| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
akamaisondufromage 
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member
Joined: May 16 2009
Location: Blighty
Status: Offline
Points: 6797
|
 Posted: September 29 2010 at 13:33 |
 Equality 7-2521 wrote:
The T wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
What natural resources?
If there's oil on land I've purchased than I own them.
In general though I would say nobody owns them. I take a Lockian view on that. |
Just a question: how did you get to own the land? You purchased it... how did the seller get to acquire it? And if we go further back, how did the first owner acquire it? How has this been here in the US? |
John Locke wrote:
]Though the earth and all inferior creatures be common to all men, yet every man has a "property" in his own "person." This nobody has any right to but himself. The "labour" of his body and the "work" of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever, then, he removes out of the state that Nature hath provided and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with it, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property. |
|
So you don't own the land? But if you dig it up the oil is yours? Or you own the land and the oil?
By the way you said the roads would be private, so the road outside my house would be owned by X and X then can charge me for using it?
And the Police would be paid for by private donations? You think that would happen?
|
|
Help me I'm falling!
|
 |
The T
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
|
Posted: September 29 2010 at 13:35 |
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
The T wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
What natural resources?
If there's oil on land I've purchased than I own them.
In general though I would say nobody owns them. I take a Lockian view on that. |
Just a question: how did you get to own the land? You purchased it... how did the seller get to acquire it? And if we go further back, how did the first owner acquire it? How has this been here in the US? |
John Locke wrote:
]Though the earth and all inferior creatures be common to all men, yet every man has a "property" in his own "person." This nobody has any right to but himself. The "labour" of his body and the "work" of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever, then, he removes out of the state that Nature hath provided and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with it, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property. |
|
Ds most lands here get acquired through the "labour" of his body and the work of his hands? Was it like this in the early days of this country?
|
|
|
|
Negoba
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 24 2008
Location: Big Muddy
Status: Offline
Points: 5210
|
Posted: September 29 2010 at 13:39 |
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
What? I have a family. We grow food on our land. That's not restricting your freedom. We're producing the food. It would not have otherwise been there.
It comes down to ideas about interdependence. I think this is a fact of life, and needs to be recognised. Not in some happy hippy dippy but simply realizing that independence is never complete. Then we get into arguing degrees again and that's useless unless we're actually hashing out a solution.
I think it comes down to you seem to think you're able to do anything there are no consequences for, while I hold that some things are wrong regardless of consequences.
Well I have my personal beliefs about morality that are probably pretty conservative on the whole. Where I differ is what I think I get to say about other's actions. The common ground we all have is basically the law of the jungle. Eat or be eaten. That's why I use it as the basis and build up from there. That doesn't change across time or culture.
1) Look it up. I'm no expert on the Anarcho-Conception.
2) Roads would be private. All public works would be made private excluding the police and courts. Their money would come from voluntary donation.
It seems impractical but having never seen it in action I guess that's just an opinion.
That's true. But since nearly every function of government can be done more efficiently by private firms, then it follows that we don't need government.
Well that's a debatable point, (though probably correct over 50% of the time.) Efficiency isn't the only measuring stick and private firms have their own problems in other areas. (Getting necessary but less profitable things done. It's not their fault, they're just not designed to do things that don't generate profit.)
There are laws against theft and aggression. No private firm can break them. You can be prosecuted for doing so.
How is a private firm prosecuted other than being held financially responsible?
The government can not.
The government can is is held financially responible all the time.
You can take the government to court, but it writes the laws and allows itself power of aggression.
I'm not sure what the qualifier means, or how it applies
I don't see what you can possible argue. It's fact.
What is a fact? By law, I am a representative of the federal government. You cannot sue me for malpractice, only the fed for providing the care. Doctors do get sued and lose under this system.
|
|
|
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
|
Posted: September 29 2010 at 14:28 |
akamaisondufromage wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
The T wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
What natural resources?
If there's oil on land I've purchased than I own them.
In general though I would say nobody owns them. I take a Lockian view on that. |
Just a question: how did you get to own the land? You purchased it... how did the seller get to acquire it? And if we go further back, how did the first owner acquire it? How has this been here in the US? |
John Locke wrote:
]Though the earth and all inferior creatures be common to all men, yet every man has a "property" in his own "person." This nobody has any right to but himself. The "labour" of his body and the "work" of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever, then, he removes out of the state that Nature hath provided and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with it, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property. |
|
So you don't own the land? But if you dig it up the oil is yours? Or you own the land and the oil?
