Again correlation =/=causation in regards to your second point. One example is all it takes to disprove an assertion.
But is there at least one example?
Pay me a thousand dollars to find one a developed country without significantly subsidized public infrastructure/education and I'll crawl up and down every reference material I can find looking for it.
Don't make me laugh. Infrastructure? Hong Kong? It's frickin tiny. Also compulsory education didn't happen in the US until the 20th century. I think we both know that the key to America's and Hong Kong's economic clout isn't public education, which couldn't teach highschool students a world map.
Things as simple as public roads, clean water, sewage and plumbing are quite important to urbanization. Actually, urban public infrastructure has some of the highest returns, if you believe corporatist lies. Education, for its part, is very important to fertility decline and demographic transition.
Compulsory public education began in Massachussets in 1852. By the end of the 19th cenutry, public schools outnumbered private ones. Make of that what you will.
Try stop giving them that paper. Then you see what happens to bad slaves.
You go to jail and the government takes your money. Then it spends that money to keep you in jail a while. Then you drive home on public roads listening to NPR propoganda to pick up your kids for school.
Don't get me wrong. Taxes suck. But I don't feel like opposing programs that increase my disposable income.
Can you explain to me how you think that voting for projects is in any way comparable to paying for services?
Never meant to suggest it was.
Firstly, no one who lives far from the project will vote for it. So it probably won't get passed.
That's true, and that's why local government exists.
Secondly, entrepeneurs choose projects and their locations on the basis of profit and thus effective resource allocation,
Comparing public/private returns to capital, they do a worse job of it.
whereas politicians choose projects for their effects on re-election chances (See: Tennessee Valley Authority).
Parts of the TVA were a major screwup. One program from the 1930s, though, didn't reverse the huge development gains from public infrastructure elsewhere.
Thirdly, voting is slow.
Anakin!
It's better than no electoral representation at all.
Fourthly, will this voting be compulsory?
Nope.
Fifthly, those who are most affected by said project and least affected get the same amount of say in the matter.
Democracy can only make the majority of people happy. The monarchs, the Catholic Church, and feudal landowners were always pissed about that.
Don't you realize that monetary transaction is voting? People vote on what services they value most by subscribing to them. You don't need a political process to vote on things. The difference is no one gets stolen from.
By some definitions, but not by a democratic one. I'd take a vote to have say in my society any day over some private legal/monetary board I have no elected representation on. I'd say democratic systems have a pretty good record.
You missed the point, which is anyone can point to specific time periods, like early 19th century america and say that people were dirt poor farmers but this only reflects a lack of societal capital accumulation, not the efficacy of any economic paradigm. Once again, correlation =/= causation. In America's case the all-saving holy highway project happened after America had become an economic powerhouse.
I don't think I'm nearly done citing studies on the critical role of public investment in development.
Under the American System, starting in 1860, federal infrastructure investment began in earnest.
mustang19: But is there at least one example?
The James J Hill thing just served to show that there's no law of 'externalities' which makes it impossible for infrastructure to be privately run. Off the top of my head I can't think of one purely free market country that had infrastructure. But there was also never free market countries. Someone might argue that the gilded age was private infrastructure, but I won't. According to one of the papers you linked, Britain's rail system was private but I highly doubt that since the report was not detailed at all.
This is another correlation=/=causation and I think it's more of a historical question. That question being the rise of statism. I find it a naive position to take that statism rose for the benefit of all.
Things as simple as public roads, clean water, sewage and plumbing are quite important to urbanization. Actually, urban public infrastructure has one of the highest returns. Education, for its part, is very important to fertility decline and demographic transition.
Ok. But every country has it. By that logic greece should be just as powerful as Hong Kong. But it isn't. Because greece pays their people to scratch their asses and chew their fingernails. I don't doubt that education is important to fertility decline. What's your point there?
There are no sources on your link. Come on.
You seem pretty ok with that whole 'jail' part. What happens if you decide not to go to jail? What happens to your kids while you're away?
