|
Post by rmarks1 on Mar 23, 2014 22:48:17 GMT -5
But social services is not something government should be doing to begin with. And I think warfare is not something that governments should be doing. Why is it okay to take your money in order to destroy the lives of other people, but it is terrible to use that same money to help people in poverty or illness? Of course warfare is not something governments should be doing. But as long as some governments are doing it, the others do have a right to defend themselves, don't they? So you are saying that it is okay to rob some people to pay others as long as it happens to be people that you like, right? Because the police and military can provide protection from violence for everyone equally. Forced welfare payments don't. And voluntary contributions to private charities can do the job without force. Sure. Just look at the voting results in Venezuela and Argentina over the last few decades. [/quote]That scale is large because the modern welfare state (at least here in America) was designed to keep people in poverty. That only ended during the Clinton administration. The government agencies can have high budgets only if there are enough poor people. Politicians can only look good when they propose new "benefits for the poor" if there are enough poor people. So for decades, they made it easier for the poor to stay poor. That large scale is big because it was engineered that way. How an you possibly believe that the so-called "welfare" services provided by the state are so great? Don't you know the price that the state extracts for this "service?" Didn't you ever read any Foucault? Bob
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Mar 23, 2014 23:26:19 GMT -5
LOL! How did you possibly reach that conclusion from what I wrote above? Because you said yourself that you are a minarchist, and that you believe that military and police are necessary. i.e. those institutions that are in fact capable of killing you. That's why we have Constitutional Protections. I'm 73 and haven't been killed by a policeman or soldier yet. And what sort of alternative do you propose? No military and police at all? Then you are an Anarchist, aren't you? And we both know that Anarchy won't work. Yes I do. Government's power to kill us increase increases with a government's size and scope. That's why government must be minimized. Yes. What's the alternative to no military or police? Anarchy. Is that what you are advocating? No. If you maximize the government, you increase the government's power to kill. In a minimal state, the government's power to kill me and you will also be minimal. Keeping things peaceful and keeping people safe are the only justification for government. All the other "help" I will provide for myself. Once again, a government large enough to provide "help" people through social welfare services is also powerful enough to control them. Sure there is. Simple arithmetic. If you have less money to contribute, you will most likely contribute less money. And what makes you think that those government programs are so great to begin with? Take a look. www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/PA694.pdfwww.times-herald.com/opinion/op-ed/reed/20121011Lawrence-Reed-Thurs-MOSBob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2014 5:36:07 GMT -5
Not touching anything published by the Cato institute. Sorry Bob.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2014 6:14:42 GMT -5
Because you said yourself that you are a minarchist, and that you believe that military and police are necessary. i.e. those institutions that are in fact capable of killing you. That's why we have Constitutional Protections. There were constitutional protections in place against murdering German citizens, that didn't really bother Hitler when his goons went about first defranchising, and then murdering a large portion of the German population. Heck, even Austria has had times in its past where governments simply ignored the constitutional protections of its citizens because they didn't feel bound by them any more en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engelbert_Dollfuss#Dollfuss_as_dictator_of_Austria Laws need people to obey them, or else they are just words on paper. Constitutional protections only protect you as long as police, military, or secret services see it in their own interest to heed them. Or heck, did you just sleep during the whole NSA affair? Your government is already violating your constitutional protections left and right! Military and police are inherently dangerous tools of power, and are always a potential threat to individuals or subgroups of society at large, even when they aren't always an actual threat. That you as a White, well educated, reasonably wealthy, old person never had a run-in with the police that turned bad does not mean that nobody ever had - and indeed, all data suggests that all those qualities I just listed are major factors in how likely you are to have a bad encounter with the police. The police forces aren't any more egalitarian than the rest of society, just because they never unjustly detained you doesn't mean they will never bother anybody in that fashion. Heck, one of my close friends was unjustly detained for terrorist charges. And he is, by all accounts, not somebody one would expect to have a police record. Yes I do. Government's power to kill us increase increases with a government's size and scope. That's why government must be minimized. But you don't seem to be very interested in minimizing those portions of government that are actually capable of killing you, only those that don't. This goes doubly so