By the way you said the roads would be private, so the road outside my house would be owned by X and X then can charge me for using it?
And the Police would be paid for by private donations? You think that would happen? |
If you own land containing resources, then they are yours.
If there exists land and resources owned by nobody, then the homesteading principle as quoted above applied.
Yes, the road outside your house would be owned by X and X would charge you for using it. Much like now the government owns the road and charges you $.18 per gallon of gas federally and on average $.272 per gallon on the state level.
Yes I think that would happen. People donate to political campaigns, and telefons, and food banks, none of which are nearly as important to them as a police force.
|
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
|
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
|
Posted: September 29 2010 at 14:29 |
The T wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
The T wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
What natural resources?
If there's oil on land I've purchased than I own them.
In general though I would say nobody owns them. I take a Lockian view on that. |
Just a question: how did you get to own the land? You purchased it... how did the seller get to acquire it? And if we go further back, how did the first owner acquire it? How has this been here in the US? |
John Locke wrote:
]Though the earth and all inferior creatures be common to all men, yet every man has a "property" in his own "person." This nobody has any right to but himself. The "labour" of his body and the "work" of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever, then, he removes out of the state that Nature hath provided and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with it, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property. |
|
Ds most lands here get acquired through the "labour" of his body and the work of his hands? Was it like this in the early days of this country? |
Much land was bought, but yes much of the land was also free to take as long as you cultivated it.
|
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
|
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
|
Posted: September 29 2010 at 14:35 |
Negoba wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
What? I have a family. We grow food on our land. That's not restricting your freedom. We're producing the food. It would not have otherwise been there.
It comes down to ideas about interdependence. I think this is a fact of life, and needs to be recognised. Not in some happy hippy dippy but simply realizing that independence is never complete. Then we get into arguing degrees again and that's useless unless we're actually hashing out a solution.
I don't even know how we've gotten to this point.
I think it comes down to you seem to think you're able to do anything there are no consequences for, while I hold that some things are wrong regardless of consequences.
Well I have my personal beliefs about morality that are probably pretty conservative on the whole. Where I differ is what I think I get to say about other's actions. The common ground we all have is basically the law of the jungle. Eat or be eaten. That's why I use it as the basis and build up from there. That doesn't change across time or culture.
I don't know what you mean by this. How is that the common law? How do you build up from that?
1) Look it up. I'm no expert on the Anarcho-Conception.
2) Roads would be private. All public works would be made private excluding the police and courts. Their money would come from voluntary donation.
It seems impractical but having never seen it in action I guess that's just an opinion.
Many less important things rely on donations and function. As to a private legal system, I will study it one day, but I haven't had time yet. It does seem a little farfetched from some cursory thought.
That's true. But since nearly every function of government can be done more efficiently by private firms, then it follows that we don't need government.
Well that's a debatable point, (though probably correct over 50% of the time.) Efficiency isn't the only measuring stick and private firms have their own problems in other areas. (Getting necessary but less profitable things done. It's not their fault, they're just not designed to do things that don't generate profit.)
That's why society exists. Government doesn't need to be a part of it.
There are laws against theft and aggression. No private firm can break them. You can be prosecuted for doing so.
How is a private firm prosecuted other than being held financially responsible?
It's not. Since it's not a person, it can't do anything that would justify a non-civil prosecution and there would be nobody to prosectue. If circumstances do occur, then someone in the company has committed the illegal acts and can be tried.
The government can not.
The government can is is held financially responible all the time.
No it's not. I can't sue them for steal my money. They passed a law that said they could. They can assassinate me. My family would not be able to bring charges. The executive branch has decided it's within their power.
You can take the government to court, but it writes the laws and allows itself power of aggression.
I'm not sure what the qualifier means, or how it applies
Sorry?
I don't see what you can possible argue. It's fact.
What is a fact? By law, I am a representative of the federal government. You cannot sue me for malpractice, only the fed for providing the care. Doctors do get sued and lose under this system.
What? It's a fact that the government has a monopoly on legal use of force.
|
|
|
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
|
akamaisondufromage
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member
Joined: May 16 2009
Location: Blighty
Status: Offline
Points: 6797
|
Posted: September 29 2010 at 14:40 |
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
akamaisondufromage wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
The T wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
What natural resources?
