I made to work here (what with all the spaces and such).Hrmph. I hardly believe Denmark is the go-to country for social and economic progress. Let's take a few statistics I pulled out of my ass to prove you wrong.

% of pop. that sounds funny:

America: >6% (pop. of Minnesota and N. Dakota divided by US)
Denmark: 100% (it's all gargling and saliva)

# of mountain ranges:

America: 2 major ranges, and several minor ranges.
Denmark: HA HA HA.

# of city names that can actually be pronounced:

America: A fair majority of them.
Denmark: Copenhagen? Try "København" and get back to me.

# of people that are me:

America: 1 (fuck yeah!)
Denmark: >1

As you can see, your points are pretty much moot when compared to my expertly-researched statistics.

mangaroo

21st Oct 2010, 07:07 AM

# of people that are me:

America: 1 (fuck yeah!)
Denmark: >1

More than one people in Denmark are you? Dude! You've been cloned!

ElementMK

21st Oct 2010, 07:10 AM

More than one people in Denmark are you? Dude! You've been cloned!It sounds more like a case of foreign outsourcing, really.

Nekowolf

21st Oct 2010, 11:47 AM

@Element Leaf

Uhhhh...

Yeah... okay? Were you being funny/sarcastic?

RoseCity

21st Oct 2010, 04:07 PM

I don't think that there should be anything more than the bare minimum of government involved in a town, state, or country. In my ideal world, the US wouldn't so much be a government as a collection of relatively like-minded people. I think that we should operate more like communities of individuals that freely trade amongst themselves and with other countries, where it is beneficial. Really, I would hope for a united world, but I don't realistically think that it would happen.

Now, I don't know that this ideal can be fully realized because it is still necessary to have something that is similar in function to a military, for defensive purposes (though not aggressive purposes, unless it is quite clear that that is the only way to deter a threat). I'm inclined to think that it is possible to have a privatized military, though there is a problem in the usage of such a force. If a large portion of the country were to desire the force to attack another country, that is something that I would not agree with and something that I would not want to be held responsible for. Yet it does make sense for everyone protected by the military to pay for it. Of course the same issue applies with a government-controlled military as well. Essentially, I'm not sure about the most moral and fair way to utilize a military, but I'm sure that we need one in the world that we live in. Of course, given the popularity of socialist ideology at present, my ideal for a free society isn't likely to happen anyway.

I've been thinking about it, and, in theory, I agree with you. Or at least I don't disagree with you. (And maybe I'm not even understanding you correctly). I'll have to think about it more but I don't think I'll be any closer to answers. This topic ties my head up in knots.
How I think I agree with you is, I believe our federal government is hopelessly corrupt. So every person would be wise to look out for themselves as best they can. Because you can say, for example, that the US should have single payer health insurance, but I heard that one reason the US Congress doesn't want it, is because then more people will live longer and be around to collect Social Security longer, etc. (I heard that on NPR but maybe I'm wrong.) This while the Congress votes itself big pay raises and fabulous health benefits.
I don't think your ideal is going to be implemented any time soon either. Because it posits a world in which people are valued as individuals, instead of just things to exploit.

pinketamine

21st Oct 2010, 10:13 PM

Well, about some of the reasons why US does not spend money in the Health care system, maybe this gives you an idea
Total U.S. military spending in 2008, more than $600 billion, was over 41% of global military spending and greater than the next fourteen largest national military expenditures combined. The per capita spending of $1,967 was about nine times the world average.
A 2009 study estimated that lack of insurance is associated with nearly 45,000 deaths a year.
I think that most if not all of the people who don't have an insurance is just because they can't afford it.

And after this you hear people from the Tea Party saying this as "a public health care system is for communists" "Obama wants to turn US into a communist country" and shit like that. My thought when I hear these kind of things are just What the hell are you talking about?

fakepeeps7

21st Oct 2010, 10:35 PM

Watch out for the "communists" to the north. We're coming to get you. We'll force you to get medical tests that you don't have to pay for! *evil laugh* :)

I don't know what it's like in other countries, but most people here in Canada do pay for health care in one way or another. It's just that, if you can't afford it, the government will pay for it so you don't go without. Universal health care is a point of pride for Canadians. We recognize that keeping everybody healthy is in our collective best interest. (Of course, the idea and how it's put into practice don't always mesh. We've got waiting lists and doctor shortages -- though part of that is doctors going to the U.S. because they can make better money. If our system doesn't work perfectly, it's partly due to a privatized system existing right next door, draining away our skilled professionals!)

Undercovers_Agent

22nd Oct 2010, 02:38 AM

Actually back on the topic of privatized firefighters. America used to have fully privatized fifre departments, which eventually lead to the creation of paid city firefighters. The reason being is that two rival companies would show up and brawl in the streets, then by the time they finished, 6 or so blocks were burning.

kattenijin

22nd Oct 2010, 05:31 AM

I think there is somewhat of a gap between what companies can afford to pay and what people need to earn to pay for college in our current system because government intervention makes it very expensive to hire new workers. I think that the gap would be better bridged in a free market because the two would have a more direct link.

Load of crap. The reason companies pay as low a salary as they can is to increase profits. If it wasn't for government intervention with such things as a minimum wage (which cannot be lived on anywhere in the country) companies would pay even less.

Doc Doofus

23rd Oct 2010, 12:09 AM

Alright, this is really finally: what you are suggesting would happen with corporations is analogous to dictatorship.

