Maximum role of Government?

[myrkul]

That's like saying, try to buy a Camry from Ford.  First Class mail is a USPS trademark name.  When you tell me what you're actually trying to say, I'll give you a link so that you can send it via FedEx.

From Wikipedia:

First-class mail in the U.S. includes postcards, letters, large envelopes (flats) and small packages, providing each piece weighs 13 ounces or less. Delivery is given priority over second-class (newspapers and magazines), third class (bulk advertisements), and fourth-class mail (books and media packages). First-class mail prices are based on both the shape and weight of the item being mailed. Pieces over 13 ounces can be sent as Priority Mail. In the U.K., First Class letters are simply a priority option over Second Class, at a slightly higher cost. Royal Mail aims to (but does not guarantee to) deliver all First Class letters the day after postage.

Primarily, I'm concerned with Postcards and letters.

[1713887246]

1713887246

[myrkul]

I went with moderate.

For any society to exist, it needs some kind of defence, border control, courts and police.  Otherwise, you will have unlimited immigration and criminality.

All of these services can be provided privately, Though why you would need border control escapes me.

[AyeYo]

That's like saying, try to buy a Camry from Ford.  First Class mail is a USPS trademark name.  When you tell me what you're actually trying to say, I'll give you a link so that you can send it via FedEx.

From Wikipedia:

First-class mail in the U.S. includes postcards, letters, large envelopes (flats) and small packages, providing each piece weighs 13 ounces or less. Delivery is given priority over second-class (newspapers and magazines), third class (bulk advertisements), and fourth-class mail (books and media packages). First-class mail prices are based on both the shape and weight of the item being mailed. Pieces over 13 ounces can be sent as Priority Mail. In the U.K., First Class letters are simply a priority option over Second Class, at a slightly higher cost. Royal Mail aims to (but does not guarantee to) deliver all First Class letters the day after postage.

Primarily, I'm concerned with Postcards and letters.

Once again, me doing your five second long Google homework for you: http://fedex.com/us/government/us/ways-to-ship.html

Notice in the package size field that nearly all shipping options include "letter" size.  Obviously you've never got a letter sent via FedEx before.  

[myrkul]

That's like saying, try to buy a Camry from Ford.  First Class mail is a USPS trademark name.  When you tell me what you're actually trying to say, I'll give you a link so that you can send it via FedEx.

From Wikipedia:

First-class mail in the U.S. includes postcards, letters, large envelopes (flats) and small packages, providing each piece weighs 13 ounces or less. Delivery is given priority over second-class (newspapers and magazines), third class (bulk advertisements), and fourth-class mail (books and media packages). First-class mail prices are based on both the shape and weight of the item being mailed. Pieces over 13 ounces can be sent as Priority Mail. In the U.K., First Class letters are simply a priority option over Second Class, at a slightly higher cost. Royal Mail aims to (but does not guarantee to) deliver all First Class letters the day after postage.

Primarily, I'm concerned with Postcards and letters.

Once again, me doing your five second long Google homework for you: http://fedex.com/us/government/us/ways-to-ship.html

Notice in the package size field that nearly all shipping options include "letter" size.  Obviously you've never got a letter sent via FedEx before.  

And Post cards? btw, 'letter size' is 8.5" x 11" NOT the 3-fold letter envelope.

Also, Can I choose not to receive mail from the USPS? I can refuse delivery on any package sent.

Oh, and that link you gave me, is for the US government. Agencies, not 'citizens'. Try again.

[Grant]

Obviously you've never heard of government options...

To be more specific. Can i cancel my current subscription to the Democratic Party, or do i have to live with that provider for the rest of their term ? It's not just that they breached the contract (they didn't deliver the service they promised, if that happened with my ISP i could just cancel my binding contract), what happened here is that a group of people who go by the "nick name: majority" forced me to choose that provider of government services, what's next will i have to change my ISP because majority of the people do ?

If i cannot cancel that subscription-service, then why do we need private ISP's ? If the most efficient and fairest model for services i need is to have the majority choose just one monopoly for everyone for a longer term, then that model should be copied to everything else.

[myrkul]

If i cannot cancel that subscription-service, then why do we need private ISP's ? If the most efficient and fairest model for services i need is to have the majority choose just one monopoly for everyone for a longer term, then that model should be copied to everything else.

That's genius! We'll let everyone vote on which monopoly to choose, and that way, everyone will be happy!

[Hawker]

I went with moderate.

For any society to exist, it needs some kind of defence, border control, courts and police.  Otherwise, you will have unlimited immigration and criminality.

All of these services can be provided privately, Though why you would need border control escapes me.

You don't care if Africa and Asia empty themselves and their social problems into where you live.  I do - immigration of skilled workers that are urgently needed is great but having millions of unskilled immigrants would be a bad idea.   