If there's oil on land I've purchased than I own them.
In general though I would say nobody owns them. I take a Lockian view on that. |
Just a question: how did you get to own the land? You purchased it... how did the seller get to acquire it? And if we go further back, how did the first owner acquire it? How has this been here in the US? |
John Locke wrote:
]Though the earth and all inferior creatures be common to all men, yet every man has a "property" in his own "person." This nobody has any right to but himself. The "labour" of his body and the "work" of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever, then, he removes out of the state that Nature hath provided and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with it, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property. |
|
So you don't own the land? But if you dig it up the oil is yours? Or you own the land and the oil?
By the way you said the roads would be private, so the road outside my house would be owned by X and X then can charge me for using it?
And the Police would be paid for by private donations? You think that would happen? |
If you own land containing resources, then they are yours.
If there exists land and resources owned by nobody, then the homesteading principle as quoted above applied.
Yes, the road outside your house would be owned by X and X would charge you for using it. Much like now the government owns the road and charges you $.18 per gallon of gas federally and on average $.272 per gallon on the state level.
Yes I think that would happen. People donate to political campaigns, and telefons, and food banks, none of which are nearly as important to them as a police force. |
If you have water flowing across your land and someone blocks the stream on their land Have they stolen my water?
So X can charge what he likes because I can't change suppliers or change roads? (I can change the government with a little help)
I don't think everyone would donate towards a private police force. And chances are if everyone did I would get a 2nd class quality of policing compared to say Wooki or whatever her name is 
|
|
Help me I'm falling!
|
|
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
|
Posted: September 29 2010 at 14:46 |
akamaisondufromage wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
akamaisondufromage wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
The T wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
What natural resources?
If there's oil on land I've purchased than I own them.
In general though I would say nobody owns them. I take a Lockian view on that. |
Just a question: how did you get to own the land? You purchased it... how did the seller get to acquire it? And if we go further back, how did the first owner acquire it? How has this been here in the US? |
John Locke wrote:
]Though the earth and all inferior creatures be common to all men, yet every man has a "property" in his own "person." This nobody has any right to but himself. The "labour" of his body and the "work" of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever, then, he removes out of the state that Nature hath provided and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with it, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property. |
|
So you don't own the land? But if you dig it up the oil is yours? Or you own the land and the oil?
By the way you said the roads would be private, so the road outside my house would be owned by X and X then can charge me for using it?
And the Police would be paid for by private donations? You think that would happen? |
If you own land containing resources, then they are yours.
If there exists land and resources owned by nobody, then the homesteading principle as quoted above applied.
Yes, the road outside your house would be owned by X and X would charge you for using it. Much like now the government owns the road and charges you $.18 per gallon of gas federally and on average $.272 per gallon on the state level.
Yes I think that would happen. People donate to political campaigns, and telefons, and food banks, none of which are nearly as important to them as a police force. |
If you have water flowing across your land and someone blocks the stream on their land Have they stolen my water?
So X can charge what he likes because I can't change suppliers or change roads? (I can change the government with a little help)
I don't think everyone would donate towards a private police force. And chances are if everyone did I would get a 2nd class quality of policing compared to say Wooki or whatever her name is
|
1) Good question. Tricky one. I'm going to say yes. Have to think about exactly why though.
2) A little help? Please tell me your secret. From what I understand, changing the government is very difficult and actually never really happens.
Yes he can charge what he likes. For a residential home, it would be silly of you to purchase the home without also signing a contract with the roadowner assuring a certain fixed rate. You can change suppliers and roads. I'm not sure why you can't.
3) Why do you think that?
|
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
|
The T
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
|
Posted: September 29 2010 at 14:52 |
|
Maybe you mentioned this already, but I guess you are not against abortion after rape? Since there is no "de facto invitation" I assume...
|
|
|
|
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
|
Posted: September 29 2010 at 14:59 |
I am still against it, but my case against it is "weaker" because I have to talk more about when one may properly expell someone.
This is to be expect. It's intuitively a greyer area.
|
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
|
akamaisondufromage
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member
Joined: May 16 2009
Location: Blighty
Status: Offline
Points: 6797
|
Posted: September 29 2010 at 15:00 |
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
akamaisondufromage wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
akamaisondufromage wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
The T wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
What natural resources?
