If you don't like it, then leave.

[Hawker]

...snip...

Why do I get the feeling you have left the facts that don't match your theory out?

I haven't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Letter_Mail_Company

That is a sad story.  However, it doesn't change the fact that most things like waste, health care and crime fighting started off as private and were made government run as the private sector didn't do a good enough job. 

[1714933874]

1714933874

[1714933874]

1714933874

[1714933874]

1714933874

[FredericBastiat]

Sorry, but only some people paying to avoid sewage in the bay does not provide you protection from cholera the way a publicly run sewer does. This is what I am talking about. Even with individual choice, there are actions taken by the few that can have severe, life-threatening effects on the many. And your privatization does not allow for the protection of the many.

I'm sorry, but this is all I got. Arguing with you folks really is like arguing with a brick wall.

The reason why you're arguing with a brick wall is because you're trying to convince us that theft of another person's property is acceptable if it improves a public service. The same logic is employed when taking from the wealthy to give to the impoverished since the poor would have a better life. Wealth distribution is just another colloquialism for theft.

Theft is never justified. The proper construction of law, and the logic and reasoning it exists (prevent theft, injury and enslavement), is the only way to legally deal with others. It is never justified to sacrifice the few for the many, the many for the many, or the many for the few. Never.

Just remind yourself that whenever you try to use law for something other than self defense and restitution, you really are committing a crime. You, your "representative", your "agent", your "government", or your "legislator", makes no difference what you call it, if you use the law for other than the above reason, you are a partner in crime.

Don't conflate lawfulness with whatever can be done with a majority of force, whether you do it personally or with a vote there is no difference (individual vs gang). The ends do not always justify the means.

[Rassah]

...snip...

Why do I get the feeling you have left the facts that don't match your theory out?

I haven't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Letter_Mail_Company

That is a sad story.  However, it doesn't change the fact that most things like waste, health care and crime fighting started off as private and were made government run as the private sector didn't do a good enough job. 

More like an even/equal enough job for the majority. What they say about rising tide raising all boats in economics is true, richer companies making well off people does make things way better for the poorest people too, if only because the new "rich" technology makes the whole world better as a whole. There is plenty of evidence of this, even in things like outsourcing, globalization, and sweatshops. But majority of middle and low income classes out vote the minority whom they are envious of. As a results, our technological and quality of life progress is improving, and more evenly, but at a way slower pace than if that growth had been totally unrestricted. If we had a more libertarian free market society these past two hundred years, you would likely be WAY poorer than the "rich," but would have very likely been living a way more technologically advanced and comfortable lifestyle.
That's my opinion.

[Hawker]

Sorry, but only some people paying to avoid sewage in the bay does not provide you protection from cholera the way a publicly run sewer does. This is what I am talking about. Even with individual choice, there are actions taken by the few that can have severe, life-threatening effects on the many. And your privatization does not allow for the protection of the many.

I'm sorry, but this is all I got. Arguing with you folks really is like arguing with a brick wall.

The reason why you're arguing with a brick wall is because you're trying to convince us that theft of another person's property is acceptable if it improves a public service. The same logic is employed when taking from the wealthy to give to the impoverished since the poor would have a better life. Wealth distribution is just another colloquialism for theft.

Theft is never justified. The proper construction of law, and the logic and reasoning it exists (prevent theft, injury and enslavement), is the only way to legally deal with others. It is never justified to sacrifice the few for the many, the many for the many, or the many for the few. Never.

Just remind yourself that whenever you try to use law for something other than self defense and restitution, you really are committing a crime. You, your "representative", your "agent", your "government", or your "legislator", makes no difference what you call it, if you use the law for other than the above reason, you are a partner in crime.

Don't conflate lawfulness with whatever can be done with a majority of force, whether you do it personally or with a vote there is no difference (individual vs gang). The ends do not always justify the means.

