Maximum role of Government?

[JA37]

Because it's too damn expensive.

And you won't have those costs otherwise? It's just in the current society you do?

Well, I am advocating removing the single most expensive item from the list, remember.

Too bad you're not advocating cutting costs instead. Replacing one item with lots of others doesn't really help.

[1714791890]

1714791890

[myrkul]

Because it's too damn expensive.

And you won't have those costs otherwise? It's just in the current society you do?

Well, I am advocating removing the single most expensive item from the list, remember.

Too bad you're not advocating cutting costs instead. Replacing one item with lots of others doesn't really help.

How, exactly, am I not advocating cutting costs?

[JA37]

Because it's too damn expensive.

And you won't have those costs otherwise? It's just in the current society you do?

Well, I am advocating removing the single most expensive item from the list, remember.

Too bad you're not advocating cutting costs instead. Replacing one item with lots of others doesn't really help.

How, exactly, am I not advocating cutting costs?

Today you get a lot of things for "free" because other people pay for it for you. People with more money than you.
That goes against your ideology so prices will probably go up for most people if you got to decide how the world should work.
Either that or they get to choose to cut unnecessary spending such as education to pay for food and housing, not to mention security.

[AyeYo]

That's irrelevant.  Groups of citizens hire lobbiests all the time.  If citizens can overcome a private security company, why can they not overcome a coal plant company?

So, you advocate, in addition to taxes, and probably paying that same company for power, that they hire private lobbyists?

You dodged my question.  I'll repost it.

If citizens can overcome a private security company, why can they not overcome a coal plant company?

Necessary expenditures like, Oh, say, housing, and food come to mind. You are suggesting they pay a company for power, pay the government to keep that company in line, and pay a lobbyist to keep the government in line?

I am suggesting that they pay a company to provide power, and then select a company (from several) to keep that company in line. Because not everyone is going to pick the same agency, there will be more agencies watching the power company than under any government monopoly, and it will be done for cheaper because there will be no government to keep in line.

You dodged it again.  Here's the question, try to answer it and stop setting up strawmen.

If citizens can overcome a private security company, why can they not overcome a coal plant company?

No, I didn't. Read it again. I'll bold the relevant section.

Done? Good. Why? Because it's too damn expensive.

I don't follow your illogic.  What do housing and food have to do with anything?  Even if they're relevant, why do housing and food spending prevent them from overcoming the power of a coal plant, but do not prevent them from overcoming the power of a security firm?  Do citizens not have to eat and have rooves over their heads if fighting against a security firm?


Here is my question for the third time.  I think you quite misunderstand it.  Please read it very carefully.  We're comparing two separate (yet functionally identical) situtations, one of which you've said will have an opposite outcome of the other.  I'd like to know your reasoning for that.

If citizens can overcome a private security company, why can they not overcome a coal plant company?

[myrkul]

Today you get a lot of things for "free" because other people pay for it for you. People with more money than you.
That goes against your ideology so prices will probably go up for most people if you got to decide how the world should work.
Either that or they get to choose to cut unnecessary spending such as education to pay for food and housing, not to mention security.

Notice how you had to put free in quotes? That's because TANSTAAFL. And, no. People with "more money than me" do not pay for all of the services I get "free", unless you consider "more money than me" only in the aggregate. You seem to forget that the poor pay taxes, too. (I don't know about in the UK, but in the US, even the income tax refund checks are taxed). Furthermore, I argue that a monopoly is not the most efficient, nor the best, way to provide those services. As such, prices for those services will be lower. If you consider Education to be unnecessary, then by all means, reduce your spending on it. Just don't try and reach into my pocket and tell me what to spend.

If citizens can overcome a private security company, why can they not overcome a coal plant company?

I already told you. If you don't have the reading comprehension, or the math ability to figure out that paying for three services instead of two is more expensive, I can't help you.

[indio007]

You are all leaving out the human factor. While the non-aggression principle is great , it does not take into consideration there are people that straight up want power over men to do their bidding. The government is just a generic machine. A device we have concocted. Evil men want that device.