If there's oil on land I've purchased than I own them.
In general though I would say nobody owns them. I take a Lockian view on that. |
Just a question: how did you get to own the land? You purchased it... how did the seller get to acquire it? And if we go further back, how did the first owner acquire it? How has this been here in the US? |
John Locke wrote:
]Though the earth and all inferior creatures be common to all men, yet every man has a "property" in his own "person." This nobody has any right to but himself. The "labour" of his body and the "work" of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever, then, he removes out of the state that Nature hath provided and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with it, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property. |
|
So you don't own the land? But if you dig it up the oil is yours? Or you own the land and the oil?
By the way you said the roads would be private, so the road outside my house would be owned by X and X then can charge me for using it?
And the Police would be paid for by private donations? You think that would happen? |
If you own land containing resources, then they are yours.
If there exists land and resources owned by nobody, then the homesteading principle as quoted above applied.
Yes, the road outside your house would be owned by X and X would charge you for using it. Much like now the government owns the road and charges you $.18 per gallon of gas federally and on average $.272 per gallon on the state level.
Yes I think that would happen. People donate to political campaigns, and telefons, and food banks, none of which are nearly as important to them as a police force. |
If you have water flowing across your land and someone blocks the stream on their land Have they stolen my water?
So X can charge what he likes because I can't change suppliers or change roads? (I can change the government with a little help)
I don't think everyone would donate towards a private police force. And chances are if everyone did I would get a 2nd class quality of policing compared to say Wooki or whatever her name is
|
1) Good question. Tricky one. I'm going to say yes. Have to think about exactly why though.
2) A little help? Please tell me your secret. From what I understand, changing the government is very difficult and actually never really happens.
Yes he can charge what he likes. For a residential home, it would be silly of you to purchase the home without also signing a contract with the roadowner assuring a certain fixed rate. You can change suppliers and roads. I'm not sure why you can't.
3) Why do you think that? |
1) Let me know  2) Well we have elections and if a party decided to put the rent up on my road ro an unaffordable rate I along with a few other people would get rid.
My private landlord however, would just keep putting the rent up until I moved out I know of nothing that has a fixed rate and stays that way.
3) Ther are plenty of people who don't think the police is important to them a vertain criminal fraternity for a few. Many people don't trust the police as they are let alone a private policia. If it's voluntary then many people will stop paying this before well any otherr thing they seee as moore important (Charity, bills, food, clothes, etc) .
I will get a second class policing because mr policeman will know who pays his wages (Mr Criminal businessman)
|
|
Help me I'm falling!
|
|
Negoba
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 24 2008
Location: Big Muddy
Status: Offline
Points: 5210
|
Posted: September 29 2010 at 15:19 |
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
a)
That's why society exists. Government doesn't need to be a part of it.
Currently, private enterprise has not proven that it is very good at serving the needs of society, even when those needs can be piggybacked on profit. (That's the theory as I always understood it, you provide a service or good for the needs of society and you get to profit from that.) We now live in a society where providing a service to society is not only not a necessary part of the bargain but is actively discouraged in many sectors of business. So when you say "That's why society exists," I'm inclined to say that capitalism is failing...society does not exist for the purpose of a few hoarding the gold.
b)
The government can not.
The government can is is held financially responible all the time.
No it's not. I can't sue them for steal my money. They passed a law that said they could. They can assassinate me. My family would not be able to bring charges. The executive branch has decided it's within their power.
This line of thinking assumes that the government is "other" and that its intentions are to harm you the citizen. Again legally I am part of the government. The government is us. As a group of people, it's just as flawed as any group of people. Your self-regulation points are well taken but again, are not exclusive to the elected government.
c)
I don't see what you can possible argue. It's fact.
What is a fact? By law, I am a representative of the federal government. You cannot sue me for malpractice, only the fed for providing the care. Doctors do get sued and lose under this system.
What? It's a fact that the government has a monopoly on legal use of force.
We're dancing in circles now. We've already stated our opinions on this particular point. While I do recognize that this point matters, I don't think it matters enough to justify the level of mistrust of the government you espouse. But we know we disagree on this one.
|
|
|
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
|
Posted: September 29 2010 at 15:28 |
akamaisondufromage wrote:
1) Let me know 2) Well we have elections and if a party decided to put the rent up on my road ro an unaffordable rate I along with a few other people would get rid.