[CNMOH]

All services and goods should be provided collectively.

That's the only way to have a truly classless society.

[myrkul]

I went with moderate.

For any society to exist, it needs some kind of defence, border control, courts and police.  Otherwise, you will have unlimited immigration and criminality.

All of these services can be provided privately, Though why you would need border control escapes me.

You don't care if Africa and Asia empty themselves and their social problems into where you live.  I do - immigration of skilled workers that are urgently needed is great but having millions of unskilled immigrants would be a bad idea.   

Why?

[Grant]

You don't care if Africa and Asia empty themselves and their social problems into where you live.  I do - immigration of skilled workers that are urgently needed is great but having millions of unskilled immigrants would be a bad idea.   

You do realize why Africa and parts of Asia has problems ? Because we bankrupted their economies. They used to be perfectly sustainable until our governments came down there to "improve things". It started with our plundering of their mines, destruction of their farming industry, and now is followed with the so-called "foreign AID" (an AID that disallows them to restart their farming business, we flood them with so much food that any farming business down there is doomed to fail, and farming is the basis of any economy).

Of course it would be painful to move out of this state our own governments created, but in the long run far better than continuing to abuse them.

[Hawker]

You don't care if Africa and Asia empty themselves and their social problems into where you live.  I do - immigration of skilled workers that are urgently needed is great but having millions of unskilled immigrants would be a bad idea.   

You do realize why Africa and parts of Asia has problems ? Because we bankrupted their economies. They used to be perfectly sustainable until our governments came down there to "improve things". It started with our plundering of their mines, destruction of their farming industry, and now is followed with the so-called "foreign AID" (an AID that disallows them to restart their farming business, we flood them with so much food that any farming business down there is doomed to fail, and farming is the basis of any economy).

Of course it would be painful to move out of this state our own governments created, but in the long run far better than continuing to abuse them.

"We" bankrupted their economies?

Unless you are a senior guy at the IMF, I assume you mean your grandparents helped colonise places. And I assume you are richer as a result of your ancestors' looting Africa and Asia.

My folks had nothing to do with it so less of the "we" please. 

[myrkul]

You don't care if Africa and Asia empty themselves and their social problems into where you live.  I do - immigration of skilled workers that are urgently needed is great but having millions of unskilled immigrants would be a bad idea.   

Why?

So... Were you planning on answering why having a large influx of workers will be a bad thing, or were you just going to make an unfounded statement, and let it stand?

[Grant]

"We" bankrupted their economies?

Unless you are a senior guy at the IMF, I assume you mean your grandparents helped colonise places. And I assume you are richer as a result of your ancestors' looting Africa and Asia.

My folks had nothing to do with it so less of the "we" please. 

Neither me nor my ancestors had anything to do with it, however if you happen to be a European or an North-American (like me), our increased standard of living is due to their suffering. Without it we'd be far down the ranks. We enabled and continue to enable this genocide by paying our taxes myfriend.

[Hawker]

You don't care if Africa and Asia empty themselves and their social problems into where you live.  I do - immigration of skilled workers that are urgently needed is great but having millions of unskilled immigrants would be a bad idea.  

Why?

So... Were you planning on answering why having a large influx of workers will be a bad thing, or were you just going to make an unfounded statement, and let it stand?

Firstly, there is the matter of skilled workers.  A bricklayer from Somalia will always accept lower wages than one from London.  The Somali sleeps in a hostel and sends his disposable money home to his starving family.  The Cockney has to pay rent for his family in London.  If the Cockney accepts Somali wages, his family will be evicted. I can't see how forcing skilled workers into homelessness is good for our society.

Secondly, I don't want to live in a society where the majority don't speak your language, is illiterate in their own language, have a religion that regards you as a sub human kaffir, regards your culture as decadent and feels the right to kill you if you make a cartoon they disapprove of.

Personally I like living in a society where most people speak English, where most people feel religion is a private matter and where acts of violence result in the police taking the violent person away.  Immigration control makes sense to me for that reason.

[myrkul]

Firstly, there is the matter of skilled workers.  A bricklayer from Somalia will always accept lower wages than one from London.  The Somali sleeps in a hostel and sends his disposable money home to his starving family.  The Cockney has to pay rent for his family in London.  If the Cockney accepts Somali wages, his family will be evicted. I can't see how forcing skilled workers into homelessness is good for our society.

Secondly, I don't want to live in a society where the majority don't speak your language, is illiterate in their own language, have a religion that regards you as a sub human kaffir, regards your culture as decadent and feels the right to kill you if you make a cartoon they disapprove of.

Personally I like living in a society where most people speak English, where most people feel religion is a private matter and where acts of violence result in the police taking the violent person away.  Immigration control makes sense to me for that reason.