Fred your position is fine if you are happy that the people with money deserve to have it.  What about situations where the people with money only have it because their ancestors conquerored your ancestors, took their lands and your family have lived as sharecroppers since?  Or where the wealth is based on an educated workforce paid for by the taxpayer?

Just because someone owns something doesn't mean they deserve to keep it.  The people who are currently poor may well have a valid claim to that wealth.

[Hawker]

...snip...

Why do I get the feeling you have left the facts that don't match your theory out?

I haven't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Letter_Mail_Company

That is a sad story.  However, it doesn't change the fact that most things like waste, health care and crime fighting started off as private and were made government run as the private sector didn't do a good enough job. 

More like an even/equal enough job for the majority. What they say about rising tide raising all boats in economics is true, richer companies making well off people does make things way better for the poorest people too, if only because the new "rich" technology makes the whole world better as a whole. There is plenty of evidence of this, even in things like outsourcing, globalization, and sweatshops. But majority of middle and low income classes out vote the minority whom they are envious of. As a results, our technological and quality of life progress is improving, and more evenly, but at a way slower pace than if that growth had been totally unrestricted. If we had a more libertarian free market society these past two hundred years, you would likely be WAY poorer than the "rich," but would have very likely been living a way more technologically advanced and comfortable lifestyle.
That's my opinion.

Empirically, that isn't true.  The rich have been getting a bigger percentage for the last 40 years. The poor have seen a real fall in their incomes and in many cases depend on having husband and wife both work in order to pay the bills.

[Rassah]

Empirically, that isn't true.  The rich have been getting a bigger percentage for the last 40 years. The poor have seen a real fall in their incomes and in many cases depend on having husband and wife both work in order to pay the bills.

Incomes have decreased, sure, but compare now to 50 years ago when it comes to things like access to information, movies and music, air conditioning and other house amenities, types of medical treatments, and other varieties of life support and entertainment. Just ten years ago the type of computer and internet speeds I have now would have cost thousands, photographs and music was very expensive and not easily accessible, food was more expensive and limited (Wal Art and H-Mart nearby are nice), and keeping in touch with friends and family was way more difficult and expensive. 60 years ago I likely would have worked at a dirty factory instead of a cushy office. And places like India, Dubai, and Hong Kong, can't even be compared to what they were just 20 years ago.

[RandyFolds]

Libertarianism is escapism.

Escape from thieves.

Libertarianism is escape from thieves, enslavers and murderers.

But the rapists are alright.

Signed,

Ayn Rand

[Rassah]

Libertarianism is escapism.

Escape from thieves.

Libertarianism is escape from thieves, enslavers and murderers.

But the rapists are alright.

Signed,

Ayn Rand

Because an entire philosophy is defined by a single person't actions, right?

All of Christianity is fucked up because:

Raping boys is alright

Signed,

Random Catholic preast

Am I rite? 

[FredericBastiat]

Fred your position is fine if you are happy that the people with money deserve to have it.  What about situations where the people with money only have it because their ancestors conquerored your ancestors, took their lands and your family have lived as sharecroppers since?  Or where the wealth is based on an educated workforce paid for by the taxpayer?

Just because someone owns something doesn't mean they deserve to keep it.  The people who are currently poor may well have a valid claim to that wealth.

You do make an interesting point. The theft/conquering/murder by some of our ancestors does make it difficult for the current property owners. Especially the poorest of them. I'm not sure how you resolve that issue. A good paper trail might be helpful.

[Hawker]

Empirically, that isn't true.  The rich have been getting a bigger percentage for the last 40 years. The poor have seen a real fall in their incomes and in many cases depend on having husband and wife both work in order to pay the bills.