My private landlord however, would just keep putting the rent up until I moved out I know of nothing that has a fixed rate and stays that way.
3) Ther are plenty of people who don't think the police is important to them a vertain criminal fraternity for a few. Many people don't trust the police as they are let alone a private policia. If it's voluntary then many people will stop paying this before well any otherr thing they seee as moore important (Charity, bills, food, clothes, etc) .
I will get a second class policing because mr policeman will know who pays his wages (Mr Criminal businessman) |
2) My pay is a fixed rate. I signed a contract. I provide a service, and I am payed a fixed rate every 2 weeks. Plently of things operate like that.
I think you're oversimplifying governmental change. Why isn't the government identical to your whim if it's that easy?
3) Then people will suffer the consequences. Sucks?
I think you're wrong. Why would they keep paying into charities over a service which actually helps them?
|
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
|
akamaisondufromage
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member
Joined: May 16 2009
Location: Blighty
Status: Offline
Points: 6797
|
Posted: September 29 2010 at 15:37 |
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
akamaisondufromage wrote:
1) Let me know 2) Well we have elections and if a party decided to put the rent up on my road ro an unaffordable rate I along with a few other people would get rid.
My private landlord however, would just keep putting the rent up until I moved out I know of nothing that has a fixed rate and stays that way.
3) Ther are plenty of people who don't think the police is important to them a vertain criminal fraternity for a few. Many people don't trust the police as they are let alone a private policia. If it's voluntary then many people will stop paying this before well any otherr thing they seee as moore important (Charity, bills, food, clothes, etc) .
I will get a second class policing because mr policeman will know who pays his wages (Mr Criminal businessman) |
2) My pay is a fixed rate. I signed a contract. I provide a service, and I am payed a fixed rate every 2 weeks. Plently of things operate like that.
I think you're oversimplifying governmental change. Why isn't the government identical to your whim if it's that easy?
3) Then people will suffer the consequences. Sucks?
I think you're wrong. Why would they keep paying into charities over a service which actually helps them?
|
2) You should resign then I have no bills that do not go up. If I have one road and one owner of that road then the owner can charge what they like.
I oversimplify gov change yes. But it still stands if the gov acted like that private landlord ^ we would get rid. and it would be difficult but easier than the private landlord.
3) End of conversation then?
I think I am right. In fact I know I am right because that's what I would do.
By the way charities help us too.
|
|
Help me I'm falling!
|
|
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
|
Posted: September 29 2010 at 15:49 |
akamaisondufromage wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
akamaisondufromage wrote:
1) Let me know 2) Well we have elections and if a party decided to put the rent up on my road ro an unaffordable rate I along with a few other people would get rid.
My private landlord however, would just keep putting the rent up until I moved out I know of nothing that has a fixed rate and stays that way.
3) Ther are plenty of people who don't think the police is important to them a vertain criminal fraternity for a few. Many people don't trust the police as they are let alone a private policia. If it's voluntary then many people will stop paying this before well any otherr thing they seee as moore important (Charity, bills, food, clothes, etc) .
I will get a second class policing because mr policeman will know who pays his wages (Mr Criminal businessman) |
2) My pay is a fixed rate. I signed a contract. I provide a service, and I am payed a fixed rate every 2 weeks. Plently of things operate like that.
I think you're oversimplifying governmental change. Why isn't the government identical to your whim if it's that easy?
3) Then people will suffer the consequences. Sucks?
I think you're wrong. Why would they keep paying into charities over a service which actually helps them?
|
2) You should resign then I have no bills that do not go up. If I have one road and one owner of that road then the owner can charge what they like.
I oversimplify gov change yes. But it still stands if the gov acted like that private landlord ^ we would get rid. and it would be difficult but easier than the private landlord.
3) End of conversation then?
I think I am right. In fact I know I am right because that's what I would do.
By the way charities help us too. |
2) Does your pay go up? I'm under the impression that most people have a rate of pay which remains static for some period of time. If you are getting a raise every week, and I am being duped, please let me know.
For one the road owner would have no reason to practice predatory pricing. ALso, you would be stupid not to assure some rate on the road before you bought the property. If he's doing so other firms could simply provide the road. Actually, can you just go back through this thread where I had the same argument?
3) I think you are stupid then.