for your friends in the Libertarian party, who don't really seem to recognize that a Nightwatchman state could pose a threat at all. Yes. What's the alternative to no military or police? Anarchy. Is that what you are advocating? Plenty of states seem to do just fine without a military. Iceland. Costa Rica. Neither of those seem to be terrible places to live. And police was only invented in the 17th century. Do you believe that the governments that existed before that time where in a state of anarchy? At any rate, military and police are no more necessary to the functioning of a modern state than infrastructure, healthcare, education, and welfare. That makes no sense. By this claim, a country with no military and no police, but an expansive social welfare state would have as much an ability to kill its population, as a country with a large military but no welfare state at all. In what way does public infrastructure, public education, or public healthcare increase a government's ability to kill you? Are you afraid that middleschool teachers are going to talk you to death? Only if by "minimal state" you mean "the least possible amount of military and police forces possible", which is the exact opposite of what libertarians are advocating. If you want a state with the least ability to kill you, shouldn't you be advocating the complete abolition of public military and security forces? So I guess when you were six years old you taught yourself reading, writing, and mathematics? You never walk on any roads, and never use any sort of transportation except what you personally owned? And when you get sick, you cure yourself? In that case, I would argue that you are an Übermensch who doesn't need human society anyway. Control them? How? No. If you have more money for yourself, it does not follow that you will give more of it to charity. And indeed, there is no evidence to suggest that people will give just as much to charity as they are paying in taxes if given the choice. And that is before we enter into the problematic where some charities receive more attention than others, for no other reason than because they are more popular. How likely is it for services that benefit drug addicts to receive a similar amount of money as, say, the Make A Wish foundation, or cancer research? Not very, at least not from anything I've seen or read on the subject.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Mar 24, 2014 15:10:44 GMT -5
That's why we have Constitutional Protections. There were constitutional protections in place against murdering German citizens, that didn't really bother Hitler when his goons went about first defranchising, and then murdering a large portion of the German population. Heck, even Austria has had times in its past where governments simply ignored the constitutional protections of its citizens because they didn't feel bound by them any more en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engelbert_Dollfuss#Dollfuss_as_dictator_of_Austria Laws need people to obey them, or else they are just words on paper. Constitutional protections only protect you as long as police, military, or secret services see it in their own interest to heed them. Or heck, did you just sleep during the whole NSA affair? Your government is already violating your constitutional protections left and right! Yes. Exactly! But this is the same government that you want to make larger and more powerful. How does that make any sense? Yes, the police have to be well controlled. Otherwise they tend to become no different from a terrorist organization. Somehow, you think the way to do that is to make the government larger and more powerful? Why do you think that? Yes I do. Government's power to kill us increase increases with a government's size and scope. That's why government must be minimized. Where did you get that idea? It's exactly the opposite. Take a look here: That's straight from the Libertarian Party Platform! So I don't know who told you that Libertarians want to make the military stronger, but whoever they were, they lied to you. LOL! Who is going to invade Iceland? And Costa Rica does have a National Guard. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Guard_%28Costa_Rica%29And even Iceland has a police department that can kill people. guardianlv.com/2013/12/iceland-police-use-deadly-force-for-first-time/They DID have police but they called it by another name. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police#Ancient_policingen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police#Medieval_policingClaimed but not demonstrated. Is this government with no police or military run by space aliens? Because you are not ever going to get a government like that on Earth. How exactly is that welfare state going to be paid for without taxes? And how are taxes going to be collected without enforcement by police, law courts, and prisons? Do you think people will cheerfully pay their taxes without some form of coercion? The only alternative would be to run that welfare state with voluntary contributions. But then that's the approach I'm advocating. Death isn't the only nasty thing governments do.Ever hear of "indoctrination?" Schools in tyrannies like Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany were designed to turn out obedient serfs who couldn't wait to sacrifice themselves for the fatherland or the greater glory of the proletariat. I already pointed out above that this is totally false. Libertarians advocate an MINIMUM amount of police and military. Once again, that's Anarchy. Is that what you want? Personally, I would love it if Anarchy worked. but it doesn't. The state is always a