Yup. Corporate dictatorship. There is quite a bit of it in the world. Ask the families of the Iraqi civilians that Blackwater Security(tm) killed. Were they held respionsible for it? Hell no. They can't even be prosecuted in the US. Corporations and government influence are tightly bonded in ways that make all this talk of free markets and corporate libertarianism into a laugh-riot. We are as much at danger of dictatorship from corporations as we are from government, because the line dividing the two is often so razor-thin.

The founder of Blackwater Security is Erik Prince. I met his uncle one time, back in 1981, at an off-year Republican convention in Orange County, California. His uncle (step-father?) is Dick DeVos, founder of Amway Corporation, who was the guest-speaker that night, and also one of the longtime big kahunas of the Republican Party, going back decades. So ask yourself, how did this murderous above-the-law armed private army get its free-market charter? From Republican Party connections. Good luck with starting your own private army, er... security force with government contracts and free access to US Intel and the Whitehouse. It's not a level playing field.

The leap from a situation like Blackwater Security to a privatized local police department becoming the new Blackwater, only killing people at will in your home town, is not a very big one. Oh, wait, would you vote out the politicians that gave them such a deal? They can just make you disappear, as happened when American personnel in Iraq tried to blow the whistle on Blackwater. It's only because of the limited freedom that we do have that Blackwater hasn't done worse, and if a Blackwater-like corporation were to extend its influence to the streets of America, well, kiss all your freedom goodbye.

People historically have not stood by under severe oppression for very long.

Yes, historically, they have. They haven't "stood by" perhaps. Kings, emperors, fuhrers, czars, chairmen. They just had to endure it. It's more the rule than the exception. And you might be surprised just how unfree you are today.

If a company tried to gain that kind of power, it would lose so much more quickly because all it would take is people not buying their product.

Do you remember getting a choice about buying Blackwater's product? I don't. The government chooses that, and Blackwater and DeVos and all their friends have a much greater say in which products the government buys than you do. What are you going to do if you don't like your local police? Stop paying? Well, hell, they can just lobby congress to make you pay them.

fakepeeps7

23rd Oct 2010, 07:10 PM

If a company tried to gain that kind of power, it would lose so much more quickly because all it would take is people not buying their product. Power structures are never all-powerful. The iron-fisted ones always benefit far fewer people than they screw over, giving them far more enemies than allies.

Have you never heard of a monopoly?

I'm not an expert in business, but if there's no regulation at all, what's to stop one company from taking over all of its competition? At that point, it doesn't matter if people are "interested" in buying their product or not; if it's a necessity, they kind of have to.

Doc Doofus

23rd Oct 2010, 11:37 PM

I can answer that one, Fakepeeps, because I was involved in the uber-capitalist free market side of libertarianism for a long time as a true believer, read the books, attended the seminars.

It's an article of absolute faith amongst free market libertarians that monopolies can't happen in a truly free market. That when monopolies do happen, it's because of government interference favoring one corporation over another.

Now, that last part is true. Monopolies do gain huge undue influence over our government because of their economic power and lobbying. They easily manipulate lawmakers to change the laws to favor them and consolidate their power, AT&T back in the 50s being an example, cable companies and their monopolies and squeeze tactics being a more modern example, backbone providers and their anti-net-neutrality lobbying yet another.

But that doesn't invalidate the idea of one corporation establishing a monopoly. You can't really have competition when the powers that be, government or non-government, cooperate to keep the market closed. Look at the way Microsoft has operated for years, reaching for strangleholds on the market through exclusive contracts with suppliers like Dell that had to be broken through anti-trust lawsuits. These things can and do happen, but libertarian theorists just sluff it all off through some kind of magical thinking, blaming it on government.

And let's assume that they are right for a moment, that all monopolies are the result of government intervention. Isn't that just the way of the world? Large powered monied interests throughout history gain undue influence over the government and try to force the law to do their bidding and to favor them.

It's not just a modern phenomenon. You can go back thousands of years and see the same thing happening over and over again. I'm reading Colleen McCullough's dramatized novel series on the early Roman empire right now, the politics that they engaged amongst the elite Roman families (the patricians) to justify to each other the importance of their staying elite and warping the laws in ways that kept them that way, to everybody's detriment.

So the question becomes one we can all agree on: How do you keep large corporations from achieving monopolies and twisting the government to make it their errand boy, further entrenching their power? The more radical libertarian solution is to have no government, or to be more precise, no state. Government would be part of the free market, you subscribing to the governmental entity of your choice in this rather fanciful version of things. Now, this is nice to dick around with in abstract conversation like this, but it's not REALISTIC.

If you can't get rid of government, and government inevitably is manipulated by large corporations to further entrench their interests and power, what do we, the people do? The usual solution is we try to stop them. We try to keep them from taking control of our government. We don't trust them. We try to be skeptical when the corporate lackeys tell us that the large corporations need less regulation, lower taxes, less competition, large no-bid contracts, wars with countries that have resources they want, and trade pacts that favor them but not our country.

The absurd thing is, a lot of people that say they want free markets and call themselves libertarian end up opposing the above. Powerful corporations become their heroes, and corporate leeches are given free reign to destroy the economy and rip off people to the tune of trillions of dollars. And many of us can just watch in awe. That's what we need to fight again, year in, year out, century in, century out.