Governments will want their TAX ??? The solution is obvious but scary.

[ribuck]

... privately ran public safety organizations have existed in the US in the past, and in many places they still do

Fire Brigades originated after the Great Fire of London as privately-run services provided by insurance companies. This gave them a very strong incentive to put out the fire as quickly as possible, to avoid the insurance payout. Only if you did not have fire insurance would you need to pay per fire.

To show that your building was insured and to facilitate the quickest response, you would attach to your building a fire mark provided by the insurance company.

You may hear it said that when there was a fire, several insurance companies would attend to see whose customer it was, then all but one would leave. However, this was obviously inefficient and the individual insurance companies adopted reciprocal arrangements, then later merged their firefighting operations into the London Fire Engine Establishment.

The government (specifically, London's Metropolitan Board of Works) took over the fire brigade in 1866.

[Garrett Burgwardt]

... privately ran public safety organizations have existed in the US in the past, and in many places they still do

Fire Brigades originated after the Great Fire of London as privately-run services provided by insurance companies. This gave them a very strong incentive to put out the fire as quickly as possible, to avoid the insurance payout. Only if you did not have fire insurance would you need to pay per fire.

To show that your building was insured and to facilitate the quickest response, you would attach to your building a fire mark provided by the insurance company.

You may hear it said that when there was a fire, several insurance companies would attend to see whose customer it was, then all but one would leave. However, this was obviously inefficient and the individual insurance companies adopted reciprocal arrangements, then later merged their firefighting operations into the London Fire Engine Establishment.

The government (specifically, London's Metropolitan Board of Works) took over the fire brigade in 1866.

Thanks for the link and overview - interesting and relevant to a paper I'm writing

[Anonymous]

Regulations benefit existing companies and drive out competition.

Private jails = most favoured and well connected . I doubt you would get a company that didn't have some sort of ties to the existing system starting one.

The full body scanners at airports ? The former head of homeland security has the contract........


Corporatism/soft fascism is alive and well.

[error]

Try your luck with a privatized fire company then instead of a socialist one (like the USA and most of the world uses).  It has been done and lives and buildings we lost. 

Already private jails in the USA have led to the innocent being jailed for money.  Want to try your luck with private police?

Extraordinary claims. Can you provide sources for either of them?

[FreeMoney]

Try your luck with a privatized fire company then instead of a socialist one (like the USA and most of the world uses).  It has been done and lives and buildings we lost.  

Already private jails in the USA have led to the innocent being jailed for money.  Want to try your luck with private police?

Eh, are you suggesting that if lives or buildings are lost or people are wrongly imprisoned by a system then that system should be ended? Because I can get behind that logic 100%. Let's do this in the morning.

[ribuck]

Because I can get behind that logic 100%.

Seconded.

[rebuilder]

Opinion on evolution is quite related to Homosexuality.

How can one coming from an evolutionary point of view explain it?
---clip---

I don't see the relevance of  your arguments, unless you're arguing we should only accept as reality things we like.  There is little evidence people choose to be homosexual. It seems to me sexuality is a spectrum, perhaps even a multidimensional grid, between the extremes of which we all fall somewhere, depending on the complex interactions of nature and nurture. Anyway, I digress.

If I understand your argument correctly, you are saying that if nature seems to be saying homosexuality is a disadvantage, the logical thing to do would be to be against homosexuality. There are two problems with this: Nature says no such thing - that is a human interpretation of it. Also, I do not believe it is very easy to change one's sexual orientation, especially at the extremes. Being against homosexuality is like being against rainy weather. One may not like it, but it exists and will continue to exist, whatever one thinks of it.

[hugolp]

In Europe the working class was able to grab the state by the throat after the war-years, and ... MAKE the state provide them with decent (decommodified) healthcare, housing and education and the right to eat.

...thereby dooming them to miserable lives of semi-poverty and blocking them from fulfilling their potential.

There are plenty of statistics showing that people who receive government benefits have lower job satisfaction, lower educational attainment, poorer health, shorter lifespan, are more likely to be in prison, etc. Some of these are quite good controlled studies (e.g. of families on opposite sides of the same street who happen to be in different towns and therefore qualify for different government "benefits").

However, time is short and I'm not going to dig out the references right now. I accept that this makes this post fairly unconvincing.

And  yet, somehow, the Nordic countries consistently rank high in education, health and life satisfaction studies, despite having rather generous welfare programs.

Well, most Nordic countries have privatized government programs (meaning private companies are payed by the government to provide services like school, health care, etc... No public employees). Its a mixed system. Also, there is petrol there.

And if you look the statistics the nordic countries are not that well off compared to the USA. The Nordic countries would be one of the poorest states (GDP per capita) if they joined the USA. Also, the nordic countries builded their industry during their more free market era. During the 80's they went more into social-democracy and went bankrupt. Since then the social-democrats were voted out of the government and changes towards more free market policies were implemented.

[fergalish]

Homosexuality could confer a direct evolutionary advantage.  Let me think.  Imagine that there is a gene which predisposes its carriers to homosexuality.  The only way such a gene might survive is if it also disposes its carriers to care for the children of their siblings.  For example, someone already pointed out above that younger brothers tend more to homosexuality than older brothers.  Well, would it not make sense, then, that the younger brothers, not having children of their own, would tend to care for the children of their older brother?  So the children would have a higher survival rate and the gene could easily survive.

Even easier - imagine if having blue eyes meant you were more likely to be homosexual.  The advantage of blue eyes could outweigh the disadvantage of homosexuality, and so the gene would survive.

