Total Posts:36|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Legitimacy/Flaws of all forms of Anarchism

ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2013 4:41:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
What are the benefits of creating an Anarchist gov't (any form is applicable, anarcho-communism, Anarcho-syndicalism, etc)

What are the negatives of having an Anarchist government? (Once again, any form applicable)

Is Anarchism applicable only in theory, or are there ways to adapt it to work in modern society?

Post your opinions on this thread, I will not reveal my opinion until I refute an argument I disagree with or support an argument I agree with,
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2013 5:05:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/31/2013 4:41:30 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:

Is Anarchism applicable only in theory, or are there ways to adapt it to work in modern society?

There should never be a schism between theory and practice. Theories of social/political structures are *meant* to reflect correctly how they would play out in "the real world". So it's non-sensical to say something works in theory but not in practice. If it doesn't work in practice than it didn't work in theory to begin with.

Though on the subject matter of the OP, I find it difficult to be able to post entirety of my reasons for anarchism here in detail without either not doing them justice or failing to include important considerations. I'll try anyways though.

1) States aren't magic wands. There's a tendency when arguing about the role of the State, for Statists to identify a problem (say poverty for instance) and introduce the State as some sure-fire way to solve it. But this isn't the case considering that the likelihood that any State will obey *your* edicts is slim to none. Just saying States should do this or should do that without taking into account the reality of State incentives and history amounts to a flawed arguments from the start.

2) States are made up of people. A common criticism of markets/non-State organizations/people in general is that people can't be trusted to act on their own. People might kill, people might steal, people might rape, ad nauseum. The State on the other hand is lifted up to a seemingly mythological place in which agents of the State act only in the interest of the "public good". But there's no reason to simply presume this and in fact we see the opposite of it all the time.

3) States introduce unique public goods problems. When you hear about public goods, it's usually in reference to roads or defense. But States introduce their own problem, that of the production of socially optimal policies and legislation. Special interests tend to take over the interests of the State both because they have more resources to use in garnering favor, because politicians are generally succeptible to corporate interests (in need of funds towards re-election or just greed), and because the populace gains less from an individual vote than they lose from most special interest handouts (i.e., costs are spread out enough to make the impact intangible on any given person). So policies are more likely to be geared towards paying off special interests than they are towards actually helping people.

etc. etc. etc.

In all honesty, it's terribly inconvenient to justify a negative (statelesness). Rather it would be better to simply here someone's critique of anarchism and then just respond to that. Because no matter how many bad things I point out about the State, a Statist will invariably come back with some random quip about anarchism somehow being worse.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2013 2:52:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/31/2013 5:05:27 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 1/31/2013 4:41:30 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:

Is Anarchism applicable only in theory, or are there ways to adapt it to work in modern society?

There should never be a schism between theory and practice. Theories of social/political structures are *meant* to reflect correctly how they would play out in "the real world". So it's non-sensical to say something works in theory but not in practice. If it doesn't work in practice than it didn't work in theory to begin with.

Though on the subject matter of the OP, I find it difficult to be able to post entirety of my reasons for anarchism here in detail without either not doing them justice or failing to include important considerations. I'll try anyways though.

1) States aren't magic wands. There's a tendency when arguing about the role of the State, for Statists to identify a problem (say poverty for instance) and introduce the State as some sure-fire way to solve it. But this isn't the case considering that the likelihood that any State will obey *your* edicts is slim to none. Just saying States should do this or should do that without taking into account the reality of State incentives and history amounts to a flawed arguments from the start.

2) States are made up of people. A common criticism of markets/non-State organizations/people in general is that people can't be trusted to act on their own. People might kill, people might steal, people might rape, ad nauseum. The State on the other hand is lifted up to a seemingly mythological place in which agents of the State act only in the interest of the "public good". But there's no reason to simply presume this and in fact we see the opposite of it all the time.

3) States introduce unique public goods problems. When you hear about public goods, it's usually in reference to roads or defense. But States introduce their own problem, that of the production of socially optimal policies and legislation. Special interests tend to take over the interests of the State both because they have more resources to use in garnering favor, because politicians are generally succeptible to corporate interests (in need of funds towards re-election or just greed), and because the populace gains less from an individual vote than they lose from most special interest handouts (i.e., costs are spread out enough to make the impact intangible on any given person). So policies are more likely to be geared towards paying off special interests than they are towards actually helping people.

etc. etc. etc.

In all honesty, it's terribly inconvenient to justify a negative (statelesness). Rather it would be better to simply here someone's critique of anarchism and then just respond to that. Because no matter how many bad things I point out about the State, a Statist will invariably come back with some random quip about anarchism somehow being worse.

Your grievances seem legitimate, my main reply will be to 2.

I understand that the gov't is not consistently (always) on the morally correct side, but without law enforcement, roads, all the scientific research that has been done via gov't, what would the world be? Wouldn't we still all be only a little more civilized than neanderthals? Also, consider what you yourself would be without if you fully took up anarchism, or the country did. You would have no internet, (or it would be ridden with viruses and scammers that could never be brought to justice), you would not be protected under any legal system, our nation would probably be under constant attack from outsiders, (A militia worked to defend against outsiders, 100 years ago, now things have evolved far too much for a couple hundred thousands hill billies with shotguns), you would be driving on dirt, there would be no railways, which means we would still be 3rd world, America would be the equivalent of a post apocalyptic world that you see on TV without all the things I just mentioned. Where would trash go? Would we just pile it until there was a "trash avalanche", like in the movie Idiocracy? Would companies own america and would our rivers, lakes, and possible oceans by ridden with pollution and toxic waste as a result? Think about these things! The gov't is like your parents, hate them as you might, you need them if you don't want to live like an uncivilized cave man.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2013 3:37:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/31/2013 4:41:30 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
What are the benefits of creating an Anarchist gov't (any form is applicable, anarcho-communism, Anarcho-syndicalism, etc)

What are the negatives of having an Anarchist government? (Once again, any form applicable)

Is Anarchism applicable only in theory, or are there ways to adapt it to work in modern society?