Private infrastructure is competing with 'free' monopolized infrastructure, that people have already paid for. Why would they pay for two? Of course it does.
And notice how all those projects were in the areas with the lowest approval ratings. Hrmm. No projects in NE but plenty in Appalchia and SW, traditionally conservative areas.
Lol
If a state is desirable.
Do you believe that the tradition of rule suddenly changed with the advent of democracy? That suddenly the people are in charge now?
By some definitions, but not by a democratic one. I'd take a vote to have say in my society any day over some private legal/monetary board I have no elected representation on.
You represent yourself with your purchases. When things are unpopular, they die. What's more democratic than that?
I'd say democratic systems have a pretty good record.
Hitler was voted in. Europe's going to crash. As will America. All from the illusion that the people can rob their own coffers indefinitely.
Most would dispute that classification of 'federal' infrastructure.
You really like Democracy huh?
The Anarch is to the Anarchist what the Monarch is to the Monarchist. -Ernst Jünger
Industrialization is not compatible with a total fertility rate of 6 to 12 kids per woman. The "demographic dividend" from reduced fertility has been a major historical factor in development, through the Asian Miracle and back through the industrial revolution. Private and public education were both important to this. More studies?
Will PBS work?
Both federal and state governments funded internal improvements.
There have been some countries without government where the market was allowed to show its invisible hand. Things actually improved compared to the former tinpot dictatorship.
Bad things. What happens under anarcho capitalism if you don't pay your taxes? (Sorry, "legal agency membership fees.") You have no legal protections at all?
It really doesn't sound much different to me, other than the fact that you lose all your rights when your legal agency decides to drop you.
That's theoretically possible, I guess.
Don't see any feudal landowners or Catholic priests in office anymore, except Republicans. Abandoning democracy doesn't help.
You do represent yourself with purchases. Voting just gives most people more options.
Hitler was voted in and became a dictator. Not much of an argument against democracy, or a good reason why anyone should abandon it because of a crisis.
Yep. Voting rights and balance of powers is pretty sweet.
There may be historical incidences where authoritarian systems were able to avert disaster, but if they exist, these are pretty rare and not very applicable.
Let me edit that.
There may be historical incidences where nondemocratic systems were able to avert disaster, but if they exist, these are pretty rare and not very applicable.
You know what? Let me rephrase the question.
I'm looking for a developed country (say, at least a quarter of US GDP per capita) which either 1) has a majority of its students under an unsubsidized private school system, or, 2) has a majority of its infrastructure supplied by unsubsidized private sources. Chile is a good example of a country that almost counts. It has a large private infrastructure stock, but one mostly capitalized through public pension funds.
Technically, the American south was mainly democrat before about 1948, when the Republican "southern strategy" won them over with state's rights and no federal involvement in antidiscrimination or the education system.
Thought I would talk more on this. When I said "public and private capital", I wasn't comparing public and private infrastructure capital- just total public capital (which is mainly infrastructure) and total private capital (which is mostly other things). Private infrastructure capital is great if it exists. The problem is that cutting public capital doesn't seem to do much to crowd back in private infrastructure.
About the earlier EZ Pass thing: electronic toll collection costs $100,000 per lane. If you can come up with a way to do the same thing for a few dollars, you could make a lot of money.
Mustang19, I'm still waiting for your explanation as to why I should get back to talking about the argument, when you're not playing fair.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
mustang19: Industrialization is not compatible with a total fertility rate of 6 to 12 kids per woman. The "demographic dividend" from reduced fertility has been a major historical factor in development, through the Asian Miracle and back through the industrial revolution. Private and public education were both important to this. More studies?
Population doubled in the gilded age.
LMFTFY: funded private enterprise.
What's your point here?
Bad things. What happens under anarcho capitalism if you don't pay your taxes?
No one assaults you. Pretty great huh?
I don't care about 'rights', especially since you seem to intermingle them with entitlements. The difference between the two scenario's is that in one you are owned. In the other you may choose one among many protectors or no protector at all (and protect yourself. Whoa that's radical!).
Please answer the question honestly.