There in lies the problem. Government could be abolished tomorrow. 20 seconds later there would be people trying to form new governments.
Even if the Constitution consisted of a single law making it illegal to form a government that  protects the nebulous "public interest" .  People would immediately work against that single law demanding the public interest be protected !!!!

Does the public interest need such a massive and dangerous implement of protection?


The public interest has no voice except the people that presume to speak for it by waiving a fistful of unsigned ballots in your face.

[myrkul]

There in lies the problem. Government could be abolished tomorrow. 20 seconds later there would be people trying to form new governments.

Which is why I (and many others before me) acknowledge that there must be a better system already in place before the government is removed. Read up on Agorism.

[JA37]

Notice how you had to put free in quotes? That's because TANSTAAFL. And, no. People with "more money than me" do not pay for all of the services I get "free", unless you consider "more money than me" only in the aggregate. You seem to forget that the poor pay taxes, too. (I don't know about in the UK, but in the US, even the income tax refund checks are taxed). Furthermore, I argue that a monopoly is not the most efficient, nor the best, way to provide those services. As such, prices for those services will be lower. If you consider Education to be unnecessary, then by all means, reduce your spending on it. Just don't try and reach into my pocket and tell me what to spend.

I put free in quotes for you, to avoid the obligatory "but it's not free someone else pays"-response that always follow otherwise. Didn't work though. Next time I'll be sure to explain everything. I know we all pay taxes, what I'm saying is that the poor get more out than they put in, and the rich less so. The rich however have the financial means to provide for himself in other ways. Choices the poor doesn't have.
I would argue that a monopoly absolutely can be the most efficient way to provide a service. I've seen examples of monopolies broken up that have been bad for the customers, and the other way around too. It's not as simple as you think it is. Have a look at the Nordic Power Market which used to be a monopoly, then deregulated, and prices went through the roof.
I don't consider education unnecessary at all, I'm just saying that poor people would have to make choices like that.  People in the US today have to choose not to go to the doctor when they're sick. Virtually nobody in Europe does that. Care to guess why?
I seriously doubt that your ideology would help the poor more than the rich.

[myrkul]

Have a look at the Nordic Power Market which used to be a monopoly, then deregulated, and prices went through the roof.

Did you consider how much tax money was no longer being spent on subsidizing that industry?
Did you consider the real costs of producing electricity?

No, of course not. You only looked at the number on the bill.

[JA37]

Have a look at the Nordic Power Market which used to be a monopoly, then deregulated, and prices went through the roof.

Did you consider how much tax money was no longer being spent on subsidizing that industry?
Did you consider the real costs of producing electricity?

No, of course not. You only looked at the number on the bill.

Faulty assumption.
I know what the production price is. I know about the investments required to maintain and expand the production. I know that the owner, which was the state at the time, made a profit from production. I also know that prices went up over 2000% during cold winter days, from a price that already had gone up to "harmonize" with other markets. While I haven't worked in this field, I have colleagues who do. I am not the bitter consumer that you're implying.

It was a working monopoly for the benefit of the consumers. There were other benefits from deregulation, but it sure as hell wasn't good for the consumers.

And was that the only thing you were going to comment on my long post?

[myrkul]

And was that the only thing you were going to comment on my long post?

It seemed the only argument of substance. You seem to be arguing for price distortions. I will freely admit that I haven't done a lot of investigation into the Nordic Power deregulation, But I live in an area where there is a market on power, and the rates are very competitive.

Medical, I think, is best saved for another discussion, the factors affecting the price of healthcare are exceedingly complex.

[AyeYo]

I already told you. If you don't have the reading comprehension, or the math ability to figure out that paying for three services instead of two is more expensive, I can't help you.

LOL

I'll let you figure out why that's such a dumb statement.

[myrkul]

I already told you. If you don't have the reading comprehension, or the math ability to figure out that paying for three services instead of two is more expensive, I can't help you.

LOL

I'll let you figure out why that's such a dumb statement.

You mean you'll finally shut the hell up? Wonders never cease.