OK, so you're concerned about competition, and culture clash.

You make another assumption here: That a bricklayer from Somalia will always work for cheaper. There's no guarantee of that. But I will grant you that competition will reduce the price of labor in that field. But remember the Somali still has to pay for housing, as well as that check back home. So the cost of labor would not go below the cost of housing, making your conclusion that the native bricklayer would be homeless false.

The culture clash is a valid concern, however. So, you should live in a community with restrictions on who can live there. There's no reason you should force your entire society to, however.

[AyeYo]

"We" bankrupted their economies?

Unless you are a senior guy at the IMF, I assume you mean your grandparents helped colonise places. And I assume you are richer as a result of your ancestors' looting Africa and Asia.

My folks had nothing to do with it so less of the "we" please. 

Neither me nor my ancestors had anything to do with it, however if you happen to be a European or an North-American (like me), our increased standard of living is due to their suffering. Without it we'd be far down the ranks. We enabled and continue to enable this genocide by paying our taxes myfriend.

True story.

[Hawker]

Firstly, there is the matter of skilled workers.  A bricklayer from Somalia will always accept lower wages than one from London.  The Somali sleeps in a hostel and sends his disposable money home to his starving family.  The Cockney has to pay rent for his family in London.  If the Cockney accepts Somali wages, his family will be evicted. I can't see how forcing skilled workers into homelessness is good for our society.

Secondly, I don't want to live in a society where the majority don't speak your language, is illiterate in their own language, have a religion that regards you as a sub human kaffir, regards your culture as decadent and feels the right to kill you if you make a cartoon they disapprove of.

Personally I like living in a society where most people speak English, where most people feel religion is a private matter and where acts of violence result in the police taking the violent person away.  Immigration control makes sense to me for that reason.

OK, so you're concerned about competition, and culture clash.

You make another assumption here: That a bricklayer from Somalia will always work for cheaper. There's no guarantee of that. But I will grant you that competition will reduce the price of labor in that field. But remember the Somali still has to pay for housing, as well as that check back home. So the cost of labor would not go below the cost of housing, making your conclusion that the native bricklayer would be homeless false.

The culture clash is a valid concern, however. So, you should live in a community with restrictions on who can live there. There's no reason you should force your entire society to, however.

So you accept that unlimited immigration to England from Somalia will result in a fall of living standards for English workers as they are forced to reduce their wages to the levels Somalis will accept. 

That alone means your whole idea is a waste of time.  Why would anyone vote for a policy that explicitly sets out to make them poorer?  Its never going to happen.

I could go on to point out that Somalia itself is a libertarian paradise along the lines you propose.  No state.  No police. No army.  But what's the point? 

[myrkul]

So you accept that unlimited immigration to England from Somalia will result in a fall of living standards for English workers as they are forced to reduce their wages to the levels Somalis will accept. 

That alone means your whole idea is a waste of time.  Why would anyone vote for a policy that explicitly sets out to make them poorer?  Its never going to happen.

I could go on to point out that Somalia itself is a libertarian paradise along the lines you propose.  No state.  No police. No army.  But what's the point? 

Vote? I'd like to point out that in our informal little poll, that scenario is winning. And again you make an assumption: "as they are forced to reduce their wages to the levels Somalis will accept. "

Who's to say it won't be the English workers driving down the price, trying to squeeze out the Somalis?

[Hawker]

So you accept that unlimited immigration to England from Somalia will result in a fall of living standards for English workers as they are forced to reduce their wages to the levels Somalis will accept. 

That alone means your whole idea is a waste of time.  Why would anyone vote for a policy that explicitly sets out to make them poorer?  Its never going to happen.

I could go on to point out that Somalia itself is a libertarian paradise along the lines you propose.  No state.  No police. No army.  But what's the point? 

Vote? I'd like to point out that in our informal little poll, that scenario is winning. And again you make an assumption: "as they are forced to reduce their wages to the levels Somalis will accept. "

Who's to say it won't be the English workers driving down the price, trying to squeeze out the Somalis?

I admit I didn't think of the English reducing their standard of living below that of Somalis.

England is a democracy so a policy of unlimited immigration would require a political party to propose it and win elections.  Feel free to suggest a benefit to your idea as I can't see how anyone would go door to door asking people to vote for such a daft idea.

[myrkul]

England is a democracy so a policy of unlimited immigration would require a political party to propose it and win elections.  Feel free to suggest a benefit to your idea as I can't see how anyone would go door to door asking people to vote for such a daft idea.

The US used to have that policy, even had it engraved on a statue... I'd also like to point out that it was at a time of great prosperity...

But regardless, I don't believe that a Libertarian and certainly not Anarchist society will ever come about via a vote. Primarily because voting requires Government OK. If it changed anything, it would be illegal.