Really Mustang? Voting gives people more options? How? It's the other way around. Voting destroys options, forces all to a uniform behavior.
Just sayin, Democracy isn't holy.
Yep. Voting rights and balance of powers is pretty sweet. There may be historical incidences where authoritarian systems were able to avert disaster, but if they exist, these are pretty rare and not very applicable. Let me edit that. There may be historical incidences where nondemocratic systems were able to avert disaster, but if they exist, these are pretty rare and not very applicable.
I don't care for Democracy because it's the idea that "we" get to vote on things. There is nothing that I want to 'vote' on and I don't accept anyone's 'vote' on me. A vote is an impotent claim on another's life. We consume each other in voting.
mustang19: You know what? Let me rephrase the question. I'm looking for a developed country (say, at least a quarter of US GDP per capita) which either 1) has a majority of its students under an unsubsidized private school system, or, 2) has a majority of its infrastructure supplied by unsubsidized private sources. Chile is a good example of a country that almost counts. It has a large private infrastructure stock, but one mostly capitalized through public pension funds.
I don't doubt that there aren't countries with private infrastructure. As mentioned before, free-market paradigms have not been practiced. Chile is not a good example. The cops were sent in to factories to beat and murder union organizers. Currency price-fixing. Also, mass privatization is never clean. It's almost always the monopolists delight.
Conservative =/= Republican.
Private infrastructure capital is great if it exists.
Great, let's demonopolize now.
And 250 mb of storage used to cost $40.
What exactly are we arguing about anymore? After reading over the whole thread it seems like the subject has changed drastically from the OP.
After reading over the whole thread it seems like the subject has changed drastically from the OP.
Well first, he argues that nations which spend more on infrastructure tend to have higher GDP growth rates, but he has failed to demonstrate that GDP growth = actual economic performance. As I've already demonstrated, the Soviet Union had enormous GDP growth rates before it collapsed. Right now, China's GDP growth rate is amongst the highest in the world and yet its unemployment is around 25% and the nation is literally littered with ghost cities and empty super-malls (torrential malinvestment).
Next, he has failed to respond to a question you raised earlier regarding the method of one of the studies. Specifically, it correlated "republican" and "conservative" governments with economic liberalism. But is this accurate? Can we really say the the governments of Bush 43, 41, Nixon and even Regan were truly liberal (in the classical sense)? He has to make that case.
And finally, he simply dismisses the broken-window fallacy. His argument is that we cannot measure it, but that's precisely the point! You have to understand economic theory, how the market works (and how the government works for that matter) in order to understand the true opportunity cost of ad-hoc government economic interventionism.
All of these issues, at least as far as I'm aware, are still unresolved.
"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."
I'm not excited about a system that *might* protect my rights depending on whether that legal agency choses to do it. There are times like Gitmo and Abu Ghraib that the government hasn't done a very good job that, but on the whole there's not much saying that private security companies like Blackwater or private prisons would do better.
But that uniform behavior is in the interest of the majority and is covered by constitutional protections. That's why the majority isn't going to be much interested in your idea.
I see it happen in voting booths all the time. But people really like keeping their roads and schools and pensions and Bill of Rights. Until you convince them to give up their entitlement to human rights, that's the way it'll stay.
Demonopolize a natural monopoly?
An individual rail line or power plant often has no competition within its service area.
Also, what happens when you don't regulate utilities.
This paper investigates to what extent unregulated monopolies attempt not to evoke the introduction of a formal price regulation by conforming to customers’ and authorities’ expectations. The evaluation investigates if the price charged a utility is influenced by neighbours’ prices while controlling for distance and relative size. The flexible nonlinear estimations, based on an instrumental variable approach, find that the Swedish district heating utilities are insensitive to customer complaints but significantly influenced by the passive monitoring by authorities. The conclusion is that the threat of regulatory intervention has a significant effect on utilities real pricing behaviour which may serve as a viable alternative to formal price regulation.
The Church and the wealthy still have a lot of power in politics. But they had even more power before democracy. Not really an argument for a system where access to personal safety and political power is dependent on how much money you have to purchase them from a legal agency.
