Public vs. Private Business

[Memeticemetic]

I just contest that the roles played by the government can be carried out by private firms more efficiently, and that the services provided by said private firms adapt more readily to society's demands due to their competition.

I also contest that giving an entity a right to a monopoly in areas such as protection and law is dangerous and prone to abuse and corruption.

This is nitpicky, I know, but your use of the word "contest" is incorrect. You're looking for words like "attest", "affirm", or "advocate". Unless, that is, you were trying to say that you think government is more efficient than private firms and that monopolies are not dangerous.

 

[AdmiralPeacock]

Do you get annoyed when people like mustard misunderstand every other position?

I don't even fully understand what your position is, how can I misunderstand it? As Gnug said, you've argued against what I've said, but not fully defined what you are advocating.

Just saw you come online too, do you have some sort of alert system for whenever someone replies to this thread?

heh, I could code one, but no.

The language you use can apply to any number of opinions; so while I doubt you were specifically targeting my position; you're comment encompassed them never the less.

 

[Andiferous]

Also, political positions are often defined by their extremes, but as I say, pure political ideologies are likely impossible since I have not yet met a pure human being. This is to say that there is a hybrid near anarchy that may include some of the good stuff like social responsibility or influence; but these are not inherent to the political libertarian extreme "anarchy" but likely some tainted version, so rather shouldn't be included in its' definition.

That's why I don't refer to myself as an anarchist, but rather an anti-statist.

My position is not for a utopian world in which everyone is expected to agree to a non-aggression pact, and we all go about our peaceful lives without any form of authority.
I just contest that the roles played by the government can be carried out by private firms more efficiently, and that the services provided by said private firms adapt more readily to society's demands due to their competition.

I also contest that giving an entity a right to a monopoly in areas such as protection and law is dangerous and prone to abuse and corruption.

Do you get annoyed when people like mustard misunderstand every other position?

I don't even fully understand what your position is, how can I misunderstand it? As Gnug said, you've argued against what I've said, but not fully defined what you are advocating.

Just saw you come online too, do you have some sort of alert system for whenever someone replies to this thread?

We should just start threads with a disclaimer that it's all bloody semantics.

But then again we all like to argue too much.

 

[Ilikemustard]

This is nitpicky, I know, but your use of the word "contest" is incorrect. You're looking for words like "attest", "affirm", or "advocate". Unless, that is, you were trying to say that you think government is more efficient than private firms and that monopolies are not dangerous.

Yeah, it didn't sound right when I was typing it but I couldn't really think of another word to put in its place... I am fairly sleep deprived at the moment.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

We should just start threads with a disclaimer that it's all bloody semantics.

But then again we all like to argue too much.

On the other hand, I think some people like to hide behind semantic, to cover up how illogical their views are. If you avoid taking a solid position while accepting a label, you can always claim that everyone else is attacking strawmen.

 

[Andiferous]

There is a way to test that.

Lay out the definitions.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

There is a way to test that.

Lay out the definitions.

I'm all for it. It is otherwise like talking to Christians, each one has their own definition that they never really articulate except to reject the dumber bits as they come up.

 

[Andiferous]

Well. :lol:

Unless you really like doing this, and if you care, do it for effs sake.

 

[Gnug215]

Also, political positions are often defined by their extremes, but as I say, pure political ideologies are likely impossible since I have not yet met a pure human being. This is to say that there is a hybrid near anarchy that may include some of the good stuff like social responsibility or influence; but these are not inherent to the political libertarian extreme "anarchy" but likely some tainted version, so rather shouldn't be included in its' definition.

That's why I don't refer to myself as an anarchist, but rather an anti-statist.

My position is not for a utopian world in which everyone is expected to agree to a non-aggression pact, and we all go about our peaceful lives without any form of authority.
I just contest that the roles played by the government can be carried out by private firms more efficiently, and that the services provided by said private firms adapt more readily to society's demands due to their competition.