Charities help you? When you donate to the food bank, you get to eat it? When you donate to Obama's presidential campaign, there's a larger benefit to you than your investment in a police force?
|
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
|
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
|
Posted: September 29 2010 at 15:52 |
Negoba wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
a)
That's why society exists. Government doesn't need to be a part of it.
Currently, private enterprise has not proven that it is very good at serving the needs of society, even when those needs can be piggybacked on profit. (That's the theory as I always understood it, you provide a service or good for the needs of society and you get to profit from that.) We now live in a society where providing a service to society is not only not a necessary part of the bargain but is actively discouraged in many sectors of business. So when you say "That's why society exists," I'm inclined to say that capitalism is failing...society does not exist for the purpose of a few hoarding the gold.
Do you have any examples? I was not aware of this occuring.
b)
The government can not.
The government can is is held financially responible all the time.
No it's not. I can't sue them for steal my money. They passed a law that said they could. They can assassinate me. My family would not be able to bring charges. The executive branch has decided it's within their power.
This line of thinking assumes that the government is "other" and that its intentions are to harm you the citizen. Again legally I am part of the government. The government is us. As a group of people, it's just as flawed as any group of people. Your self-regulation points are well taken but again, are not exclusive to the elected government.
I didn't assume that they have intentions to harm me. I said that they legally can. Read my post. The government is not us. It is not me. I don't support the government. They don't act on my behalf.
Why does none of that rhetoric you just dropped apply to the companies you portray as preying on the common man?
c)
I don't see what you can possible argue. It's fact.
What is a fact? By law, I am a representative of the federal government. You cannot sue me for malpractice, only the fed for providing the care. Doctors do get sued and lose under this system.
What? It's a fact that the government has a monopoly on legal use of force.
We're dancing in circles now. We've already stated our opinions on this particular point. While I do recognize that this point matters, I don't think it matters enough to justify the level of mistrust of the government you espouse. But we know we disagree on this one.
That's fine, but it still has a monopoly on legal force. You can't deny that. I was just explaining why one reason I place the government up to "higher scrutiny."
|
|
|
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
|
akamaisondufromage
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member
Joined: May 16 2009
Location: Blighty
Status: Offline
Points: 6797
|
Posted: September 29 2010 at 16:04 |
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
akamaisondufromage wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
akamaisondufromage wrote:
1) Let me know 2) Well we have elections and if a party decided to put the rent up on my road ro an unaffordable rate I along with a few other people would get rid.
My private landlord however, would just keep putting the rent up until I moved out I know of nothing that has a fixed rate and stays that way.
3) Ther are plenty of people who don't think the police is important to them a vertain criminal fraternity for a few. Many people don't trust the police as they are let alone a private policia. If it's voluntary then many people will stop paying this before well any otherr thing they seee as moore important (Charity, bills, food, clothes, etc) .
I will get a second class policing because mr policeman will know who pays his wages (Mr Criminal businessman) |
2) My pay is a fixed rate. I signed a contract. I provide a service, and I am payed a fixed rate every 2 weeks. Plently of things operate like that.
I think you're oversimplifying governmental change. Why isn't the government identical to your whim if it's that easy?
3) Then people will suffer the consequences. Sucks?
I think you're wrong. Why would they keep paying into charities over a service which actually helps them?
|
2) You should resign then I have no bills that do not go up. If I have one road and one owner of that road then the owner can charge what they like.
I oversimplify gov change yes. But it still stands if the gov acted like that private landlord ^ we would get rid. and it would be difficult but easier than the private landlord.
3) End of conversation then?
I think I am right. In fact I know I am right because that's what I would do.
By the way charities help us too. |
2) Does your pay go up? I'm under the impression that most people have a rate of pay which remains static for some period of time. If you are getting a raise every week, and I am being duped, please let me know.
For one the road owner would have no reason to practice predatory pricing. ALso, you would be stupid not to assure some rate on the road before you bought the property. If he's doing so other firms could simply provide the road. Actually, can you just go back through this thread where I had the same argument?
3) I think you are stupid then.
Charities help you? When you donate to the food bank, you get to eat it? When you donate to Obama's presidential campaign, there's a larger benefit to you than your investment in a police force? |
2) Yes
Can't be bothered
3: Well argued
Yes. No. No I have no reason to donate to Obama's campaign. (Some might think yes though).
|
|
Help me I'm falling!
|
|
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
|
Posted: September 29 2010 at 16:18 |
2) I can't be bothered to repeat myself then. I'll alert my employer that I have been conned with regards to my static pay.