Post your opinions on this thread, I will not reveal my opinion until I refute an argument I disagree with or support an argument I agree with,

The problem with any type of anarchistic government at this stage in civilization is that it could not maintain a standing army and would be treated like pre-colonial Africa.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2013 4:28:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
All physically possible forms of structure in society need only the cultural precedent to come into place.

As for any real net changes in the quality of life for everyone, I don't think there's even any inherent difference there.

Practical ethics would do best to keep it's business with the individual.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2013 7:20:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/1/2013 4:28:05 PM, FREEDO wrote:
All physically possible forms of structure in society need only the cultural precedent to come into place.

As for any real net changes in the quality of life for everyone, I don't think there's even any inherent difference there.

Practical ethics would do best to keep it's business with the individual.

FREEDO, I wish I could live in the world you speak of where, we could rely on people being good hearted to keep a stable society, unfortunately the world can't be governed by a Utopian theory, it has to be governed practically.
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2013 7:36:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/1/2013 2:52:40 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:

Your grievances seem legitimate, my main reply will be to 2.

I understand that the gov't is not consistently (always) on the morally correct side, but without law enforcement, roads, all the scientific research that has been done via gov't, what would the world be? Wouldn't we still all be only a little more civilized than neanderthals?

No. This entire point is a pile of post hoc ergo propter hoc, "after therefore because". These things *have* been provided by governments, that doesn't mean they can only be provided that way

Also, consider what you yourself would be without if you fully took up anarchism, or the country did. You would have no internet, (or it would be ridden with viruses and scammers that could never be brought to justice),

How do you figure? Because it couldn't exist without the State? Refer to the above

you would not be protected under any legal system,

You're presupposing monocentrism is the only viable way to coordinate a legal system. Anarchists merely want to supplant that with polycentric law.

our nation would probably be under constant attack from outsiders, (A militia worked to defend against outsiders, 100 years ago, now things have evolved far too much for a couple hundred thousands hill billies with shotguns),

National defense is open to a coasian solution. Large scale collective decision making need not be carried out via coercion.

you would be driving on dirt, there would be no railways,

Why's that exactly?

which means we would still be 3rd world, America would be the equivalent of a post apocalyptic world that you see on TV without all the things I just mentioned. Where would trash go?

In trash cans like it does now.

Would we just pile it until there was a "trash avalanche", like in the movie Idiocracy? Would companies own america and would our rivers, lakes, and possible oceans by ridden with pollution and toxic waste as a result?

Propertarianism entails efforts to create sustainability. Pollution is largely the result of a simple tragedy of the commons problem.

Think about these things! The gov't is like your parents, hate them as you might, you need them if you don't want to live like an uncivilized cave man.

You sound like someone who's never even stopped to hear what the other side is arguing.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2013 8:21:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/1/2013 7:36:16 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 2/1/2013 2:52:40 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:

Your grievances seem legitimate, my main reply will be to 2.

I understand that the gov't is not consistently (always) on the morally correct side, but without law enforcement, roads, all the scientific research that has been done via gov't, what would the world be? Wouldn't we still all be only a little more civilized than neanderthals?

No. This entire point is a pile of post hoc ergo propter hoc, "after therefore because". These things *have* been provided by governments, that doesn't mean they can only be provided that way

Also, consider what you yourself would be without if you fully took up anarchism, or the country did. You would have no internet, (or it would be ridden with viruses and scammers that could never be brought to justice),

How do you figure? Because it couldn't exist without the State? Refer to the above

you would not be protected under any legal system,

You're presupposing monocentrism is the only viable way to coordinate a legal system. Anarchists merely want to supplant that with polycentric law.

our nation would probably be under constant attack from outsiders, (A militia worked to defend against outsiders, 100 years ago, now things have evolved far too much for a couple hundred thousands hill billies with shotguns),

National defense is open to a coasian solution. Large scale collective decision making need not be carried out via coercion.

you would be driving on dirt, there would be no railways,

Why's that exactly?

which means we would still be 3rd world, America would be the equivalent of a post apocalyptic world that you see on TV without all the things I just mentioned. Where would trash go?

In trash cans like it does now.

Would we just pile it until there was a "trash avalanche", like in the movie Idiocracy? Would companies own america and would our rivers, lakes, and possible oceans by ridden with pollution and toxic waste as a result?

Propertarianism entails efforts to create sustainability. Pollution is largely the result of a simple tragedy of the commons problem.

Think about these things! The gov't is like your parents, hate them as you might, you need them if you don't want to live like an uncivilized cave man.

You sound like someone who's never even stopped to hear what the other side is arguing.

I do not think my argument only plays out unrealistic scenarios as you claimed, it pointed out what would happen without gov't services.

If private companies competed to enforce the justice system, there would be a terrible problem with that, who would pay the private companies? There would be no taxes under anarchism, how can any gov't service be possible without money? Do anarchists also think we shouldn't have a currency then? Should we be buying day to day items with salt or bartering?
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2013 8:28:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/1/2013 7:36:16 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 2/1/2013 2:52:40 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:

Your grievances seem legitimate, my main reply will be to 2.

I understand that the gov't is not consistently (always) on the morally correct side, but without law enforcement, roads, all the scientific research that has been done via gov't, what would the world be? Wouldn't we still all be only a little more civilized than neanderthals?

No. This entire point is a pile of post hoc ergo propter hoc, "after therefore because". These things *have* been provided by governments, that doesn't mean they can only be provided that way

Also, consider what you yourself would be without if you fully took up anarchism, or the country did. You would have no internet, (or it would be ridden with viruses and scammers that could never be brought to justice),

How do you figure? Because it couldn't exist without the State? Refer to the above

you would not be protected under any legal system,

You're presupposing monocentrism is the only viable way to coordinate a legal system. Anarchists merely want to supplant that with polycentric law.

our nation would probably be under constant attack from outsiders, (A militia worked to defend against outsiders, 100 years ago, now things have evolved far too much for a couple hundred thousands hill billies with shotguns),

National defense is open to a coasian solution. Large scale collective decision making need not be carried out via coercion.

you would be driving on dirt, there would be no railways,

Why's that exactly?

which means we would still be 3rd world, America would be the equivalent of a post apocalyptic world that you see on TV without all the things I just mentioned. Where would trash go?