I also contest that giving an entity a right to a monopoly in areas such as protection and law is dangerous and prone to abuse and corruption.

I think this is the core of the matter, and this is what should be discussed. However, comparing private vs. public business is problematic, as we have seen. Some of the results seem to be all over the place. Take US health care vs. public healthcare in the EU: Is one 100% better than the other in every way?
The sides are usually comparing cons and pros, but with the results varying, it's hard to come to any agreement. And I think both sides are subject to bias, and arguing from an "ideological" position.

The libertarian side seems to be arguing from the position that, first of all, everyone would function to the best of their abilities without regulations. I simply don't think this is the case, but it's hard to provide any conclusive evidence here. (Note: If they are aware of the fact that not everyone would do well, then they are willing to accept that a LOT of eggs would be broken to make this omelet.)

The... non-libertarians seem to be coming from the position that society would break down "without rules and regulations". That's maybe a bit strawmannish, doubly so, but you guys all know quite well what I mean, I'm sure.

An issue that also seems to be in play is the fact non-libertarians feel that some tasks in society should never be run by private companies - and thus have the end goal be a profit, rather than the general well-being of everyone.

I have to admit that I am in the latter group on that one, and while I don't really have a lot of evidence or data to support this somewhat fluffy philosophical position, I haven't really heard any good arguments or data coming from the other side.

Currently, I'm living in a society with a strong state, and while it has problems, I feel it's generally a great society, and data also seems to support that. I compare this with US society, and while I don't live there and don't know enough about it, I'm highly skeptical. It seems one has greater opportunity in the US - to either gain massive riches, or to fail utterly.

 

[obsidianavenger]

Maybe, I'm no anarchy expert.

As a term the one is in direct contradiction to the other. Where there is contradiction, I tend to find problems.

what term are you referring to? i'm lost, lol

Also, political positions are often defined by their extremes, but as I say, pure political ideologies are likely impossible since I have not yet met a pure human being. This is to say that there is a hybrid near anarchy that may include some of the good stuff like social responsibility or influence; but these are not inherent to the political libertarian extreme "anarchy" but likely some tainted version, so rather shouldn't be included in its' definition.

wha? anarchy, as a concept, says nothing about whether or not people influence each other, or whether specific individuals feel social responsibility towards one another/choose to act on it. its completely silent on those matters because they're not relevant to whether or not a government (or any individuals i s'pose) is or isn't engaging in force to carry out its programs.

For instance, philosophically speaking, how do you separate influence from force? At what point are you no longer complete master of your own personal government?

generally force involves a physical threat or restraint against someone... or actually acting in violence against them. blackmail is a borderline case on which there are varying opinions... but its generally considered not force, especially if the threat is simply revealing something one would like to keep secret. unless there was a previous contract to the effect that the secret would not be revealed; then we're dealing with a breach of contract.

uh, yes it is. simply writing it down without having the other person read over and agree to it doesn't make it an explicit contract. explicit means explicitly agreed to, not actually written down regardless of agreement.

Not quite: Expressed contracts simply means the terms are expressed (verbally or written) and agreed upon. Comprehension will is ethical, is not necessary (see "fine print").

Explicit is similar but slightly different to Expressed - as clarity of conditions and terms are inherent with Explicit... either in details or language. This makes the specific case of Explicit vs Implicit a different conversation and irrelevant to my point.

thats funny, since explicit vs implicit was the distinction that i was talking about. the fact that there are birth certificates doesn't implicate the newborn in agreeing to be a member of society. you can't just introduce new terms and change the argument entirely.

They are - unless you live in North Korea, you can renounce your citizenship.

sure, not without having agents of the state come after you to kick you out...

Clearly you're not familiar with history not 60 years ago... in many countries.

...

i said it was unstable, i didn't say it would untangle itself within one generation.

Sure there is - it's just those areas suck at the moment. Cry me a river (another typical libertarian attitude)

give me one parcel of land not claimed as property of some nation or another on the face of this planet. even antartica is the subject of various treaties and legal hang ups.