The business cycle is an especially bad problem with GDP. The thing is that the crash always reduces GDP eventually, and it's a matter of picking a sufficiently long time period to look at. Empirical studies generally look over several decades.
If it's possible that Republicans are less liberal than Democrats, or that Democrat state governments haven't been found to increase equality or spend more, I'll go back to talking about specific public investment policies.
There's also an opportunity cost of not investing in public infrastructure.
The conclusion is that those states that have invested more in infrastructure tend to have greater output, more private investment, and more employment growth. This evidence supports results found in earlier studies. The empirical work also seems to indicate that public investment comes before the pickup in economic activity and serves as a base, but much more work is required to spell out the specifics of the link between public capital and economic performance.
If you believe that Republicans are less liberal than Democrats, or that Democrat state governments haven't been found to increase equality or spend more, I'll go back to talking about specific public investment policies.
First of all, I don't care about so-called "equality." No one mentioned it. Next, can you please highlight the part that compares democratic spending v republican spending in the paper? The paper is rather long and I'm curious about the results.
The rest of your response is really just more of the same.
Sorry, wrong study. Here is one looking at the spending breakdown.
Page 24, looking at federal spending:
Finally, party control of congress clearly matters.11 All types of (government) programs grow more rapidly when congress is under Democratic control.12
Here also.
We examine how turnover a ects tax revenues after including party control variables in Table 7. In columns (1) and (2), increased turnover significantly increases the share of tax revenue in income. Whereas turnover has no significant e ect on sales taxes, it significantly increases the share of income taxes in state income. Thus, the signs and magnitude of the e ect of turnover on fiscal policy variables are broadly consistent with what we find above. In columns (1) and (2), the coecient of Democratic legislature is 13 positive, implying higher taxes for a Democratic legislature than for a divided legislature. However, the e ect is not significant. A Republican legislature, on the other hand, has significantly lower taxes than a divided legislature. The share of taxes is about 0.3% less for a Republican legislature than for a divided legislature. In columns (5) and (6), whereas Democratic control of a state legislature has significant positive e ect on income taxes, the Republican control has an opposite e ect on income taxes. This is consistent with Rogers and Rogers (2000) and Besley and Case (2003) who find significant partisan e ects on fiscal policy. Whether the same party controls the state government and Whether a governor faces a binding term limit have no significant e ect on the revenue variables. The results are similar in Table 8, which considers the disaggregated categories of tax revenues, after including the additional covariates. Turnover increases individual income taxes and has no significant e ect on other categories of taxes. While Democratic legislatures have significantly higher individual income taxes, Republican legislatures have significantly lower selective sales taxes and corporate income taxes. Also, in column (6), a term-limited Governor has significantly higher corporate income taxes compared to a Governor who is not term limited.
I agree. This has all been discussed at length.
If you want to start a thread on private defense I'd be glad to talk there about it, but just think for a moment: Who do Blackwater and the prisons work for?
But that uniform behavior is in the interest of the majority
Hitler had a majority. So did Stalin.
and is covered by constitutional protections.
LOL
That's why the majority isn't going to be much interested in your idea.
Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard. - Mencken
What makes sense is not dependent on the opinions of others.
Historically nonexistent. Find me one please
Did you even read that?
This paper investigates to what extent unregulated monopolies
Hm which ones?
attempt not to evoke the introduction of a formal price regulation by conforming to customers’ and authorities’ expectations. The evaluation investigates if the price charged a utility is influenced by neighbours’ prices while controlling for distance and relative size. The flexible nonlinear estimations, based on an instrumental variable approach, find that the Swedish district heating utilities are insensitive to customer complaints but significantly influenced by the passive monitoring by authorities. The conclusion is that the threat of regulatory intervention has a significant effect on utilities real pricing behaviour which may serve as a viable alternative to formal price regulation.
Sounds very scientific.