[ascent]

Showing possible flaws in my suggestion does not back up your claims that a monopoly is better. Try harder.

Why should I try harder? Your statement seems to be acknowledging possible flaws in your system already.

[myrkul]

Showing possible flaws in my suggestion does not back up your claims that a monopoly is better. Try harder.

Why should I try harder? Your statement seems to be acknowledging possible flaws in your system already.

But not proving that the system we have is any better. (or do you propose a different system entirely? I was never too sure on that.)

[AyeYo]

I already told you. If you don't have the reading comprehension, or the math ability to figure out that paying for three services instead of two is more expensive, I can't help you.

LOL

I'll let you figure out why that's such a dumb statement.

You mean you'll finally shut the hell up? Wonders never cease.

I'm going to ask my question again, because it's still not being answered.  I'll even repost the explanation from my previous post about how to give a good answer.





What do housing and food have to do with anything?  Even if they're relevant, why do housing and food spending prevent them from overcoming the power of a coal plant, but do not prevent them from overcoming the power of a security firm?  Do citizens not have to eat and have rooves over their heads if fighting against a security firm?


Here is my question for the third time.  I think you quite misunderstand it.  Please read it very carefully.  We're comparing two separate (yet functionally identical) situtations, one of which you've said will have an opposite outcome of the other.  I'd like to know your reasoning for that.

If citizens can overcome a private security company, why can they not overcome a coal plant company?

[myrkul]

I already told you. If you don't have the reading comprehension, or the math ability to figure out that paying for three services instead of two is more expensive, I can't help you.

LOL

I'll let you figure out why that's such a dumb statement.

You mean you'll finally shut the hell up? Wonders never cease.

I'm going to ask my question again, because it's still not being answered.  I'll even repost the explanation from my previous post about how to give a good answer.

Fuck. You lied.

[ascent]

But not proving that the system we have is any better. (or do you propose a different system entirely? I was never too sure on that.)

The system we have in place is far from perfect. You'll get no argument from me there. However, given the choice between your system, our current system, or a system that goes in the opposite direction as yours, I'd lean towards the latter two. But let's just say I opt to stay with the current system. It would then appear that I am under less pressure to argue the merits of my system than yours. The point being, that in order for you to affect the radical changes you desire, the burden falls upon you to make a cogent case for those changes.

You are being asked to make a compelling argument for the changes you desire, and admitting flaws in your proposed system and choosing not to address them will not work.

[AyeYo]

I already told you. If you don't have the reading comprehension, or the math ability to figure out that paying for three services instead of two is more expensive, I can't help you.

LOL

I'll let you figure out why that's such a dumb statement.

You mean you'll finally shut the hell up? Wonders never cease.

I'm going to ask my question again, because it's still not being answered.  I'll even repost the explanation from my previous post about how to give a good answer.

Fuck. You lied.

Do you want me to post it again?  Ok, I will.  Copy/pasta is easy.



What do housing and food have to do with anything?  Even if they're relevant, why do housing and food spending prevent them from overcoming the power of a coal plant, but do not prevent them from overcoming the power of a security firm?  Do citizens not have to eat and have rooves over their heads if fighting against a security firm?


Here is my question for the third time.  I think you quite misunderstand it.  Please read it very carefully.  We're comparing two separate (yet functionally identical) situtations, one of which you've said will have an opposite outcome of the other.  I'd like to know your reasoning for that.

If citizens can overcome a private security company, why can they not overcome a coal plant company?

[myrkul]

I already told you. If you don't have the reading comprehension, or the math ability to figure out that paying for three services instead of two is more expensive, I can't help you.

LOL

I'll let you figure out why that's such a dumb statement.

You mean you'll finally shut the hell up? Wonders never cease.

I'm going to ask my question again, because it's still not being answered.  I'll even repost the explanation from my previous post about how to give a good answer.

Fuck. You lied.

Do you want me to post it again?  Ok, I will.  Copy/pasta is easy.

I thought you were going to let me figure out why that was a dumb statement? When does that happen, exactly?