But there are plenty of opportunities of libertarian and anarchist to pull themselves up by their own boot straps and make a neo-capiticlistic paradise... they just won't do it. Why? Cause they're too comfy in societies that were effectually supported by the "state". That is of cause, you believe a libertarian society can only flourish from within a society that is already post-industrial. lol

oh really? so if i wanted to go off and start my own "state", the government of the country where my land was wouldn't sue me if they ever found me and try to force me to pay them taxes?

i also find it interesting that its "the state" that has made modern life possible rather than the enormous leaps in technology produced by... capitalism. :/

 

[Gnug215]

i also find it interesting that its "the state" that has made modern life possible rather than the enormous leaps in technology produced by... capitalism. :/

Can one really live without the other?

 

[ImprobableJoe]

i also find it interesting that its "the state" that has made modern life possible rather than the enormous leaps in technology produced by... capitalism. :/

Can one really live without the other?

No. That's probably one of the reasons why the libertarian frauds don't actually "go Galt" and built their capitalist paradise somewhere. Without all the government-sponsored goodies, capitalism just doesn't work.

 

[obsidianavenger]

Can one really live without the other?

No. That's probably one of the reasons why the libertarian frauds don't actually "go Galt" and built their capitalist paradise somewhere. Without all the government-sponsored goodies, capitalism just doesn't work.

thats a pretty big assumption, given that no one's ever really been allowed to try it. i refrained from answering the question because i have no idea. the biggest problem would be whether or not a libertarian "government" had adequate resources to detect and censure corrupt individuals and corporations.

 

[Gnug215]

No. That's probably one of the reasons why the libertarian frauds don't actually "go Galt" and built their capitalist paradise somewhere. Without all the government-sponsored goodies, capitalism just doesn't work.

thats a pretty big assumption, given that no one's ever really been allowed to try it. i refrained from answering the question because i have no idea. the biggest problem would be whether or not a libertarian "government" had adequate resources to detect and censure corrupt individuals and corporations.

To what degree can we even have a libertarian government, rules, regulations, censure, before we can't call it libertarianism anymore?

 

[obsidianavenger]

To what degree can we even have a libertarian government, rules, regulations, censure, before we can't call it libertarianism anymore?

to the point where the government does anything but enforce property rights and punish initiations of force by other individuals. for a minarchy (ie minimum possible government). for anarchy its a different story obviously...for example, in an anachist society, if some protective agency gained a monopoly on force, would they in essence become the government? would they then have to be abolished in turn? it depends on what anarchist you ask.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

To what degree can we even have a libertarian government, rules, regulations, censure, before we can't call it libertarianism anymore?

Ah ha... the definition problem again! In my experience, each libertarian with define the degree of government necessary as "stuff I plan on using, and nothing for those other parasites."

 

[AdmiralPeacock]

Not quite: Expressed contracts simply means the terms are expressed (verbally or written) and agreed upon. Comprehension will is ethical, is not necessary (see "fine print").

Explicit is similar but slightly different to Expressed - as clarity of conditions and terms are inherent with Explicit... either in details or language. This makes the specific case of Explicit vs Implicit a different conversation and irrelevant to my point.

thats funny, since explicit vs implicit was the distinction that i was talking about. the fact that there are birth certificates doesn't implicate the newborn in agreeing to be a member of society. you can't just introduce new terms and change the argument entirely.

Since you said "normal contract" initially, any miscommunication in this specific case is your fault - as an Implicit contract is just as "normal" as an expressed or explicit contract. To but your comment in another context, it was be like saying "Porsche Boxster Spyders and Cars can drive on a road".

I argued against what would be relevant to my point since your statement was so ambiguous as to mean anything.

They are - unless you live in North Korea, you can renounce your citizenship.

sure, not without having agents of the state come after you to kick you out...

Just like a store can ask you to leave if you are merely loitering... so what?

Clearly you're not familiar with history not 60 years ago... in many countries.