I didn't mean to say at all that the agency has remained, but the modus operandi has. Power doesn't simply relinquish. One shouldn't delude oneself in thinking that because "the people elect their representatives", that the people's interests are being represented. Now instead of the church and the wealthy we have the state, an inaccessible faceless corporate bureaucracy wherein there is no clear enemy.
What is the market process to you? This whole 'anarchocapitalism' is for the rich is an absurdity. The market exists to provide goods on a mass scale to the masses. Poor people can eat steak, drive a car, and play with their iphones. People already pay for their legal services anyways. And law is a service because it employs people to that end. The difference is that people could choose their protector.
I think this will be my last response in this thread though. We are shooting shallow answers at each other on a dozen different subjects and much of the assertions you make require more work from me to upend than for you to sit on due to conventional knowledge on history. I am downhill from you trying to catch seven bowling balls with two hands. Things like "capitalism is for the rich" and "democracy is for the people". I don't think I'm convincing you anyways.
We desperately need a discussion on methedology. That's the clash here. Plenty of times Mustang19 takes for granted correlation as causation. He seems to think this is made up for by using certain statistical methods. I'm not familiar with them well enough to counter intelligently, but I'm gonna take interest in the subject over the next few weeks.
Anyway, that's what I perceive to be the main point of contention. If Mustang's methods (or rather the methods utilized in the papers) are fallacious, then I think the edge goes to us, as it seems pretty clear that properly deduced economic theory supports our conclusions.
Swedish utilities in the paper. One can always find some sanitation requirement or tax deduction to declare a firm an unnatural monopoly, but that is about the best example I can provide. When regulation decreases, rather than increases, market prices, that doesn't suggest that this regulation reinforces market concentration.
Markets are great, just not at guaranteeing protection.
Just as people chose their protectors under your idea, they're not entitled to protection either. It really depends on whether you value private property above everyone's entitlement to health and safety.
I think this will be my last response in this thread though. We are shooting shallow answers at each other on a dozen different subjects and much of the assertions you make require more work from me to upend than for you to sit on due to conventional knowledge on history. I am downhill from you trying to catch seven bowling balls with two hands. Things like "capitalism is for the rich" and "democracy is for the people".
I agree that things aren't so simple. There are instances where democracy hurts the poor, and nondemocratic solutions can remedy this. I believe that there are also times when government can correct market failures which don't hurt the poor or the rich, but everyone.
I don't think I'm convincing you anyways.
I, for one, enjoyed your company. See you around.
I am basically talking about time series analysis. I will try to answer any specific questions on these techniques.
It is possible to theorize a situation where the returns on an investment are too widely dispersed over time and space to attract investment from its beneficiaries. In situations where this is so, a rationale for public infrastructure may exist.
mustang19: Markets are great, just not at guaranteeing protection. Just as people chose their protectors under your idea, they're not entitled to protection either. It really depends on whether you value private property above human health and safety.
Just as people chose their protectors under your idea, they're not entitled to protection either. It really depends on whether you value private property above human health and safety.
The government does not guarantee protection either. I'll even throw you a bone and we can ignore all the governments in the world that would be called dictatorships. Let's look at so called "free" nations. The poor do not have good police service. Most crimes go unsolved (especially because much of the crime is theft, which is quite difficult to solve). But even most murders go unsolved. Lot's of these areas have started doing neighborhood watches to try to help curb crime because the police won't or can't do it.
If you would like to debate this further, start a new thread.
I'm not opposed to neighboord watches. In fact, many police stations assist NW programs. I'm not sure if the poor would be able to better afford private protection in the absence of the EITC and welfare.
Too late for that.
Stop taxing the poor (yes, sales taxes and property taxes and social security taxes affect the poor) and then they will have more wealth and resources to spend on protection if they so desire. If they would prefer to just police their neighborhoods themselves and keep their wealth, then that is their choice.
The problem with your statements are that you are creating a false dichotomy. Either the government protects or there is no protection. But this is clearly not true, as when the government fails to protect, people take it unto themselves to fulfill that role.
Kind of.