In trash cans like it does now.

Would we just pile it until there was a "trash avalanche", like in the movie Idiocracy? Would companies own america and would our rivers, lakes, and possible oceans by ridden with pollution and toxic waste as a result?

Propertarianism entails efforts to create sustainability. Pollution is largely the result of a simple tragedy of the commons problem.

Think about these things! The gov't is like your parents, hate them as you might, you need them if you don't want to live like an uncivilized cave man.

You sound like someone who's never even stopped to hear what the other side is arguing.

Also, propertarianism does not relate to how we would handle the trash problem. Are you saying everyone should have to own their own trash compacter? Trash compacter's are not cheap, and trash can not just be piled to the sky. Also, there could be no logical coasian solution for national defense, it would be as simple as this (as all my other points are simple, but true), no gov't revenue= no gov't services, including the military. Also, there would be no railways because the gov't partially subsidized the pacific and union railroads, to the point that it was only profitable for the pacific and union to build railroads if they were receiving payouts from the gov't, without those payouts, america would be a third world trash hole, without the railroads we would be a third world trash hole. You would be driving on dirt because no one person is rich enough to maintain the country's highways , they would not even be making a profit by charging a toll, unless they charged you $100.00 for each time you drove 50 miles! Private contractors could handle all of this, but without a tax system, no one would pay for the contractors, and no contractor does work out of the good will of their heart.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2013 8:32:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/1/2013 7:20:59 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 2/1/2013 4:28:05 PM, FREEDO wrote:
All physically possible forms of structure in society need only the cultural precedent to come into place.

As for any real net changes in the quality of life for everyone, I don't think there's even any inherent difference there.

Practical ethics would do best to keep it's business with the individual.

FREEDO, I wish I could live in the world you speak of where, we could rely on people being good hearted to keep a stable society, unfortunately the world can't be governed by a Utopian theory, it has to be governed practically.

I wouldn't rely on people being good-hearted in any system.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2013 8:36:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/1/2013 8:28:17 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:

Also, propertarianism does not relate to how we would handle the trash problem. Are you saying everyone should have to own their own trash compacter? Trash compacter's are not cheap, and trash can not just be piled to the sky.

I didn't relate that to propertarianism. You're thinking of my response to the pollution point.

Also, there could be no logical coasian solution for national defense, it would be as simple as this (as all my other points are simple, but true), no gov't revenue= no gov't services, including the military.

I have a feeling you have no idea what a coasian solution actually is.

Also, there would be no railways because the gov't partially subsidized the pacific and union railroads, to the point that it was only profitable for the pacific and union to build railroads if they were receiving payouts from the gov't, without those payouts, america would be a third world trash hole, without the railroads we would be a third world trash hole.

Again post hoc ergo propter hoc. Learn2 logic.

You would be driving on dirt because no one person is rich enough to maintain the country's highways , they would not even be making a profit by charging a toll, unless they charged you $100.00 for each time you drove 50 miles!

How did you come to those figures? Random guess, thought so. Anyways, I don't really understand your reasoning for why toll/user charges are somehow an a priori unsustainable business practice but that's probs owing to the fact that you didn't forward more than a bare assertion.

Private contractors could handle all of this, but without a tax system, no one would pay for the contractors, and no contractor does work out of the good will of their heart.

Because no one wants things like roads or trash pickup.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2013 8:41:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/1/2013 8:21:51 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:

I do not think my argument only plays out unrealistic scenarios as you claimed, it pointed out what would happen without gov't services.

I didn't say that at all. And again, all you've shown is that one way in which services can be provided is through the State. You haven't shown why they *couldn't* be provided another way.

If private companies competed to enforce the justice system, there would be a terrible problem with that, who would pay the private companies?

People who want their services.

There would be no taxes under anarchism, how can any gov't service be possible without money?

Same way everyone else gets money, contractual payment for services.

Do anarchists also think we shouldn't have a currency then?

Not a mandatory, universal currency. Central banking isn't the only way to establish a universal medium of exchange. Historically, a few materials have arisen due to their usefulness in such matters (i.e., being elemental, easily dividable, possessing other industrial purposes, etc.). I'm referring to gold and silver and the like.

Should we be buying day to day items with salt or bartering?

You can barter if someone will accept it. But as to your presupposition that this would be necessitated without the State, not so much.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2013 8:42:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/1/2013 8:32:43 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 2/1/2013 7:20:59 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 2/1/2013 4:28:05 PM, FREEDO wrote:
All physically possible forms of structure in society need only the cultural precedent to come into place.

As for any real net changes in the quality of life for everyone, I don't think there's even any inherent difference there.

Practical ethics would do best to keep it's business with the individual.

FREEDO, I wish I could live in the world you speak of where, we could rely on people being good hearted to keep a stable society, unfortunately the world can't be governed by a Utopian theory, it has to be governed practically.

I wouldn't rely on people being good-hearted in any system.

Yeah I didn't see that in the post at all. I don't think reading comprehension is this guy's strong suit.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2013 8:49:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/1/2013 8:36:39 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 2/1/2013 8:28:17 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:

Also, propertarianism does not relate to how we would handle the trash problem. Are you saying everyone should have to own their own trash compacter? Trash compacter's are not cheap, and trash can not just be piled to the sky.

I didn't relate that to propertarianism. You're thinking of my response to the pollution point.

Also, there could be no logical coasian solution for national defense, it would be as simple as this (as all my other points are simple, but true), no gov't revenue= no gov't services, including the military.

I have a feeling you have no idea what a coasian solution actually is.

Also, there would be no railways because the gov't partially subsidized the pacific and union railroads, to the point that it was only profitable for the pacific and union to build railroads if they were receiving payouts from the gov't, without those payouts, america would be a third world trash hole, without the railroads we would be a third world trash hole.

Again post hoc ergo propter hoc. Learn2 logic.

You would be driving on dirt because no one person is rich enough to maintain the country's highways , they would not even be making a profit by charging a toll, unless they charged you $100.00 for each time you drove 50 miles!