...

i said it was unstable, i didn't say it would untangle itself within one generation.

Mmmm maybe 100 or so - judging from most societies throughout history.

Sure there is - it's just those areas suck at the moment. Cry me a river (another typical libertarian attitude)

give me one parcel of land not claimed as property of some nation or another on the face of this planet. even antartica is the subject of various treaties and legal hang ups.

Well you could go stabilize that destabilized countries - I mean they can only benefit. Viva Revolution!

But there are plenty of opportunities of libertarian and anarchist to pull themselves up by their own boot straps and make a neo-capiticlistic paradise... they just won't do it. Why? Cause they're too comfy in societies that were effectually supported by the "state". That is of cause, you believe a libertarian society can only flourish from within a society that is already post-industrial. lol

oh really? so if i wanted to go off and start my own "state", the government of the country where my land was wouldn't sue me if they ever found me and try to force me to pay them taxes?

There's a guy here in Australia that did it - his little area is even recognized as country by a number of UN countries (see Hutt River).

i also find it interesting that its "the state" that has made modern life possible rather than the enormous leaps in technology produced by... capitalism. :/

NASA, CERN, various Universities and institutes of technology financed by the "state"... just because you refused to acknowledge them doesn't mean they do not exist.

Anyway - I never claimed that capitalism isn't partly responsible - mashing it down to state bad, private good is your shtick not mine.

 

[Ilikemustard]

Take US health care vs. public healthcare in the EU: Is one 100% better than the other in every way?

I want to point out that comparing EU vs US healthcare is not comparing a socialist policy with a free market one: US healthcare is in no way "free market", it is perverted by state intervention.

The libertarian side seems to be arguing from the position that, first of all, everyone would function to the best of their abilities without regulations. I simply don't think this is the case, but it's hard to provide any conclusive evidence here.

Simple question, if business is being regulated by the state, who's regulating the state?

Kind of like that question... If God created everything, who created God?

 

[Andiferous]

Take US health care vs. public healthcare in the EU: Is one 100% better than the other in every way?

I want to point out that comparing EU vs US healthcare is not comparing a socialist policy with a free market one: US healthcare is in no way "free market", it is perverted by state intervention.

I agree from my fence in the neutral

The system was tempered by:
1. State governance as determined by democracy, embellished by money and lobby groups.
2. A generally uncooperative opposition with no mind to compromise despite offerings but determined to destroy at all cost and didn't want anything anyway.

It seems like a strange sort of authoritarian capitalism health care in the end. If socialism can be mistaken for communism, what happened here, I think, can be called fascism. The system is wrecked and I hope you can fix it.

I don't think there's any justification for blaming socialism (as is popular) sabatoge seems very possible from here. What a strange White House soap opera. Perhaps this will bring reforms.

The libertarian side seems to be arguing from the position that, first of all, everyone would function to the best of their abilities without regulations. I simply don't think this is the case, but it's hard to provide any conclusive evidence here.

Simple question, if business is being regulated by the state, who's regulating the state?

Kind of like that question... If God created everything, who created God?

I'd be surprised if there were more than two non-libertarian-leaning users on this site...

 

[AdmiralPeacock]

The libertarian side seems to be arguing from the position that, first of all, everyone would function to the best of their abilities without regulations. I simply don't think this is the case, but it's hard to provide any conclusive evidence here.

Simple question, if business is being regulated by the state, who's regulating the state?

Kind of like that question... If God created everything, who created God?[/quote]

The answer to this should be so obvious as to not warrant an answer - but since you insist on in engaging in hyperbole, I guess we're forced to.

Democratic based societies, indeed even in Communistic, theocratic, feudal, dictatorships and fascistic style governments, the state is regulated by the people - the methods are different in each, but they all require at least permissions of their populous to continue to exist.

I'd be surprised if there were more than two non-libertarian-leaning users on this site...

Heh, there is a difference between a holding basic liberties as important and being a libertarian or having libertarian leanings.