Incomes have decreased, sure, but compare now to 50 years ago when it comes to things like access to information, movies and music, air conditioning and other house amenities, types of medical treatments, and other varieties of life support and entertainment. Just ten years ago the type of computer and internet speeds I have now would have cost thousands, photographs and music was very expensive and not easily accessible, food was more expensive and limited (Wal Art and H-Mart nearby are nice), and keeping in touch with friends and family was way more difficult and expensive. 60 years ago I likely would have worked at a dirty factory instead of a cushy office. And places like India, Dubai, and Hong Kong, can't even be compared to what they were just 20 years ago.

You are linking something that is true (innovation produces a higher standard living for everyone) with something that is false (trickle down economics that the increase in the wealth of the rich actually benefits the poor).

I personally think the poor will continue to get poor because their labour is no longer needed and no amount of political tinkering can change that.  But I don't think it makes sense to argue that helping the rich with bailouts, subsidies and guarantees in some way helps the poor too.  The rich just get richer - there is zero benefit to the poor from that and ironically, the poor help pay the taxes that provide the funds for the bailouts.

[RandyFolds]

Libertarianism is escapism.

Escape from thieves.

Libertarianism is escape from thieves, enslavers and murderers.

But the rapists are alright.

Signed,

Ayn Rand

Because an entire philosophy is defined by a single person't actions, right?

All of Christianity is fucked up because:

Raping boys is alright

Signed,

Random Catholic preast

Am I rite? 

That was just a random surprise-sex/Ayn Rand joke to lighten the mood a bit, but I do agree with your point about Christianity.

[Hawker]

Fred your position is fine if you are happy that the people with money deserve to have it.  What about situations where the people with money only have it because their ancestors conquerored your ancestors, took their lands and your family have lived as sharecroppers since?  Or where the wealth is based on an educated workforce paid for by the taxpayer?

Just because someone owns something doesn't mean they deserve to keep it.  The people who are currently poor may well have a valid claim to that wealth.

You do make an interesting point. The theft/conquering/murder by some of our ancestors does make it difficult for the current property owners. Especially the poorest of them. I'm not sure how you resolve that issue. A good paper trail might be helpful.

Do you not have a newspaper? In the last 40 years, there has been a substantial subsidy of the rich by the rest of society providing an educated workforce, a fine legal system, defended borders and taxpayers picking up the losses if "too big to fail" businesses are run into the ground.  

[FredericBastiat]

Do you not have a newspaper? In the last 40 years, there has been a substantial subsidy of the rich by the rest of society providing an educated workforce, a fine legal system, defended borders and taxpayers picking up the losses if "too big to fail" businesses are run into the ground.  

I fail to see how that relates to my comment. You spoke of conquerors and sharecroppers, not education subsidies, legal system subsidies and business subsidies. I don't exactly see the connection here. Your topic/talking points had to do with how does one deals with the crimes of our ancestors and the accumulation of wealth due to violent expropriation.

Did I miss something?

[chickenado]

You do realize that your "caveman voters" are the same people that will be voting with their dollars? The problem with needle exchanges is they butt up against powerful moral objections that exist just as prominently in the private sector. Killing government does not make this go away.

Dollar voting costs.  Ballot voting is cheap.  This is the key difference.  Even Joe Sixpack is not a fool when it comes to spending his money.  He may not care to research the difference between cholera and hepatitis when he casts his vote on public health policy, but he will probably research the difference between a Sony and an LG when he buys a flat screen TV.

Dollar votes are likely to be more rational and less capricious than ballot votes.

Also, it's amazing how quickly people forget their "moral objections" when a substantial financial gain is involved.

[FredericBastiat]

Dollar voting costs.  Ballot voting is cheap.  This is the key difference.  Even Joe Sixpack is not a fool when it comes to spending his money.  He may not care to research the difference between cholera and hepatitis when he casts his vote on public health policy, but he will probably research the difference between a Sony and an LG when he buys a flat screen TV.

Dollar votes are likely to be more rational and less capricious than ballot votes.

Also, it's amazing how quickly people forget their "moral objections" when a substantial financial gain is involved.