danger to the life and liberty of its individual citizens. Unfortunately, I see no way to eliminate it. The only alternative is to minimize it to the maximum. No, my parents started teaching that to me before I ever went to school. Actually, I walk most places. And I take cabs. They're privately owned. When I'm sick, I go to my private doctor, not the government. You changed the subject from "what's the limit of government" to "who needs society?" I never said that I don't need society. What I did say is that we don't need so much government. By keeping them in a dependent state on welfare. Notice you didn't refute what I said. If people have less money (due to higher taxes) they will have less money to contribute to charity. Is there any reason why that wouldn't be so? Wow! That is so different from when the government handles things! With the government, the causes that get the most funding are the ones with the greatest political pull and the most political connections. So different. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2014 8:21:58 GMT -5
Is this government with no police or military run by space aliens? Because you are not ever going to get a government like that on Earth. So you admit that your claim was bogus? And by your own argument, such a state would have a much greater power of killing you than a state with a well-armed military. Because you only measure the size and power of a government by the scale of its social services. Can't you see how self-evidently nonsensical that is? Yea the people who murdered 10 million people in concentration camps were totally school teachers and public service workers. Not armed soldiers. Yuppers. This is such an absurd claim that I am tempted to ask whether you've taken the wrong pills. And yet, the only thing I've ever heard a libertarian complain about is that poor people are getting money from "the government". By supporting those elements of government that do in fact pose an actual danger to your life and liberty? Sounds like backwards logic to me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2014 8:33:52 GMT -5
Notice you didn't refute what I said. If people have less money (due to higher taxes) they will have less money to contribute to charity. Is there any reason why that wouldn't be so? I don't know the reason, but I know that the facts say it isn't so. Take a look at this Guardian article: www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2010/sep/08/charitable-giving-country SOURCE: CAF Australia Australasia 70% New Zealand Australasia 68% Ireland W&S Europe 72% Canada North America 64% Switzerland W&S Europe 71% United States North America 60% Netherlands W&S Europe 77% United Kingdom W&S Europe 73% Austria W&S Europe 69%
This is just part of a much larger table, I've picked out the number of people giving money to charity. If you take a closer look at the table in the original article you will see that there is little to no relationship between taxes or government size, and the money given to charity. Austria and the Netherlands for example have much higher tax rates than the US, and a much more comprehensive welfare system, but inhabitants there actually give slightly more to charity on average than in the States. Germany, on the other hand, ranks much lower, in the high 40%s. But Singapore, which has much lower taxes than either Germany or the US, ranks below both of them, around the 20%s. Since these are all roughly comparable in terms of wealth and development, it looks to me like taxation doesn't really have much of an influence on whether people give to charity or not.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Marks on Mar 26, 2014 16:32:28 GMT -5
Is this government with no police or military run by space aliens? Because you are not ever going to get a government like that on Earth. So you admit that your claim was bogus? LOL! No, it's your claim that's bogus. The only thing nonsensical here is your constant avoidance of giving a direct answer. 1) Welfare states require taxes. 2) Tax collextion requires police or other coerceive agency. 3) Therefore your example of a welfare state with no police is a myth that can never happen. Your other claim, that I measure the size and power of govenment by the size of its social services has no bearing here. If the contributions are voluntary, then there is no coercion and, in fact, no difference between your mythical state and one where private charities take care of social services. And yes, I do see that your above sentence is self-evidenly nonsenical. So you are claiming that the Nazis never used any form of indocrination on the German public, or that any such indocrination had no noticable effect? Then I'm afraid that it's your claim that's absurd and that maybe it is you who've taken the wron pills.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Marks on Mar 26, 2014 16:40:30 GMT -5
Notice you didn't refute what I said. If people have less money (due to higher taxes) they will have less money to contribute to charity. Is there any reason why that wouldn't be so? I don't know the reason, but I know that the facts say it isn't so. Take a look at this Guardian article: www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2010/sep/08/charitable-giving-countryDid you take a close look at that article before you posted it? The "results" are not based on actual data. They are based on information from Gallup polls in the various countries. Please post actual data as soon as you find some. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2014 5:19:07 GMT -5
Why don't you post some data proving that people with more money devote more money to charity?