How did you come to those figures? Random guess, thought so. Anyways, I don't really understand your reasoning for why toll/user charges are somehow an a priori unsustainable business practice but that's probs owing to the fact that you didn't forward more than a bare assertion.

Private contractors could handle all of this, but without a tax system, no one would pay for the contractors, and no contractor does work out of the good will of their heart.

Because no one wants things like roads or trash pickup.

Yes, but without the efficiency of a gov't ran trash and road system, it would be much more expensive to have competitive contractors, would it not? When the gov't is subsidizing a program, it automatically causes the prices to go down because the gov't does not need to turn a profit in a program to keep it running, the gov't only needs to have operating costs, a business needs profit, meaning trash pickup and road services would be more costly under private contractors, so government wins out over the private sector in those services.

Also, unless there was a collective payer system, propertarianism would still not be applicable to clean up pollution, and this would take a governing body to make sure everyone pays their fair share.

Also, I am aware of what a coasian solution is, but please elaborate on how a coasian solution could be applicable to the military.

Also, if you knew anything about the country you so ardently you would realize the 2nd industrial revolution started with the steel industry, the railroads were the main buyers of steel (still are one of the top buyers of steel today), without the 2nd industrial revolution, America would be nothing like it is today, that is not an assumption, that is simply looking at what america was before the 2nd indust revolution and what it was during and after.

Also, toll roads are illogical because the gov't does not need to make a profit on roads, they simply need to cover costs, a private company turns a profit, and since the highway is now necessary for most people to get from place to place, the private companies could charge whatever they wanted to, and you would have to pay it unless you wanted to be blocked off from half of the country.
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2013 8:55:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/31/2013 4:41:30 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
Is Anarchism applicable only in theory, or are there ways to adapt it to work in modern society?

Anytime you do anything that the government doesn't interfere with, you are engaging in anarchy. It does work. The government doesn't need to help you organise to pay your bills or go to work (mostly).
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2013 8:58:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/1/2013 8:49:51 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:

Yes, but without the efficiency of a gov't ran trash and road system, it would be much more expensive to have competitive contractors, would it not? When the gov't is subsidizing a program, it automatically causes the prices to go down because the gov't does not need to turn a profit in a program to keep it running, the gov't only needs to have operating costs, a business needs profit, meaning trash pickup and road services would be more costly under private contractors, so government wins out over the private sector in those services.

Subsidization doesn't eliminate costs entirely. The money comes from taxation i.e., it's stealthily imposed on everyone anyways. There's no cost difference, it's just moved around in a different way.

Also, unless there was a collective payer system, propertarianism would still not be applicable to clean up pollution, and this would take a governing body to make sure everyone pays their fair share.

What are you talking about? If I own a lake, I have a vested interest in keeping it clean. Why do I need other people to pay in?

Also, I am aware of what a coasian solution is, but please elaborate on how a coasian solution could be applicable to the military.

It's a type of contract which binds large collectives. I sign a contract saying I'll pay for a service if everyone else does. If enough people sign up, I pay and the service/good is produced. If not enough people sign up I get my money back. It eliminates the free rider problem/ prisoners dillema often times brought up in defense of State control of defense.

Also, if you knew anything about the country you so ardently you would realize the 2nd industrial revolution started with the steel industry, the railroads were the main buyers of steel (still are one of the top buyers of steel today), without the 2nd industrial revolution, America would be nothing like it is today, that is not an assumption, that is simply looking at what america was before the 2nd indust revolution and what it was during and after.

I didn't say anything to the contrary. I just said you're presuming that railroads could not be possible without gov. subsidization. But whatevs.

Also, toll roads are illogical because the gov't does not need to make a profit on roads, they simply need to cover costs, a private company turns a profit, and since the highway is now necessary for most people to get from place to place, the private companies could charge whatever they wanted to, and you would have to pay it unless you wanted to be blocked off from half of the country.

Presuming a monopoly on road services are we? Why doesn't Walmart charge 100% for a lighter? Answer that for yourself and you'll know why your exorbitant price theory falls apart.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
ax123man
Posts: 317
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2013 9:15:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/1/2013 8:49:51 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:

Yes, but without the efficiency of a gov't ran trash and road system, it would be much more expensive to have competitive contractors, would it not? When the gov't is subsidizing a program, it automatically causes the prices to go down because the gov't does not need to turn a profit in a program to keep it running, the gov't only needs to have operating costs, a business needs profit, meaning trash pickup and road services would be more costly under private contractors, so government wins out over the private sector in those services.


The efficiency of gov't. Snicker.

If you look at a supply and demand curve, do you see "profit" plotted on there anywhere? The motive for profit is a reason the price system works. It does not drive prices up, it takes a percentage of revenue. Take health care as an example. Liberals like to whine about the profit/overhead of insurance companies, say 20%. But if Obamacare raises prices 20% in three years, that "savings" is gone, and another 20% is gone three years later, ad infinitum. Again profit is a PERCENTAGE of revenue. Profit itself is not a driver of rising prices.

Competition and technological innovation drives prices down. If you want to see the effect Gov't has on prices, take a look at what a single free market surgery center charges for services:

http://www.surgerycenterok.com...

Those prices are one-third the cost of your gov't controlled health care system. What would happen to prices if all health care was delivered this way? Prices would fall even more. So now your "overhead" of "profit" becomes irrelevant because everyone is happier. People can afford health care, don't have to wait months for it. Doctors make just as much as before because they have massively cut admin costs and get more business.

I can't believe anyone thinks gov't can do anything more efficiently.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2013 9:19:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/1/2013 8:58:34 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 2/1/2013 8:49:51 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:

Yes, but without the efficiency of a gov't ran trash and road system, it would be much more expensive to have competitive contractors, would it not? When the gov't is subsidizing a program, it automatically causes the prices to go down because the gov't does not need to turn a profit in a program to keep it running, the gov't only needs to have operating costs, a business needs profit, meaning trash pickup and road services would be more costly under private contractors, so government wins out over the private sector in those services.

Subsidization doesn't eliminate costs entirely. The money comes from taxation i.e., it's stealthily imposed on everyone anyways. There's no cost difference, it's just moved around in a different way.

