LTC is closer to thread than the twenty pages of philisophical ranting about the true nature of man ...
The true nature of man is irrelevant. If man is basically good, then no monopoly government is necessary. If Man is basically evil, then a monopoly government is too dangerous, because politicians, bureaucrats and cops are men too.
Even though the nature of man was somewhat woven into parts of our more than 50 scattered pages of discussion of such topics, nature of man was NOT really the essence of the side track... if we should call it a side track.... I think that we were mostly focused around the extent to which government is necessary in a future society which hinged upon questions regarding whether government served any meaningful purpose that would justify receiving taxes whether voluntarily or by force. Surely, some posters were weaving in other topics as well and even deviating from the deviation... and possibly even I was guilty of such..... especially when from time to time my own human nature was put into question... ...
.......... It's all good, no?
We both agree that governance is necessary. It's your conflation of governance with monopoly government that is the sticking point.
Whether I am conflating or NOT, I am trying to use the current world as a starting point, rather than projecting some pie in the sky vision that is built upon a house of cards of conjectures about some speculative vision about "how things could be, if....". One thing you seem to be arguing the same points over and over, including voluntary nature of participation in society - but using different creative terms to say the same thing about your not wanting to be a subject of rules unless you completely agree with them on some ultimately unattainable level of specific consent.
Just using the phrase "the extent to which (monopoly) government is necessary" indicates that you don't quite understand my position, even enough to disagree with it.
Yes, you are making such brilliant points that average individuals do NOT understand the profound nature of your abstractions. Also, maybe you are failing to understand that it may NOT even matter whether or NOT you are correct b/c part of the resolution to be a part of a community is to compromise and to go along with the wishes of the community rather than imposing some superior vision upon the community.. even if you were to be correct. Personally, I am NOT as attached to outcomes, so long as the public is getting what it wants, and ultimately will likely result in the entering into various compromises that will NOT be satisfactory to every single individual. Sometimes, that means that we cannot have our cake and eat it too.
Competing market participants can provide all the services a monopoly can provide and do so for less costs and no coercion. The one thing they can't do is coerce their customers into paying for things they may not want or need. I argue this makes competitive distributed governance a better choice.
Yes, if you are trying to privatize all or a majority of public goods, then it becomes very likely that you are going to fail to allow for the public good to serve the public. As I mentioned before, probably you have been watching too much fox news... which is neither news nor informative... especially getting so passionate about wanting to get your way and wanting to place public goods into market competition. You are correct that some times there are going to be ways to make matters more efficient, but competitive free market forces are NOT necessarily the solution to distributing various public goods and services.
You argue this makes it a worse one.
I argue that you are trying to oversimplify the various levels of government and the various public goods and services that governments need to provide. Your supposed hypothetical system is NOT going to end up covering various needs and goods b/c it will result in a bunch of freeloaders, like you seem to be, who do NOT want to pay, unless they agree with what they are paying.
As to your nature, I assume that you are arguing in good faith. I wouldn't waste my time otherwise.
Of course, I am presenting my information in good faith, and you seem inclined to want to waste time b/c you want to delve back into the substance of arguing. Seems that you recharged yourself over the past few days b/c you are so intent on being correct and winning. Yet, when we are talking about community values, none of us will get to completely call the shots b/c we have to be able to work together to figure out what is best for the community and hopefully, figure out which representatives are going to best serve in the public interest (rather than their personal / private interests).
What concerns me is that you are advocating using threat of force against me for my own good. This is as ludicrous as if I argued that I should rape your sister for her own good. It doesn't matter how good of a mating prospect I am or what her other options are. It's not my decision to make.
You seem to come up with these perversions through a sense of maniacal focus about yourself. IN the end the social contract is one of consent, even though you keep saying that you feel forced. The community is NOT imposed on you, but a state of mind about whether you belong to the community comes from you, not from other imposing their will upon you. I realize that may be too abstract for you to comprehend b/c you keep coming back to the same monotonous assertion that you are being forced. Poor thing.
Maybe the solution is that you have to figure how to live with yourself, and several of you libertarian wanna-be s have been citing Alan Watts... which is fine and dandy.. b/c there is a certain amount of self empowerment that is projected through his teachings.
Similarly, it doesn't matter if monopoly governments made us all infinitely richer, safer or happier. If they don't make us more free, they are not worth having.
Sure there are mixed views about the various goals of government, and freedom is one of those goals... that is weighed by the community.
A government that doesn't allow competition for governance must believe that it couldn't compete in a free market. They may have good reason to believe that.
If U.S. dollars need legal tender laws to ensure their utility as a store of value and medium of exchange, I think this indicates a weakness, not a strength.
Yes, you seem to be repeating an idea that you already stated... that somehow various public goods need to compete, and it seems you are going to come to bad and wrong conclusions if you attempt to put public goods and services into the free market.
In sum, I thought that we had agreed to disagree on some of these questions, and it seems that you want to get into some intricate battle over foundational matters in which we have differing assumptions.... and didn't we already cover these various matters
ad nauseum?
Poll