Because the earned income tax credit (EITC) is refundable and the child tax credit (CTC) is partly so, the average effective individual income tax rate for the bottom two income quin-tiles in 2011 was negative; that is, the tax credits more than offset positive income tax liabil-ity, so that the average household in these quintiles received a net payment from the gov-ernment.
That's been tried.
Are you saying that the poor are not effected by social security taxes, property taxes, and sales taxes?
Care to elaborate? I have no idea what you are trying to get at.
Property taxes require that you own property, and if you're poor you probably don't own a house. Not all states have sales tax (Florida!), and SS is net redistributive.
*examples*
Stone age, somalia, wild west, unstable regions, etc.
Property taxes require that you own property, and if you're poor you probably don't own a house.
False. Landlords factor in their property taxes when they charge rent. That property tax is paid by the tenants, something that many poor people are.
Not all states have sales tax
Big deal. Not all the poor people live in Florida. Or don't you care about the rest of the country? Oh, and if Florida is anything like NH, what they don't charge in sales tax, they make up for it in property tax.
SS is net redistributive.
Mhm. So I guess the poor people don't pay the SS tax when they are still working? Also, unless they are self-employed (unlikely since they are poor, but you never know, and even then they get fucking nailed to the cross on SS tax), the employer pays the other half of SS tax. That half could have been wages, but instead it just goes into the Ponzi scheme.
I need some empirical evidence from you on the stone age, please. In regards to Somalia, I will direct you here, here and here (I will provide the links in an edit because I don't want to have to wait for moderation for linking to too many things.) And of course, the wild west was far less wild than the idiot box would lead you to believe.
I'm not going to continue arguing whether or not private security is cheaper than a 5% sales tax. But I don't think Somalia, as much improvement as it's made, is a model for the rest of the world. Celtic Ireland and "ancap" Iceland were politically unstable third world basket cases like the rest of the world at the time.
I'm not going to continue arguing whether or not private security is cheaper than a 5% sales tax.
Straw man, as neither was I. I was talking about all taxes combined. Why don't you try being intellectually honest.
But I don't think Somalia, as much improvement as it's made, is a model for the rest of the world.
The thing about Somalia is that it disproves your point. Without a state, it made improvements. Bam! And I've used empirical evidence to support my argument. But what do you do? "Oh, well, it doesn't matter if there is evidence to the contrary, I'm gonna put my fingers between my ears and shout 'Nyanyanyanya!'"
Celtic Ireland and "ancap" Iceland were politically unstable third world basket cases like the rest of the world at the time.
This nonsense was addressed earlier in the thread. Somalia is improving today. If the West stops trying to interfere over there, it should continue to improve. After all, there is not only a theory as to why it's improving, but there is a trend that it is - which is to say, EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE.
But the poor also get a lot of backpayments. Whether or not bigger government reduces poverty is a testable claim.
Poverty alleviation is an important policy objective in developed welfare states. This article analyses the association between social transfer policies and poverty. Several studies claim that high social effort goes along with low poverty levels across countries. But these studies follow a simple bivariate approach. Other factors such as demographic, economic and other conditions may also have an influence on poverty, which can affect the relationship between social spending and poverty in empirical studies. In this paper we empirically analyse the impact of social expenditure on poverty on a cross-country basis for the period 1985–2005, but, in addition to previous research, we control for demographic and macro-economic differences across countries. We still find quite a strong negative relationship between the level of social expenditure and poverty. Ageing and unemployment rates have some explanatory power, but this does not seem to affect the association between social transfers and poverty. Thus, the multivariate approach we have chosen in this study confirms the results of earlier research.
When Somalia gets its stuff together, let me know.
mustang19:Markets are great, just not at guaranteeing protection.
Markets are not good at guaranteeing anything. They don't guarantee food either, lack of which would be even more detrimental to your life. Or do they?
Are you implying that governments are good at guaranteeing protection, especially to the poor?
Do you value your entitlements to health and safety over your fellow humans' obligation to provide them for you? There are no space-aliens (yet). It's just us. Every person's entitlement ("right") to X implies someone else's enslaving obligation to provide it to him. Where do you think health and safety come from, and what exactly promotes them to their status of cosmic necessity in your (subjective) value system? Why not food?