That's the claim you made originally, and you haven't backed it up with any facts so far.
In fact, the only sources I've looked up on the internet so far have said that poor people give a much larger percentage of their income to charity than wealthy ones. And I've seen no proof whatsoever that people in countries with lower taxes give more of their money to charity.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2014 5:23:14 GMT -5
So you are claiming that the Nazis never used any form of indocrination on the German public, or that any such indocrination had no noticable effect? Why would I claim such a thing, and what does this have to do with your ridiculous claim that social services have a greater power to kill people than armies or policemen? Besides, why do you believe that only public education can indoctrinate people? You live in the country that made Fox News a national success, and that TV station has fooled more people than Goebbels could ever dream of!
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Mar 27, 2014 20:56:48 GMT -5
Why don't you post some data proving that people with more money devote more money to charity? That's the claim you made originally, and you haven't backed it up with any facts so far. In fact, the only sources I've looked up on the internet so far have said that poor people give a much larger percentage of their income to charity than wealthy ones. And I've seen no proof whatsoever that people in countries with lower taxes give more of their money to charity. Since you looked these sources up on the internet, why didn't you post the links? And you misquoted me above. I never said that wealthy people give more money to charity than poor people. What I actually did say is that when taxes are lowered, people will have more money with which to make donations to charity. I also found two articles that contradict the results of that Guardian article that you posted. And this from the Liberal Huffington Post: Bob
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Mar 27, 2014 21:06:47 GMT -5
So you are claiming that the Nazis never used any form of indocrination on the German public, or that any such indocrination had no noticable effect? Why would I claim such a thing, and what does this have to do with your ridiculous claim that social services have a greater power to kill people than armies or policemen? I never said that social services have a greater power to kill people. This is your misreading. And you did deny the effects of Nazi indocrination here: "Yea the people who murdered 10 million people in concentration camps were totally school teachers and public service workers. Not armed soldiers. Yuppers. " Apparently you think that schools in Nazi Germany were somehow above it all and were never a part of Nazi indoctrination efforts. I don't and never said any such thing. Notice you never supplied a quote where I said that. This is because such a quote doesn't exist. You have a very vivid imagination. It's called Freedom of the Press McAnswer. I a free society, anybody is free to express their opinions, but they have no right to silence others from doing the same. MSNBC is the polar opposite of Fox and people are free to watch both. They were not free to do anything like that in Nazi Germany, were they? BTW, here in America, we also give Nazis and Communists the right of free speech. We also give the same freedom to those who denounce them. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2014 7:07:27 GMT -5
Why would I claim such a thing, and what does this have to do with your ridiculous claim that social services have a greater power to kill people than armies or policemen? I never said that social services have a greater power to kill people. This is your misreading. Whenever you say "larger government" you mean "more social services". That's been the case since the very beginning of this thread. And you are claiming that "larger" governments i.e. governments with more social services have a greater power to kill people than "smaller" governments i.e. governments with fewer social services. The whole nonsense with Nazi Germany is a Red Herring on your part. German education under the Nazis was awful, but schoolteachers did not habitually kill people. The people who killed others came from those services that you consider essential for "small" governments - army, police, and clandestine services. And in case you don't know, the Nazis cut a lot of welfare and social services from the Weimar era. Unemployment subsidies for example were drastically reduced, because they wanted private charities to take over. Sounds familiar?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Mar 28, 2014 11:08:33 GMT -5
I never said that social services have a greater power to kill people. This is your misreading. Whenever you say "larger government" you mean "more social services". That's been the case since the very beginning of this thread. No That's totally wrong. I also include the military and police. And BTW, many of those "social services" are government handouts to corporations. Do you want to see those increased? Nope. I notice that you didn't supply any quotes from what I said to back up what you say here. There reason is there aren't any such quotes because I never anything of the sort. It just took me 2 minutes of a Google search to refute that. Take a look: And this: People don't just become murderers. They have to be trained and indoctrinated. Really? Where are your supporting links? I had no trouble finding a link that contradicts what you claim here. It seems the Nazis had their own social service program, the Nationalsozialistische Volkswohlfahrt/People's Welfare Organization (NSV) . Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2014 11:49:43 GMT -5
Bob, the NSV was a private organization, and funded through charity drives, not tax money. The source your cite even talks about this: The Nazis drastically cut unemployment subsidies and welfare payments, and used the Winterhilfswerk (a charity drive organized by the NSV) as a substitute. They banned socialist charities such as the AWO ( Arbeiterwohlfahrt, "Worker's Welfare", the largest German charity next to the Christian Caritas, and the only one that actively lobbied for the expansion of social services) and used their assets for the NSV.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2014 12:07:33 GMT -5
As an aside: the author of that site seems to believe that "Nazi" is an acronym. It's not. It's simply a shortening of "Nationalsozialist". In German the "t" in "Nationalsozialist" is pronounced like a "z". Hence "Nazi"(onalsozialist).