Also, unless there was a collective payer system, propertarianism would still not be applicable to clean up pollution, and this would take a governing body to make sure everyone pays their fair share.

What are you talking about? If I own a lake, I have a vested interest in keeping it clean. Why do I need other people to pay in?

Also, I am aware of what a coasian solution is, but please elaborate on how a coasian solution could be applicable to the military.

It's a type of contract which binds large collectives. I sign a contract saying I'll pay for a service if everyone else does. If enough people sign up, I pay and the service/good is produced. If not enough people sign up I get my money back. It eliminates the free rider problem/ prisoners dillema often times brought up in defense of State control of defense.

Also, if you knew anything about the country you so ardently you would realize the 2nd industrial revolution started with the steel industry, the railroads were the main buyers of steel (still are one of the top buyers of steel today), without the 2nd industrial revolution, America would be nothing like it is today, that is not an assumption, that is simply looking at what america was before the 2nd indust revolution and what it was during and after.

I didn't say anything to the contrary. I just said you're presuming that railroads could not be possible without gov. subsidization. But whatevs.

Also, toll roads are illogical because the gov't does not need to make a profit on roads, they simply need to cover costs, a private company turns a profit, and since the highway is now necessary for most people to get from place to place, the private companies could charge whatever they wanted to, and you would have to pay it unless you wanted to be blocked off from half of the country.

Presuming a monopoly on road services are we? Why doesn't Walmart charge 100% for a lighter? Answer that for yourself and you'll know why your exorbitant price theory falls apart.

Walmart doesn't charge 100% for a lighter because not everyone needs lighters, in a modern, civilized society, we need highways, a lighter is a commodity, the highway is meant for all to pay in to collectively and then use.

Also, you are right, subsidization does not eliminate costs entirely, but it does decrease the costs, since as I mentioned, the gov't only needs to cover operating costs, they do not worry about turning a profit.

Also, what about our portion of the oceans? Should one person own vast sections of water? Without lakes and rivers, I guess in your all out crazed anarchist system you either have the money to own your own section of water or you can die because you don't have the money to buy a huge portion of a lake, right? Also, what if your binding contract does fall through, are we going to be defenseless? There are obvious holes in your idea of anarchism, you are assuming with a bare assertion fallacy that someone will want this defense contract, if someone does not, we are open to outside occupation and attack, then instead of going from a republic to anarchy, we will be the subject of an empire, much better. Also, as I mentioned, the railroad companies would have made a very minimal profit without government subsidization that payed them per mile of railroad, this is not a bare assertion fallacy, considering you have taken up to freshman history.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2013 9:24:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/1/2013 9:15:03 PM, ax123man wrote:
At 2/1/2013 8:49:51 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:

Yes, but without the efficiency of a gov't ran trash and road system, it would be much more expensive to have competitive contractors, would it not? When the gov't is subsidizing a program, it automatically causes the prices to go down because the gov't does not need to turn a profit in a program to keep it running, the gov't only needs to have operating costs, a business needs profit, meaning trash pickup and road services would be more costly under private contractors, so government wins out over the private sector in those services.


The efficiency of gov't. Snicker.

If you look at a supply and demand curve, do you see "profit" plotted on there anywhere? The motive for profit is a reason the price system works. It does not drive prices up, it takes a percentage of revenue. Take health care as an example. Liberals like to whine about the profit/overhead of insurance companies, say 20%. But if Obamacare raises prices 20% in three years, that "savings" is gone, and another 20% is gone three years later, ad infinitum. Again profit is a PERCENTAGE of revenue. Profit itself is not a driver of rising prices.

Competition and technological innovation drives prices down. If you want to see the effect Gov't has on prices, take a look at what a single free market surgery center charges for services:

http://www.surgerycenterok.com...

Those prices are one-third the cost of your gov't controlled health care system. What would happen to prices if all health care was delivered this way? Prices would fall even more. So now your "overhead" of "profit" becomes irrelevant because everyone is happier. People can afford health care, don't have to wait months for it. Doctors make just as much as before because they have massively cut admin costs and get more business.

I can't believe anyone thinks gov't can do anything more efficiently.

You are not even in the ball park of correct, and except for your one link, you expect me to simply believe you and use bare assertion fallacies. Profit does drive costs up, companies need to turn a profit to continue to function, right? And companies do want to maximize their profits, right? So they will obviously make their prices as high as possible, while people will still pay for it.
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2013 9:33:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/1/2013 9:19:55 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:

Walmart doesn't charge 100% for a lighter because not everyone needs lighters, in a modern, civilized society, we need highways, a lighter is a commodity, the highway is meant for all to pay in to collectively and then use.

Need plays into price obviously, but so does relative quantity. You're presuming privatization necessitates monopolization.

Also, you are right, subsidization does not eliminate costs entirely, but it does decrease the costs, since as I mentioned, the gov't only needs to cover operating costs, they do not worry about turning a profit.

Again, no. Costs are just moved around. Further, you're still not showing why such a decrease in cost (if it exists) makes it so that non-subsidized industries can't take over the operations currently reserved for the State.

Also, what about our portion of the oceans? Should one person own vast sections of water?

I'm not one to tell someone what they should or shouldn't own. But yeah propertarianism works just as well applied to seasteading.

Without lakes and rivers, I guess in your all out crazed anarchist system you either have the money to own your own section of water or you can die because you don't have the money to buy a huge portion of a lake, right?

What is this I don't even.

Also, what if your binding contract does fall through, are we going to be defenseless?

What if the military doesn't show up to work, are we going to be defenseless? Anarchists: 1 Statists: 0

There are obvious holes in your idea of anarchism, you are assuming with a bare assertion fallacy that someone will want this defense contract, if someone does not, we are open to outside occupation and attack,

If the government doesn't want to protect its citizens then............blah blah more hypotheticals.

then instead of going from a republic to anarchy, we will be the subject of an empire, much better. Also, as I mentioned, the railroad companies would have made a very minimal profit without government subsidization that payed them per mile of railroad, this is not a bare assertion fallacy, considering you have taken up to freshman history.