To the extent that health and safety are cosmically imortant to you, what makes you think that a coercive monopoly would be the best provider for them -- i.e. able to provide you with best health and safety at the most affordable price possible?
I believe that there are also times when government can correct market failures which don't hurt the poor or the rich, but everyone.
Markets never fail. Values (i.e. judgments about failure or success) are subjective. Market outcomes (i.e. products of voluntary exchanges of property and labor between free agents) that don't reflect your subjective valuations (entitlements, rights, etc.) or visions of a proper universe are not failures.
A coercive and aggressive group of people (government, mafia) can only "correct" market "failures" to the extent that the coerced outcome satisfies their own personal ends. Not yours. Not mine. Not "ours".
Believe me, I am perfectly qualified to say this: You have no idea what you're talking about. To the mathematically literate, economists analyzing data are like little children playing with really dangerous weapons, oblivious to the damage they can do to themselves or to the people around them.
Endulge me, please.
Do you value your entitlements to health and safety over your fellow humans' obligation to provide them for you? There are no space-aliens (yet). It's just us. Every person's entitlement ("right") to X implies someone else's enslaving obligation to provide it to him. Where do you think health and safety come from, and what exactly promotes them to their status of cosmic necessity in your (subjective) value system?
Health and safety come from free markets, especially if they're not quite free enough to deny universal healthcare and protection. I can't explain why human health and safety are important. But to me, I don't see these values as requiring justification.
Why not food?
I'm not a fan of getting rid of food stamps, either.
Markets never fail.
The subjective opinion of many people who use private healthcare disagrees.
Sometimes, those personal ends aren't that bad. I still admire your writing.
Believe me, I am perfectly qualified to say this: You have no idea what you're talking about.
I'm quoting that.
The interstate highway system is used by an enormous amount of drivers for a brief period of time. In the absence of public funding, individuals who use it may not have bothered to calculate every minutiae of this investment's costs and benefits. This driver would have instead preferred to mispell big words.
mustang19:Health and safety come from free markets, especially if they're not quite free enough to deny universal healthcare and protection.
Did this make any sense to you? Just curious.
I can't explain why human health and safety are important. But to me, I don't see these values as requiring justification.
They are important to me and probably most other normal people too. Then how about you invest or donate your property towards the provision of whatever you think mankind must have? Lacking your own property (means, funds), how about you convince like minded fellow humans with means to join you in your investment or contribution toward that end? Why is the pointed gun necessary when trying to collect the means for your noble vision? What are you afraid of exactly? That not enough people would subjectively value what you subjectively deem important?
But you can't eat food stamps. Who makes sure that enough food gets made and that no one is denied access to it?
Markets never fail. The subjective opinion of many people who use private healthcare disagrees.
What "private" healthcare? The one regulated, licenced, and coerced into extinction?
A coercive and aggressive group of people (government, mafia) can only "correct" market "failures" to the extent that the coerced outcome satisfies their own personal ends. Not yours. Not mine. Not "ours". Sometimes, those personal ends aren't that bad.
Sometimes, those personal ends aren't that bad.
They are very bad for anyone who's not them, most of the time. The coercive power den of politics attracts the most parasitic amongst us. You actually believe that a government person has your best interest as their end?
Let me suggest that Facebook is used by even more enormous amount of people for brief (and not so brief) periods of time. So are movie theaters and restaurants. Customers need not be the investors, you see. That's why we have markets.
What exactly is you obsession with funding projects at the point of a gun (taxation)? Again, is your fear that things subjectively valued by you would not get enough voluntary funding by like-minded others? Do you think of yourself as being more humane than humanity itself, so you feel the necessity to extract funding from it at the point of a gun -- for its own good? Who do you think you are?
In context, yes.
Exactly. I would point a gun in someone's face if they did fail to support human rights.
The government?
Yes. The one that is much worse than public health care.
Usually, if they want my vote.
Sometimes those markets work. There are theoretical instances when they may not.