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Mar 31, 2014 16:59:13 GMT -5
Bob, the NSV was a private organization, and funded through charity drives, not tax money. The source your cite even talks about this: The Nazis drastically cut unemployment subsidies and welfare payments, and used the Winterhilfswerk (a charity drive organized by the NSV) as a substitute. They banned socialist charities such as the AWO ( Arbeiterwohlfahrt, "Worker's Welfare", the largest German charity next to the Christian Caritas, and the only one that actively lobbied for the expansion of social services) and used their assets for the NSV. It's quite obvious form what you posted here that the NSV was just another branch of the Nazi party. By no means could it be considered an independent private charity. And private charities rely exclusively on voluntary contributions. They don't ban rival charities and have the government seize their assets. Interesting. How many "private" charities do you know whose head officer is appointed by a government official? Private charities are not run by a nation's only political party. The NSV was not a private, voluntary charity by any means. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2014 14:43:09 GMT -5
It's quite obvious form what you posted here that the NSV was just another branch of the Nazi party. There's a pretty obvious connection between the two. But that doesn't make the NSV a public organization, let alone public welfare. Did you read the link I provided? The NSV did rely on voluntary contributions. More importantly, there already existed a public welfare system in Weimar Germany. Part of the Nazis' social program was to cut off the "parasites" from public funds, so they cut welfare and introduced a workfare program for unemployed people.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 2, 2014 17:19:13 GMT -5
It's quite obvious form what you posted here that the NSV was just another branch of the Nazi party. There's a pretty obvious connection between the two. But that doesn't make the NSV a public organization, let alone public welfare. Well it certainly doesn't make it a private charity either. It was merely another organ of the Nazi party and took orders from the party. Yeah, well when someone comes around to collect a "voluntary contribution" for the Nazi party "charity", you can bet that not too many people would refuse. Of course they did. Nazi Germany needed more workers in the arms industry to prepare for WWII. Compare this to a Libertarian government which would reduce the military, lower taxes, and improve the economy by putting people to work in peaceful, consumer industries. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 4, 2014 10:39:44 GMT -5
Compare this to a Libertarian government which would reduce the military, lower taxes, and improve the economy by putting people to work in peaceful, consumer industries. Bob Didn't you claim earlier that putting people to work wasn't part of a libertarian government's purview? If people in a libertarian society can't find work, then they have to rely on private individuals, or their own savings.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 4, 2014 17:51:27 GMT -5
Compare this to a Libertarian government which would reduce the military, lower taxes, and improve the economy by putting people to work in peaceful, consumer industries. Bob Didn't you claim earlier that putting people to work wasn't part of a libertarian government's purview? If people in a libertarian society can't find work, then they have to rely on private individuals, or their own savings. Yes, it isn't a direct part of the Libertarian platform. It's a beneficial side effect. However, lower taxes means people will have more money to spend. That improves the economy and creates more jobs. That means fewer people who cannot find work. The smaller number of people who cannot find work should easily be taken care of by friend or private charities. Even today, with government welfare, people are sometimes forced to rely on friends and family. I myself for a period of months have paid the rent for a friend who couldn't find work. I have yet to be repaid but I would do it again because friends take care of friends. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2014 10:33:19 GMT -5
Didn't you claim earlier that putting people to work wasn't part of a libertarian government's purview? If people in a libertarian society can't find work, then they have to rely on private individuals, or their own savings. Yes, it isn't a direct part of the Libertarian platform. It's a beneficial side effect. However, lower taxes means people will have more money to spend. They have "more money" to spend on infrastructure, health insurance, unemployment insurance, education... In other words, they have more money to spend on the exact same things they've spent their money before. Only, because only the people who directly and immediately need these services are paying for them, they actually have to pay more for it. Actually, it means that all public employees are fired and out on the street, looking for a