For my Libertarian friends

Trademark wrote: The other two examples I mentioned were conveniently ignored.

I don't know anything about the coal industry, but you mentioned the military which you may have noticed is not a private business, but a government institution without competition.

Regarding contractors, I am not convinced that what you say happens as often as you claim. In the age of the internet, it is easy to check reviews on any contractor and make sure you get a good one. If you don't care enough about your house to take this small precaution, I don't know what to tell you. I don't imagine firms that do bad work last very long.

thellama73 wrote:   If they can make more money teaching in public schools, why don't they go work for public schools? The public schools won't hire them , you say? Then I guess they can't make more money working for public schools after all. I don't know what you mean be "unfair" labor practices. If you can hire workers of the quality you want for $20 an hour, and then discover that you can hire equally qualified workers for $10 an hour, you'd be a fool to pay the higher wage. The result would be tuition prices rising, fewer customers and less money with which to pay your employees. That helps no one. If administrators get raises it is because they will leave if they don't get them. The teachers will not leave. You act like having low costs as a company is a bad thing, but it lowers prices, increases output and makes consumers better off. Teachers are not "owed" raises. If they don't like the pay they are getting, they can change professions. That's what I'm doing.

Edited by Trademark - October 06 2010 at 12:23

Trademark wrote: thellama73 wrote:   If they can make more money teaching in public schools, why don't they go work for public schools? The public schools won't hire them , you say? Then I guess they can't make more money working for public schools after all. I don't know what you mean be "unfair" labor practices. If you can hire workers of the quality you want for $20 an hour, and then discover that you can hire equally qualified workers for $10 an hour, you'd be a fool to pay the higher wage. The result would be tuition prices rising, fewer customers and less money with which to pay your employees. That helps no one. If administrators get raises it is because they will leave if they don't get them. The teachers will not leave. You act like having low costs as a company is a bad thing, but it lowers prices, increases output and makes consumers better off. Teachers are not "owed" raises. If they don't like the pay they are getting, they can change professions. That's what I'm doing. Ok, so I was on the right track.  Its never the fault of any business or institution, they should be allowed to do anything at all they want to do no matter what or who it harms.  The real solution is that no matter what happens or who it happens to whatever it is will ALWAYS be the fault of the employee or consumer. But then I could always go and hire a private army to take care of things for me.  After all, then I'd be a business owner and could do no wrong.

You're not even trying to understand me. What "fault" are you talking about? Who does this situation "harm"? The teachers are not harmed by being employed, even if they are not getting their ideal wage. Companies should not be able to do whatever they want. There are laws, after all. But they should be allowed to run themselves in a way that they see fit, provided they are not breaking said laws. I never said companies can do no wrong. They can do plenty of wrong. If they do, you should punish them by not giving them any of your money, and if what they are doing truly is wrong, then everyone else is likely to follow suit.

Why don't you try starting a business and paying your employees more than you can afford  because it's "fair"? See how that works out for you.


Edited by thellama73 - October 06 2010 at 12:34

Trademark wrote: thellama73 wrote:    There are laws, after all. But they should be allowed to run themselves in a way that they see fit, provided they are not breaking said laws.  Why on earth would there be laws in Liber-topia?  I thought business people would only do sensible things that were good for all concerned and if they didn't either the free market (and damn the people it harms in the process) or a private militia would take care of them.  If this is actually true (and in Liber-topia it apparently is) then no laws are needed.  What laws would there be?  After all there can be no law that limits my freedom and anything I might want to do is an exercise of my freedom so no law is needed or possible.

Since you refuse to address any of my points (yet whine when I don't respond to every single one of yours), I see no reason to continue this dialogue.

Trademark wrote: quitter.  Take your ball and go home.

Old troll is old.

Last I checked, they were the same thing. And both are equally annoying, yet easy to ignore. 

Thank you fine sir.

*Goes back to lurking*

Trademark wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote:   Again, why would he buy the services of a fire department which could not use the road he lived on?  Read my post again.  it's written in English without too many big words.  It think you can figure it out. Equality 7-2521 wrote:   And no there would not be, but since the example happened in real life American, I didn't know I was bound to Liber-Topia My mistake.  I had no idea this was a real-life example. Since it came from Slarti and started with "Did you hear the one about"... i thought it was a joke of sorts. I've heard that in Korea they follow a similar plan to one of those outlined above, where if you are not insured, you pay ALL the Fire Department costs and the property damage costs to all your neighbors (not to mention the loss of your own home and property) as a result of the fire in your home.  This law is supposed to encourage (or perhaps legislate in the absence of willingness) social responsibility.  I don't know how it works out in actual practice

Read my post again. Wow two can play that game. I read your post; I understood it. My criticism still applies. If I had an account at a bank, and I found out that my debit card would no longer be accepted at my favorite restaurant because the bank CEO had an affair blah blah blah, I would switch to another bank.

EDIT: I thought Slarti was referencing the account I brought up earlier in this thread about private fire protection.


Edited by Equality 7-2521 - October 06 2010 at 14:29

Equality 7-2521 wrote: Dean wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: I agree with that. I would seem to make sense to offer an emergency rate for services at a price much higher than their regular fee.  However, companies in their infancy need time of course to perfect their services. I think the important thing to note about the story is that the public fire department was nowhere to be found.  ... this is alll new to me so I have been looking at the various news reports and cometries on the web and it seems that there isn't a public fire department in that area, which is why the fire service from a neighbouring area provides cover for a fee. It also appears that this arrangement has been running for 20 years and there is no provision for a pay-to-spray emergency rate because they never needed one.   When fire services were invented back in the good old days they were operated by the insurance companies to protect the properties they insured (cheaper to put a fire out than rebuild a house). They got out of the business because they were having to put out fires on property that wasn't covered by their insurance policies (mainly, it has to be noted, to stop the fire spreading to properties they did cover) Are we referencing the same story?

Edited by Dean - October 06 2010 at 17:00

I believe locally-funded fire departments are reasonable because as noted, a fire outbreak can do harm to other buildings and infrastructure.  I view fire departments as part of infrastructure maintenance (and therefore worthy of local taxes).  A well-ran fire department is in everyone's best interest.

That said, I wouldn't (in theory) have a problem with privatized fire departments, but the prepay concept is stupid.  I don't prepay a doctor in case I get sick.  I don't prepay a mechanic in case my car breaks down.  If we have private fire departments, they should put the fire out first and then expect to get paid for it after the fact.

However, civic planning with respect to multiple private fire departments competing over the same sectors of the city would be a nightmare, I would think.