Yeah, that would work a lot better (dollar voting vs. ballot voting). But only with a specific caveat. That the money collected for each candidate, or accumulated to the winning candidate, could only be used on behalf of the voter (no taxation). It couldn't be used to fund plundering activities. To wit, you couldn't fund legislative terrorism. It could only be used for, and on behalf of, those who cast their vote; never to injure or plunder another.

In any case, wouldn't it just be better to just contract for the services in the first place? Then you know exactly what you're getting. I understand the nature of collective forces and organized protection (or other whatnot), so why not start a personal security firm instead? Or an insurance company to spread and diffuse the risk?

[chickenado]

Just because someone owns something doesn't mean they deserve to keep it.  The people who are currently poor may well have a valid claim to that wealth.

Wealth isn't finite.

I presume you are only talking about finite resources, such as land.

In principle, I think that inheritance of finite resources is immoral.

But it's a problem that no political system can resolve.

If you have a system where ownership expires upon death, people will simply transfer ownership to their heirs before they die.  Even if that were prohibited, people would find a roundabout way, like selling the land to an agent who sells it to the heirs for a steeply discounted price.

Another option is a system where land titles are inalienable, ie. where you are assigned a land title at birth and stuck with it for life.  But that creates a whole new set of unfairnesses. How are land titles assigned? Randomly? Alphabetically? Who gets how much land? How is the land valued?  What about people who want to exchange their pieces of land but are prevented from doing so?

[Rassah]

You are linking something that is true (innovation produces a higher standard living for everyone) with something that is false (trickle down economics that the increase in the wealth of the rich actually benefits the poor).

I personally think the poor will continue to get poor because their labour is no longer needed and no amount of political tinkering can change that.  But I don't think it makes sense to argue that helping the rich with bailouts, subsidies and guarantees in some way helps the poor too.  The rich just get richer - there is zero benefit to the poor from that and ironically, the poor help pay the taxes that provide the funds for the bailouts.

You and I are on the same side regarding this part. I am not a fan of the trickle down theory, and I do believe the poor will keep getting poorer relative to the richer. I am also EXTREMELY against things like bailouts, subsidies, and guarantees. Any sort of corporate welfare, really. So you won't see me defend that. But you at least got to admit that those gadgets and luxuries the rich enjoy eventually make their way down to the poor as well (I mean they get cheaper and integrated into everything eventually). For instance, I used to use a GPS system when they were $1,200 and no ones heard of them, but now everyone has them, and google phones have them for free. That's one hell of a luxury right there (yes, I know the government actually pays for the satelites).

[Rassah]

Wealth isn't finite.

I presume you are only talking about finite resources, such as land.

In principle, I think that inheritance of finite resources is immoral.

Bitcoin is a finite resource. Opinion on leaving your heir a USB stick with a few 100k BTC?...

[Hawker]

Do you not have a newspaper? In the last 40 years, there has been a substantial subsidy of the rich by the rest of society providing an educated workforce, a fine legal system, defended borders and taxpayers picking up the losses if "too big to fail" businesses are run into the ground.  

I fail to see how that relates to my comment. You spoke of conquerors and sharecroppers, not education subsidies, legal system subsidies and business subsidies. I don't exactly see the connection here. Your topic/talking points had to do with how does one deals with the crimes of our ancestors and the accumulation of wealth due to violent expropriation.

Did I miss something?

The bank bailout is the modern day equivalent of the Normal Conquest.  A bunch of guys with the right connections got massive amounts of money from the taxpayer.  For example, without the AIG bailout, Warren Buffet would have lost a fortune. 

The point here is that you can't assume just because someone has money they deserve it.  There are situations, for example where a group has been subsidised too much, where taxation is a legitimate response to inequality.  There are others, for example where someone has created a successful business, where it isn't as legitimate.

[Rassah]

But subsidies come from taxation. Are you saying taxation is a self sustaining perpetual need, where new people must be taxed because they were helped by taxation of previous people?