Making less =/= making "very minimal profit" but k.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,285
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2013 9:40:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
My biggest critique has always concerned the intersection of factions and force. Without an institution which possesses a monopoly on force you'll eventually end up with many smaller, armed factions. It's entirely possible either that one takes control through regional wars or that several smaller factions separate into political entities. And then, voila, you have government. However, when governments form like this they tend to not be very well-tailored and lack things like a system of checks and balances which accompany preplanned political systems, so they usually end quite messily. I think it's important when talking about governance to realize that we are always speaking in terms of theory, because such systems will begin to change the second that they are implemented. The trick is to predict how they are going to change and construct systems to prevent those changes from being too injurious to the liberty of said nation's citizenry. So while anarchy does work as a theory, it can't really work for long, unless it's done on a very small scale, in which case it would have to somehow prevent invasion by a rival expansionist power (for example, Venice was built on an easily defended and economically worthless spit of land, surviving mostly via trade.)
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2013 9:42:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/1/2013 9:40:22 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
My biggest critique has always concerned the intersection of factions and force. Without an institution which possesses a monopoly on force you'll eventually end up with many smaller, armed factions. It's entirely possible either that one takes control through regional wars or that several smaller factions separate into political entities. And then, voila, you have government. However, when governments form like this they tend to not be very well-tailored and lack things like a system of checks and balances which accompany preplanned political systems, so they usually end quite messily. I think it's important when talking about governance to realize that we are always speaking in terms of theory, because such systems will begin to change the second that they are implemented. The trick is to predict how they are going to change and construct systems to prevent those changes from being too injurious to the liberty of said nation's citizenry. So while anarchy does work as a theory, it can't really work for long, unless it's done on a very small scale, in which case it would have to somehow prevent invasion by a rival expansionist power (for example, Venice was built on an easily defended and economically worthless spit of land, surviving mostly via trade.)

So your argument is basically that anarchism would descend into Statism?
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,285
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2013 9:49:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/1/2013 9:42:21 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 2/1/2013 9:40:22 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
My biggest critique has always concerned the intersection of factions and force. Without an institution which possesses a monopoly on force you'll eventually end up with many smaller, armed factions. It's entirely possible either that one takes control through regional wars or that several smaller factions separate into political entities. And then, voila, you have government. However, when governments form like this they tend to not be very well-tailored and lack things like a system of checks and balances which accompany preplanned political systems, so they usually end quite messily. I think it's important when talking about governance to realize that we are always speaking in terms of theory, because such systems will begin to change the second that they are implemented. The trick is to predict how they are going to change and construct systems to prevent those changes from being too injurious to the liberty of said nation's citizenry. So while anarchy does work as a theory, it can't really work for long, unless it's done on a very small scale, in which case it would have to somehow prevent invasion by a rival expansionist power (for example, Venice was built on an easily defended and economically worthless spit of land, surviving mostly via trade.)

So your argument is basically that anarchism would descend into Statism?

That it would descend into Statism in a disorderly way, without a separation of powers or a system of checks and balances. And under militaristic conditions. My argument is that unless you have a small, well-situated, and easily defended piece of land you're better off planning your state ahead of time to slow the advance of corruption. Anarchy can work, in my opinion, just not on a large scale. Maybe at the city-state (or city-not-state, I guess) level.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2013 10:16:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/1/2013 9:33:29 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 2/1/2013 9:19:55 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:

Walmart doesn't charge 100% for a lighter because not everyone needs lighters, in a modern, civilized society, we need highways, a lighter is a commodity, the highway is meant for all to pay in to collectively and then use.

Need plays into price obviously, but so does relative quantity. You're presuming privatization necessitates monopolization.

Also, you are right, subsidization does not eliminate costs entirely, but it does decrease the costs, since as I mentioned, the gov't only needs to cover operating costs, they do not worry about turning a profit.

Again, no. Costs are just moved around. Further, you're still not showing why such a decrease in cost (if it exists) makes it so that non-subsidized industries can't take over the operations currently reserved for the State.

Also, what about our portion of the oceans? Should one person own vast sections of water?

I'm not one to tell someone what they should or shouldn't own. But yeah propertarianism works just as well applied to seasteading.

Without lakes and rivers, I guess in your all out crazed anarchist system you either have the money to own your own section of water or you can die because you don't have the money to buy a huge portion of a lake, right?

What is this I don't even.

Also, what if your binding contract does fall through, are we going to be defenseless?

What if the military doesn't show up to work, are we going to be defenseless? Anarchists: 1 Statists: 0

There are obvious holes in your idea of anarchism, you are assuming with a bare assertion fallacy that someone will want this defense contract, if someone does not, we are open to outside occupation and attack,

If the government doesn't want to protect its citizens then............blah blah more hypotheticals.

then instead of going from a republic to anarchy, we will be the subject of an empire, much better. Also, as I mentioned, the railroad companies would have made a very minimal profit without government subsidization that payed them per mile of railroad, this is not a bare assertion fallacy, considering you have taken up to freshman history.

Making less =/= making "very minimal profit" but k.

Considering they made 90 billion from the gov't due to the partial subsidization, yes, 90 billion in the early 1900's is significantly less. You are still being stubborn in refusing to listen to my theory, the government is obviously not out to make a profit with their services, they serve the people through them, and any money they make goes back to the people, right? So they are charging LESS than a company that wants to maximize profits would charge for services.

I am saying that people would die because if private companies owned all the fresh water sources, and there was no partial gov't subsidy of tap water people would be paying much more for it, so people who can barely afford their bills now would probably die of thirst.

Your analogy is nonsensical, considering the military does show up to work (obviously), but your idea has holes because there are obvious variables (such as no one wanting to take up the defense contract) that would infringe on the Utopian theory you have going here. Also, the sea and ocean belong to the world, having a private company, or multiple, buy the ocean would be absurd, how would we defend our coasts from attack? How would we trade with other non anarchist nations? Many holes in your theory.

Just the idea that I can buy as much land as I want and then own it is absurd, Companies would own the country, the people would be powerless, your idea that was meant to liberate people would enslave them.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,285
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2013 11:00:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/1/2013 10:16:45 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
Considering they made 90 billion from the gov't due to the partial subsidization, yes, 90 billion in the early 1900's is significantly less. You are still being stubborn in refusing to listen to my theory, the government is obviously not out to make a profit with their services, they serve the people through them, and any money they make goes back to the people, right? So they are charging LESS than a company that wants to maximize profits would charge for services.