A normal person. Subsidizing abortion and child healthcare may sound repulsive to you. But I would defintely force someone to pay for a woman's right to choose and a children's right to healthcare.
Mustang, read Beyond Democracy. I think you are ready for it.
Pleasure chatting with you.
The pleasure's all mine.
Personally, I don't care what you do with your tax return right now.
If we meet again in a hypothetical scenario where I had the choice of
1) throwing you in jail,
or,
2) denying millions of women and children the entitlement to healthcare and an abortion, not to mention privatizing all services, and tanking the economy
I'm pretty sure I'll be picking #1.
I don't have a kindle, but anything downloadable would be appreciated.
Have a nice day.
Thanks for your honesty. Please ponder over what you just said some more.
You don't need a Kindle. The Kindle app for PC, Mac, iPhone, iPad, Android, etc. is free to download from Amazon. Then it's just $0.99 (free for Prime members) to get the book and read it on whatever device you have.
I'll dream about it. Forgive me, though, but I didn't really mean "anything". I'm stingy with my fiat currency.
ed: But don't buy it for me.
You can bring the cow to water, but you can't make it drink.
z1235, there is a forum I want you to register on and discuss what you have just presented. I foressee that you would create severe shitfits in this limousine liberal hive.
I don't agree with you, but I do think you could create some really amusing threads on a board that I failed.
Can I link you to it?
Trust me. It's not a trap. I just think you could really unsettle them.
Oh and I have a website idea for myself.
Maybe I can get the domain for 99 cents!
I'm not into unsettling people. The paths through which each of us seeks what they end up finding are quite mysterious. It's a waste of everyone's time trying to shove a seed into an unprepared soil.
You're not the trolling type. I get that now.
Anyway, I was talking about Ars Technica SB. Don't click there, it's terrible.
mustang19: But the poor also get a lot of backpayments. Whether or not bigger government reduces poverty is a testable claim.
Some poor people may recieve more money back than they pay. But they make very low amounts and are very low in number. Nothing that private charity or mutual aid societies would not be able to handle.
The lower class would be far better off if there were no taxes and private charity and mutual aid were allowed to flourish.
mustang19: When Somalia gets its stuff together, let me know.
Yes, it's quite amusing seeing you run from empirical evidence.
Some poor people may recieve more money back than they pay. But they make very low amounts and are very low in number. Nothing that private charity or mutual aid societies would not be able to handle. The lower class would be far better off if there were no taxes and private charity and mutual aid were allowed to flourish.
Maybe, but in the mean time bigger welfare states seem to reduce poverty.
You know you're a libertarian when you're using Somalia as an exemplar.
Saying that they're successful by African standards isn't saying much.
Just for fun.
http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=sp_dyn_le00_in&idim=country:SOM&dl=en&hl=en&q=somalia+life+expectancy#!ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=sp_dyn_le00_in&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=region&idim=country:SOM&idim=region:SSA&ifdim=region&hl=en_US&dl=en&ind=false
Really? Which welfare states are you talking about? The US can afford to do it because of the massive amount of capital accumulation due to the free market. During that time, poverty was being reduced. See the Milton Friedman tv miniseries Free to Choose. The earlier one is better. So no, these welfare states don't reduce poverty any more than when the market was freer.
You know you're a libertarian when you're using Somalia as an exemplar. Saying that they're successful by African standards isn't saying much.
You know you're inconsistent when you say empirical evidence is the end all and be all of debates and then promptly ditch it when it doesn't suit your point.
If you want empirical evidence about the rise of the standard of living in countries when the market is liberalized, please watch the Milton Friedman miniseries Free to Choose linked above.
The point isn't that Somalia is successful by African standards. The point is that despite not having a state, the standard of living is rising. Really, it's because of it and not in spite of it. This flies in the face of your position, that people would be poorer without the government. Well, they are actually richer without one. Like I said, you are inconsistent. You pick and choose when it suits you.
Just for fun:
Of course, you would know this had you read the articles I linked to. You are so fucking dishonest. It's sickening.