3) It was an opinion. There's nothing to argue really. I think you would be stupid not to donate to a police force. I don't think many people would argue the contrary.
I don't understand the position that will and do give money to things which do not benefit them at all, or only benefit them marginally, and are quite trivial, but that those same people wouldn't give money one of the most fundamentally important institutions.
|
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
|
Negoba
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 24 2008
Location: Big Muddy
Status: Offline
Points: 5210
|
Posted: September 29 2010 at 16:38 |
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
Negoba wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
a)
That's why society exists. Government doesn't need to be a part of it.
Currently, private enterprise has not proven that it is very good at serving the needs of society, even when those needs can be piggybacked on profit. (That's the theory as I always understood it, you provide a service or good for the needs of society and you get to profit from that.) We now live in a society where providing a service to society is not only not a necessary part of the bargain but is actively discouraged in many sectors of business. So when you say "That's why society exists," I'm inclined to say that capitalism is failing...society does not exist for the purpose of a few hoarding the gold.
Do you have any examples? I was not aware of this occuring.
Health Care - Both private and public options waste more than they use, just in different ways. Absolutely no evidence privately administered health care is any better for society as a whole.
b)
I didn't assume that they have intentions to harm me. I said that they legally can. Read my post. The government is not us. It is not me. I don't support the government. They don't act on my behalf.
That's a totally viable opinion. But it's just a personal opinion.
Why does none of that rhetoric you just dropped apply to the companies you portray as preying on the common man?
It does - I feel about corporations in a similar way you feel about the government. It's probably the same base instinct - mistrust of power structures we respectively don't trust and dislike. For that reason, I don't necessarily trust legally sanctioned power figures across the board either. It's just that in private enterprise, the system is designed for those in power to serve themselves and hoard wealth. In a public power system (government) at least the intention is to serve the many. Since power corrupts absolutely, we end up with much of the same result either way. I actually support smalling down things both privately and publically. Do I have a viable way of what that would look like? Not yet, haven't thought about it enough.
c)
That's fine, but it still has a monopoly on legal force. You can't deny that. I was just explaining why one reason I place the government up to "higher scrutiny."
I do deny. We disagree.
|
|
|
|
|
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
|
Posted: September 29 2010 at 16:47 |
Negoba wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
Negoba wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
a)
That's why society exists. Government doesn't need to be a part of it.
Currently, private enterprise has not proven that it is very good at serving the needs of society, even when those needs can be piggybacked on profit. (That's the theory as I always understood it, you provide a service or good for the needs of society and you get to profit from that.) We now live in a society where providing a service to society is not only not a necessary part of the bargain but is actively discouraged in many sectors of business. So when you say "That's why society exists," I'm inclined to say that capitalism is failing...society does not exist for the purpose of a few hoarding the gold.
Do you have any examples? I was not aware of this occuring.
Health Care - Both private and public options waste more than they use, just in different ways. Absolutely no evidence privately administered health care is any better for society as a whole.
I disagree.
b)
I didn't assume that they have intentions to harm me. I said that they legally can. Read my post. The government is not us. It is not me. I don't support the government. They don't act on my behalf.
That's a totally viable opinion. But it's just a personal opinion.
It's fact. Me not supporting the government is fact. It not acting on my behalf is fact.
Why does none of that rhetoric you just dropped apply to the companies you portray as preying on the common man?
It does - I feel about corporations in a similar way you feel about the government. It's probably the same base instinct - mistrust of power structures we respectively don't trust and dislike. For that reason, I don't necessarily trust legally sanctioned power figures across the board either. It's just that in private enterprise, the system is designed for those in power to serve themselves and hoard wealth. In a public power system (government) at least the intention is to serve the many. Since power corrupts absolutely, we end up with much of the same result either way. I actually support smalling down things both privately and publically. Do I have a viable way of what that would look like? Not yet, haven't thought about it enough.
Fair enough. I obviously disagree completely, but I would be interested in hearing of your system should you think of it.
c)
That's fine, but it still has a monopoly on legal force. You can't deny that. I was just explaining why one reason I place the government up to "higher scrutiny."
I do deny. We disagree.
I deny your denial
|
|
|
|
|
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
For my Libertarian friends