The idea the government only has to pay operating costs is absurd. It ignores the corruption, inept bureaucracy, and all around bad decision that characterizes government action. I mean, just look at the green energy subsidies. How many of those companies failed? Look at crop subsidies. We use taxpayer dollars to buy crops at the set price then sell the produce at a reduced cost to third world countries at as a "charity" (it actually destroys the agricultural sectors of their economy. That'll help fight hunger!). Look at the subsidizing of mortgages via deductibles. Prices shot up, people got the same house for more money, and realtors made a pretty penny on the backs of the taxpayers. And look at the market distortions that result. Nuclear research, the most promising choice for energy independence, is neglected as resources are poured into less viable alternatives because they are politically safe. Our system that involves growing immense amounts of food in huge monocultures, then shipping it across the country. We had a close call with Cochliobolus heterostrophus (Race T); it wiped out 15% of our corn crop in the seventies due to monoculture, and its only a matter of time before another bug comes along. Our en masse indiscriminate spraying of herbicides and pesticides is resulting in resistance springing up all over the country. In other words, this system is an incredibly stupid way of doing things, but our government props it up with artificially inflated prices instead of letting the market correct itself. By the time the, pardon my French, merde a frappe le ventilateur, it'll be too late. And we all know how much fun the bursting of a housing bubble can be. Hundreds of stupid decisions driven by politicized and hamfisted edicts. That's the invisible and insidious price of subsidies.

I am saying that people would die because if private companies owned all the fresh water sources, and there was no partial gov't subsidy of tap water people would be paying much more for it, so people who can barely afford their bills now would probably die of thirst.


Water is a renewable resource. It falls from the sky, and once it's in the aquifer it belongs to whoever holds the land above it. It cannot be monopolized unless it is very scarce. And in desert areas high water costs are a good thing because they lead to the conservation of water, not to mention dissuading people from settling in such hostile areas in the first place.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2013 11:21:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/1/2013 11:00:55 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 2/1/2013 10:16:45 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
Considering they made 90 billion from the gov't due to the partial subsidization, yes, 90 billion in the early 1900's is significantly less. You are still being stubborn in refusing to listen to my theory, the government is obviously not out to make a profit with their services, they serve the people through them, and any money they make goes back to the people, right? So they are charging LESS than a company that wants to maximize profits would charge for services.

The idea the government only has to pay operating costs is absurd. It ignores the corruption, inept bureaucracy, and all around bad decision that characterizes government action. I mean, just look at the green energy subsidies. How many of those companies failed? Look at crop subsidies. We use taxpayer dollars to buy crops at the set price then sell the produce at a reduced cost to third world countries at as a "charity" (it actually destroys the agricultural sectors of their economy. That'll help fight hunger!). Look at the subsidizing of mortgages via deductibles. Prices shot up, people got the same house for more money, and realtors made a pretty penny on the backs of the taxpayers. And look at the market distortions that result. Nuclear research, the most promising choice for energy independence, is neglected as resources are poured into less viable alternatives because they are politically safe. Our system that involves growing immense amounts of food in huge monocultures, then shipping it across the country. We had a close call with Cochliobolus heterostrophus (Race T); it wiped out 15% of our corn crop in the seventies due to monoculture, and its only a matter of time before another bug comes along. Our en masse indiscriminate spraying of herbicides and pesticides is resulting in resistance springing up all over the country. In other words, this system is an incredibly stupid way of doing things, but our government props it up with artificially inflated prices instead of letting the market correct itself. By the time the, pardon my French, merde a frappe le ventilateur, it'll be too late. And we all know how much fun the bursting of a housing bubble can be. Hundreds of stupid decisions driven by politicized and hamfisted edicts. That's the invisible and insidious price of subsidies.

I am saying that people would die because if private companies owned all the fresh water sources, and there was no partial gov't subsidy of tap water people would be paying much more for it, so people who can barely afford their bills now would probably die of thirst.


Water is a renewable resource. It falls from the sky, and once it's in the aquifer it belongs to whoever holds the land above it. It cannot be monopolized unless it is very scarce. And in desert areas high water costs are a good thing because they lead to the conservation of water, not to mention dissuading people from settling in such hostile areas in the first place.

First of all, I am sick and tired of people crying corruption in America, look at this link, come back, and shut up and we won't mention this again, k? http://en.wikipedia.org...

Second, I am a strong advocate of nuclear energy, but we are a democracy, your word doesn't represent the other 319,999,999 people. The rest are isolated examples, government subsidy consistently brings costs down, when the gov't subsidized college loans, the interest rates decreased greatly, when the gov't did partial subsidies on mortgages, the interest rate went down and still is down today.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,285
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2013 11:43:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/1/2013 11:21:43 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 2/1/2013 11:00:55 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 2/1/2013 10:16:45 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
Considering they made 90 billion from the gov't due to the partial subsidization, yes, 90 billion in the early 1900's is significantly less. You are still being stubborn in refusing to listen to my theory, the government is obviously not out to make a profit with their services, they serve the people through them, and any money they make goes back to the people, right? So they are charging LESS than a company that wants to maximize profits would charge for services.

The idea the government only has to pay operating costs is absurd. It ignores the corruption, inept bureaucracy, and all around bad decision that characterizes government action. I mean, just look at the green energy subsidies. How many of those companies failed? Look at crop subsidies. We use taxpayer dollars to buy crops at the set price then sell the produce at a reduced cost to third world countries at as a "charity" (it actually destroys the agricultural sectors of their economy. That'll help fight hunger!). Look at the subsidizing of mortgages via deductibles. Prices shot up, people got the same house for more money, and realtors made a pretty penny on the backs of the taxpayers. And look at the market distortions that result. Nuclear research, the most promising choice for energy independence, is neglected as resources are poured into less viable alternatives because they are politically safe. Our system that involves growing immense amounts of food in huge monocultures, then shipping it across the country. We had a close call with Cochliobolus heterostrophus (Race T); it wiped out 15% of our corn crop in the seventies due to monoculture, and its only a matter of time before another bug comes along. Our en masse indiscriminate spraying of herbicides and pesticides is resulting in resistance springing up all over the country. In other words, this system is an incredibly stupid way of doing things, but our government props it up with artificially inflated prices instead of letting the market correct itself. By the time the, pardon my French, merde a frappe le ventilateur, it'll be too late. And we all know how much fun the bursting of a housing bubble can be. Hundreds of stupid decisions driven by politicized and hamfisted edicts. That's the invisible and insidious price of subsidies.