job just like the others. (I predict you are now trying to explain that away by insisting that libertarian market economies are so much more efficient than our modern economies, and that they will evidently generate so much more wealth that this will not become a problem. ) "Easily". And yet you claim that our current system, which draws a lot more money to be used for welfare and unemployment subsidies, is incapable of dealing with these people. And then you turn around and claim that fewer people with less money will "easily" deal with them just fine. Yea, but you live in the US. Your welfare system is terrible even by third world standards. And therefore you think everyone in trouble will have a friend who can pay for their rent out of pocket? And you don't have a problem with a friend robbing you of your savings, but it's somehow worse when you have to pay less money to ensure your friend can actually live on his own?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 5, 2014 12:10:05 GMT -5
Yes, it isn't a direct part of the Libertarian platform. It's a beneficial side effect. However, lower taxes means people will have more money to spend. They have "more money" to spend on infrastructure, health insurance, unemployment insurance, education... In other words, they have more money to spend on the exact same things they've spent their money before. Yes. So? This is a problem because...? Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean here. Why would they be paying more? Yes. Thank you for stating it for me. Yes. This is because government programs here in the USA are enormously inefficient. www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/09/13/if-the-us-spends-550-billion-on-poverty-how-can-there-still-be-poverty-in-the-us/ Yes again. This is because lower taxes means an improving economy, and an improved economy less poverty to begin with. Are you saying that people in European countries never ask for help from friends and families? If not, there are private charities that can do the job. Robbing? I loaned that money voluntarily. That is quite different from the government robbing me to fund inefficient government programs just so some politician can show how "compassionate" they are at election time. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2014 16:01:24 GMT -5
They have "more money" to spend on infrastructure, health insurance, unemployment insurance, education... In other words, they have more money to spend on the exact same things they've spent their money before. Yes. So? This is a problem because...? It's not a problem. It's the exact same situation, only worse, because the people who do not utilize a service are no longer paying for it, likely causing price hikes for all those who do use that service. Because when everyone pays for a service, the costs are spread out more evenly. If only a fraction of those people have to pay to keep the service afloat, the rates for the individual are going to be much higher. Then I guess you've remained more of a Marxist than you're ready to admit Bob. Because that is word for word how I've heard Marxists explain how communism would be capable of feeding, clothing, and sheltering anyone of need. And much like with the Marxist idea of communism, there is no evidence that this would ever actually happen.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 6, 2014 19:28:03 GMT -5
Yes. So? This is a problem because...? It's not a problem. It's the exact same situation, only worse, because the people who do not utilize a service are no longer paying for it, likely causing price hikes for all those who do use that service. Huh? My point was that people will have more money to spend. How did you get from "more money to spend" to "people who do not utilize a service are no longer paying for it? What service is it that people are going to stop paying for? LOL! The Marxists claimed that their system would be more efficient. They had 70 years to prove it and they failed miserably. On the other hand, every economy that made major moves towards the free market prospered greatly within 2 to 3 decades. Hundreds of millions have been raised out of poverty in India and China alone, and that is only with partial reforms. The evidence is massive. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2014 13:35:15 GMT -5
It's not a problem. It's the exact same situation, only worse, because the people who do not utilize a service are no longer paying for it, likely causing price hikes for all those who do use that service. Huh? My point was that people will have more money to spend. How did you get from "more money to spend" to "people who do not utilize a service are no longer paying for it? Via libertarians cutting all public services. So if you want those subway lines to continue, you better pay up, along with the rest of your district, or there will be no more subway lines in your vicinity. How else do you think all these utilities are going to be funded, Bob? Magical Market Fairies? Healthcare, education, infrastructure, utilities, unemployment insurance, health insurance, retiremend funds... none