Gene survival is a funny thing.  Your genes don't care if *you* survive, or if *you* have children.  They only care that *they* propagate.  If your death is the best way to obtain that, then that gene will predispose you to dying in those circumstances where the gene's effects are expressed.  And I'm using the word "care" in the same sense as Dawkins does - I'm ascribing a sense of desire to a bunch of molecules (i.e. a "gene") that cannot desire anything.  And, since homosexuality still exists *despite* strong cultural bias against it, my guess is it does somehow confer an advantage to the genes concerned.  Not to the individuals that carry it, but to the genes.

After that, every society and every individual will decide for itself whether it finds homosexuality abhorrent or not.  Once upon a time, people were burned at the stake for having red hair.  Oops.

Guys, this discussion has very definitely bifurcated.  From tax, we're now talking about tax, homosexuality, and safety & security.  It's like those conversations which take on a life of their own - starting from the concert you went to yesterday, you end up talking about pineapples.  Fascinating!

[wb3]

So the children would have a higher survival rate and the gene could easily survive

But the host is doomed. Cause and Effect.

Gene survival is a funny thing.  Your genes don't care if *you* survive, or if *you* have children.  They only care that *they* propagate.  If your death is the best way to obtain that, then that gene will predispose you to dying in those circumstances where the gene's effects are expressed.  And I'm using the word "care" in the same sense as Dawkins does - I'm ascribing a sense of desire to a bunch of molecules (i.e. a "gene") that cannot desire anything.  And, since homosexuality still exists *despite* strong cultural bias against it, my guess is it does somehow confer an advantage to the genes concerned.  Not to the individuals that carry it, but to the genes.

That is a very good argument, one I haven't heard before.

Assuming the Nature Argument:

Agreed, the Genes seek to continue, (they could carless if it has a positive or negative effect on the whole) (Like criminals or anarchists  ).
Your assumption is that they confer an Advantage, they could also be conferring a DisAdvantage, they don't know it is leading to extinction. Sort of like Lemmings running off the cliff. Or it just part of the specification process, it will work or it won't. In the past, before the construct of Abstract Thought, one would not be able to look down the road. As of right now, it looks like that branch is going no where. But we make that conclusion from what knowledge we currently have. It could also be a form of population control in stressed environments but I doubt it cause it seems to be the exact opposite.

After that, every society and every individual will decide for itself whether it finds homosexuality abhorrent or not.  Once upon a time, people were burned at the stake for having red hair.  Oops

And we still put Innocent People to death, Oops   Only the method changed.  All societies will destroy what is perceived to be a threat to that society. Justified or Not. Even the most liberal, when the Mob Rule takes over.

To bring it back to Tax.  I don't care if people are gay, as long as you pay your taxes.

[myrkul]

To bring it back to Tax.  I don't care if people are gay, as long as you pay your taxes.

I don't get why people insist on claiming it... It's not "your" mugging, is it? or "your" robbery? Taxes are theft, plain and simple.

[wb3]

Do you use anything that Taxes generate.  Do you drive "On" the road?  The internet is due to ARPA, funded by Taxes, and now has been handed over to commercial interests.

Taxes are not quite theft, they give back, it is the amount they give back that everyone complains about.

[Anonymous]

Do you use anything that Taxes generate.  Do you drive "On" the road?  The internet is due to ARPA, funded by Taxes, and now has been handed over to commercial interests.

Taxes are not quite theft, they give back, it is the amount they give back that everyone complains about.

>implying roads could not be possible without taxes.
>implying the internet would not be here without taxes.

[myrkul]

Taxes are not quite theft, they give back, it is the amount they give back that everyone complains about.

If they didn't take in the first place, they wouldn't NEED to give back. That they sometimes use taxes for things which benefit the people they stole the money from, IMO, only highlights the fact that usually, they don't.

[error]

Do you use anything that Taxes generate.  Do you drive "On" the road?  The internet is due to ARPA, funded by Taxes, and now has been handed over to commercial interests.

Taxes are not quite theft, they give back, it is the amount they give back that everyone complains about.

That's like saying it's OK if your robber steals your wallet and your car and gives you bus fare so you can get home.

[wb3]

They are not stealing the "wallet or Car",  to properly continue your scenerio, "the robber", just isn't giving you enough of the money that you put into your wallet.  The Robber, would be "stealing' the money before you even received it.  That would be a good robber.  And then he decides to give some of it back, to make you feel better.  If you do indeed feel better, then great.  If you don't then well too bad. But the robber says; "hey, this person didn't make enough money so I will give it all back and let them use the services anyway"  Now, who is the thief.

[Anonymous]

They are not stealing the "wallet or Car",  to properly continue your scenerio, "the robber", just isn't giving you enough of the money that you put into your wallet.  The Robber, would be "stealing' the money before you even received it.  That would be a good robber.  And then he decides to give some of it back, to make you feel better.  If you do indeed feel better, then great.  If you don't then well too bad. But the robber says; "hey, this person didn't make enough money so I will give it all back and let them use the services anyway"  Now, who is the thief.

I don't even know how this could be remotely considered as a reasonable retort.

[wb3]

Dude, when you get your paycheck, the money is already gone.  And if you are running the business, and don't take the money out ahead of time, and if you don't, your business will not remain in good standing under your states AG. They are not taking the money, they never gave it to you.

Now, if your W2 is wrong you might owe some more or less. 

[Anonymous]

Dude, when you get your paycheck, the money is already gone.  And if you are running the business, and don't take the money out ahead of time, and if you don't, your business will not remain in good standing under your states AG. They are not taking the money, they never gave it to you.

Now, if your W2 is wrong you might owe some more or less. 

So, you believe it was the state's to begin with?

[myrkul]

OK: Let's say I kick down your door, go into the kitchen, and make you a sandwich.

I then give you the sandwich, and present you with a bill for my "services", which I expect you to pay under threat of murder.

How have I helped you, exactly?