I am saying that people would die because if private companies owned all the fresh water sources, and there was no partial gov't subsidy of tap water people would be paying much more for it, so people who can barely afford their bills now would probably die of thirst.


Water is a renewable resource. It falls from the sky, and once it's in the aquifer it belongs to whoever holds the land above it. It cannot be monopolized unless it is very scarce. And in desert areas high water costs are a good thing because they lead to the conservation of water, not to mention dissuading people from settling in such hostile areas in the first place.

First of all, I am sick and tired of people crying corruption in America, look at this link, come back, and shut up and we won't mention this again, k? http://en.wikipedia.org...

Second, I am a strong advocate of nuclear energy, but we are a democracy, your word doesn't represent the other 319,999,999 people. The rest are isolated examples, government subsidy consistently brings costs down, when the gov't subsidized college loans, the interest rates decreased greatly, when the gov't did partial subsidies on mortgages, the interest rate went down and still is down today.

Did you read that link? The data used for that map is derived from public surveys on the perception of corruption. It has nothing to do with the actual rate of corruption. Under the 'criticisms' section:

"Because corruption is wilfully hidden, it is impossible to measure directly; instead proxies for corruption are used. The CPI uses an eclectic mix of third-party surveys to sample public perceptions of corruption through a variety of questions, ranging from "Do you trust the government?" to "Is corruption a big problem in your country?""

They are not isolated, it's a basic principle. As for your student loan example, it's the same principle as the housing deductible. Prices go UP when you increase the demand for a product. Here's a study supporting that the subsidization of loans led to tuition inflation: http://www.jstor.org.... Colleges just jack their prices up once more student loans are subsidized because they know that more people will now be able to afford higher prices. And since when is government artificially lowering interest rates a good thing? Both of those low interest rates have contributed to bubbles in the housing and student loan markets. Misallocation of resources isn't a positive in my book.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
ax123man
Posts: 317
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2013 7:42:57 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/1/2013 11:21:43 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:

First of all, I am sick and tired of people crying corruption in America, look at this link, come back, and shut up and we won't mention this again, k? http://en.wikipedia.org...

This is a vast oversimplification. Most Americans don't take 10 seconds to even think about the word corruption and the implications behind it. For example, many know about the Walmart bribery scandal in Mexico and immediately knee-jerk to "Man, I hate Walmart (right after shopping there)" and "Wow, it sure is corrupt in Mexico. Glad I'm in the U.S.". But the truth is Walmart has no choice. They can either bribe or stay out. Additionally, not all corruption is bad. It's often the free-market bumping up against absurd legislation. Here's a question: why aren't there two words we use to distinguish between these two scenarios? Answer? Because Americans don't want to think that hard about it. It's the same as the bashing of the word Capitalism, when that word should always be qualified by "free market" or "crony".


Second, I am a strong advocate of nuclear energy, but we are a democracy, your word doesn't represent the other 319,999,999 people. The rest are isolated examples, government subsidy consistently brings costs down, when the gov't subsidized college loans, the interest rates decreased greatly, when the gov't did partial subsidies on mortgages, the interest rate went down and still is down today.

Government subsidy brings costs down?!. Really? Economics speaks of the seen and the unseen. It appears you've put absolutely zero thought into the unseen. It appears you fit into the vast population of Americans who think gov't money is free. It also appears you disagree with basic economic calculation. Can you not see that any transfer of wealth involves a winner and a loser? Who was the loser when college loans were subsidized? Herein lies the problem - the answer is that everyone was. This cost is not only hidden but spread out over the taxed population. So, what remains is that you must argue that government knows better than the free market where the money should be spent. To argue that it s good simply because it "brings prices down" is ignorant.

On top of this, stories of government waste abound. Efficient? You must be joking.

On top of that, gov't always interferes with the price system. Study economics. Short lesson: artificially controlling the price system wastes resources (gov't efficiency, again).

On top of that, gov't intervention damages competition and creates monopolies. Monopolies raise prices and produce substandard outcomes.

It's time to crack open a book and educate yourself beyond the level you received in gov't sponsored public education.
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2013 11:23:58 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/1/2013 10:16:45 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:

Considering they made 90 billion from the gov't due to the partial subsidization, yes, 90 billion in the early 1900's is significantly less. You are still being stubborn in refusing to listen to my theory, the government is obviously not out to make a profit with their services, they serve the people through them, and any money they make goes back to the people, right? So they are charging LESS than a company that wants to maximize profits would charge for services.

Do you think the government should provide *all* services then?

I am saying that people would die because if private companies owned all the fresh water sources, and there was no partial gov't subsidy of tap water people would be paying much more for it, so people who can barely afford their bills now would probably die of thirst.

Probs.

Your analogy is nonsensical, considering the military does show up to work (obviously), but your idea has holes because there are obvious variables (such as no one wanting to take up the defense contract) that would infringe on the Utopian theory you have going here.

It's a variable yeah but show me a theory that doesn't rest on variables. The gov could massacre 100 million+ civilians (oh wait I'm thinking of the 20th century again, silly me) but you don't seem to take that as a concrete refutation of statism right?

Also, the sea and ocean belong to the world,

Since when?

having a private company, or multiple, buy the ocean would be absurd, how would we defend our coasts from attack?

With guns most likely.

How would we trade with other non anarchist nations?

Anarchist nations? Lolwut.

Many holes in your theory.

Just the idea that I can buy as much land as I want and then own it is absurd, Companies would own the country, the people would be powerless, your idea that was meant to liberate people would enslave them.

Yeah it would suck if the country was owned and run by corporations now wouldn't it.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.