of these are going to be funded by tax money any more. In other words, people who prefer to drive will stop paying for your subway line. As opposed to libertarians, who had two centuries to prove it, and still failed. Where is your proof that minimal government has ever resulted in increased prosperity for everyone? Really? Then why is it that the time period between 1945 and 1965, when most Western countries implemented public welfare, was a period of prosperity and economic growth for industrialized Western societies? How can it be that the US and Europe have seen their economies stagnate during the last 30 years of market liberalization and de-nationalization? And yet, large parts of Eastern Europe have been in economic decline since they abandoned communism in the 1990s. How is that possible when less regulation is always better?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 8, 2014 18:09:07 GMT -5
Huh? My point was that people will have more money to spend. How did you get from "more money to spend" to "people who do not utilize a service are no longer paying for it? Via libertarians cutting all public services. So if you want those subway lines to continue, you better pay up, along with the rest of your district, or there will be no more subway lines in your vicinity. How else do you think all these utilities are going to be funded, Bob? Magical Market Fairies? And if the government didn't make cows, no one would have milk. Oh wait, the government doesn't make cows. ;)Those subway lines were original private and they operated quite well for decades. What will be cut is government participation in public services. The services will still be supplied by the market, not market fairies. OHMYGOD! WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE!!! I had private health insurance for several decades without any government subsidy. Utilities here in the USA are still privately owned. No government electricity, gas, or phone. They never were funded by government. Gee, I guess it must be some sort of illusion that they are working just fine. That's okay. The people wjo take subways will stop payng for the car drivers roads and bridges. Oh yes, the Industrial Revolution was a failure. That's why you posted this as a letter and mailed it to me instead of posting it on your free market produced computer. Every time free market policies were introduced, the economy had a sharp upward turn. I posted on India and China several times already. Perhaps you missed it. Hundreds of millions of people raised out of poverty within 3 decades. Easy. This was natural recovery from the destruction of WWII. They started from a very low base so the increases were magnified. Liberalized? Really? Let's see your data. Post some links to back up that claim. They abandoned communism, but did they really institute free market reforms? Once again, please show some data. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2014 15:13:24 GMT -5
Via libertarians cutting all public services. So if you want those subway lines to continue, you better pay up, along with the rest of your district, or there will be no more subway lines in your vicinity. How else do you think all these utilities are going to be funded, Bob? Magical Market Fairies? And if the government didn't make cows, no one would have milk. Oh wait, the government doesn't make cows. If the government owns all the cows, then you better come up with a good explanation how people will get milk before making the government shoot them all. Really? Wikipedia tells me that the subway lines were built by the city and the profits shared between city administration and private shareholders: The first underground line of the New York City Subway opened on October 27, 1904, almost 35 years after the opening of the first elevated line in New York City, which became the IRT Ninth Avenue Line. By the time the first subway opened, the lines had been consolidated into two privately owned systems, the Brooklyn Rapid Transit Company (BRT, later Brooklyn–Manhattan Transit Corporation, BMT) and the Interborough Rapid Transit Company (IRT). The city was closely involved: all lines built for the IRT and most other lines built or improved for the BRT after 1913 were built by the city and leased to the companies In 1898, New York, Kings and Richmond Counties, and parts of Queens and Westchester Counties and their constituent cities, towns, villages and hamlets were consolidated into the City of Greater New York. During this era the expanded City of New York resolved that it wanted the core of future rapid transit to be underground subways, but realized that no private company was willing to put up the enormous capital required to build beneath the streets. The City decided to issue rapid transit bonds outside of its regular bonded debt limit and build the subways itself, and contracted with the IRT (which by that time ran the elevated lines in Manhattan) to equip and operate the subways, sharing the profits with the City and guaranteeing a fixed five-cent fare. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_New_York_City_SubwayIf they were supplied by the market, then they wouldn't be "public" services. They'd be private for-profit enterprises. Roads and schools are private in the US? There are no public hospitals? What about Medicare and Medicaid, aren't those public programs? You're 70 years old, are you living entirely off your personal savings? Indeed they will. Sounds like New York's cab drivers are looking at tough times in your libertarian utopia. You do know that they built all those railroads across the US with government handouts, right? Do you think Britain would have been the world leader in textile production in the early 1800s if the British colonial government hadn't outlawed India from producing textiles? (Before Britain took control of India, the country was the world's leading producer of cotton cloth) Some "free market" policies! Meanwhile, the Irish Potato famine was deliberately worsened by free market policies like the refusal of the British government to set food prices in Ireland. Like in Reagan's USA you mean, where taxes where cut in half? Or in Pinochet's Chile, where within two years of Pinochet taking power, the country's GDP had halved? Or in 1990s Russia, where the communist economy was abolished and their economy nearly collapsed into chaos? And yet, India is still one of the poorest countries in the world, even though it is the country with the sixth largest number of billionaires in the world. And China's per capita GDP is still below that of all but two of the poorest European countries (Ukraine and Armenia, both countries that cast aside communism in favor of a more free market oriented economy). en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_the_number_of_US_dollar_billionairesen.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PPP%29_per_capitaMeanwhile the people of "socialist" Europe are still among the wealthiest in the world. Really? What portion of the US was destroyed during WW2? www.multpl.com/us-gdp-inflation-adjusted/tableDec 31, 1935 0.94 trillion Dec 31, 1945 2.22 trillion Dec 31, 1955 2.78 trillion Dec 31, 1965 4.10 trillion You mean, like India or China? How do you define a "free market reform" in that context, Bob? What "free market reforms" did China implement that Eastern European countries did not?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 10, 2014 17:32:59 GMT -5
And if the government didn't make cows, no one would have milk. Oh wait, the government doesn't make cows. If the government owns all the cows, then you better come up with a good explanation how people will get milk before making the government shoot them all. It would really be stupid to shoot all the cows. Oh wait, you did say that the government would do it. Yes, but as your article says, they were privately run for over 30 years. Your original point was that private companies can't run public utilities. But they already have and your article proves it. Yes! The point is the services would still be provided and our taxes would go down. Red Herring. Do you deny that electric, gas, and phone utilities are supplied privately in the USA? Cable services too. What I did say is that the free market is already supplying many so-called "public services" and so far you haven't given any reason why it can't supply the rest as well. And I am not living off my personal savings. I still work for a living. And your evidence for this is...? Wrong. They built them with government backed bonds. There was no tax money involved. And the steel mills and oil wells were not built with any government money. Those crony capitalist policies, those remnants of mercantilism, were not responsible for the great gains in productivity of the Industrial Revolution. I already posted a response to this in another thread. British government policies were based on religious bigotry, not free market principles. That same government violated free market principles by supplying government aid to Scotland when it had a potato blight. And government expenses and debt was increased. That was not the free market. That was a Keynesian stimulus. What you didn't mention here is that the economic reforms were not introduced until two years after Pinochet took power. LOL! And you are claiming that Russia ever had a free market! Corrupt officials simply "sold" government industries to themselves and their friends. That's because they didn't go all the way to the free market! The fact is that over 100 million people in India were raised out of poverty in the last 25 years. This is the direct result of the few free market reforms that they permitted. Once again, you are ignoring the vast improvements that have been made in a short time. The fact is that over 200 million Chinese have been raised out of poverty in the last 30 years since the economic reforms. Not for long. China and India are growing faster. Here are the GDP growth rates from the Worldbank for 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012: China 9.2 10.4 9.3 7.8 India 8.5 10.3 6.6 4.7 Austria -3.8 1.8 2.8 0.9 France -3.1 1.7 2.0 0.0 Germany -5.1 4.0 3.3 0.7 data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.KD.ZG
|
|