Public vs. Private Business

[Ilikemustard]

Again with the gun scenarios and the immanent threat to one's own well being.

I don't think fear tactics are going to go un-noticed by a whole lot of us... It is a Glenn Beck/ theist's common debate tactic after all.

It's not a fear tactic, it's a matter of human rights. I don't want a large portion of my income being taken from me by force. Can you justify why it should be, without simultaneously justifying theft and extortion?

I don't watch Glenn Beck or Fox News, so stop associating me with it.

theist's

Man, do you affiliate everyone you disagree with with theism? Atheism may be the logical stance, but it doesn't give you some magic card that you can play against whoever you debate with. You can't just make use of "theist" ad hominem and assume its a valid debate tactic. Such a stupid, stupid thing to do.

 

[Ilikemustard]

It's a social contract, Mustard.

It's not a contract. I have the option of signing or not signing a contract.

You don't want to pay for a road while someone else uses it for free, do you? By living in society and using its services, you agree to support them.

Yeah, I live in society and use its services. I use the services of restaurants, and I pay for it. I use the service of transport companies, and I pay for it. I use the service of shopping centers, and I pay for it. I never agreed to have my money taken by force.

Why is my view absurd, exactly? Why is it not ok for a road company to steal my money to pay for their service, but it's ok for the state to do it? You haven't answered this.

What most confuses me is that your terror-laced example is more like the society minarchists envision, isn't it? With private road companies charging you for your use of their highway?

I thought that was obvious. I'm an anti-statist, not a minarchist, by the way. Obviously this is going to incite irrelevant "anarchist" ad hominem.

 

[Ilikemustard]

Yet here we are, communicating over the Internet - so not so ludicrous.

And you say I missed your point? This doesn't even require a response.

a) We're communicating using the internet. Because the original conception of the internet was based in a state program, you believe that it somehow discredits my entire stance. So if we were having this discussion over a phoneline, would it discredit your stance instead, since phones weren't invented by the state? Your logic makes absolutely no sense.

b) Finland has a minimum speed law, great. First, I'm pretty sure no one's going to buy dial-up anymore anyway (but what if they wanted to? this law impedes their right to). Second, this has nothing to do with increasing speed and decreasing cost. Just by declaring that ISP's must provide above a certain speed doesn't mean you've provided society with the technology to increase internet speed (at lower cost). If the USA suddenly declared that by law every plane must fly at no less than 3000km/h, does this mean they've actually provided society with the technology to do so? Absolutely not. Zero logic here also.

c) When I referenced iPods I was trying to explain how ridiculously irrelevant your argument is. A state had part in the invention of the internet, great. What point are you trying to prove? The free market invented iPods, automobiles, video games, light bulbs, etc. Again, what point are you trying to make?



Light humour.

 

[BrainBlow]

Christ! Use the freaking "edit" button, people!

 

[Ilikemustard]

Christ! Use the freaking "edit" button, people!

Each one of my posts was directed at a different person, therefore I thought they each were their own topic and deserved their own post.

 

[BrainBlow]

Keep it in one post, or else the entire thread just drowns in redundant posts.

Just put some space between the different replies within your post if you want them "separate".

 

[RichardMNixon]

Why is my view absurd, exactly? Why is it not ok for a road company to steal my money to pay for their service, but it's ok for the state to do it? You haven't answered this.

I didn't say it wasn't ok for a road company to charge you, just that such a system would be stupid and your graphic imagery of them gratuitously waving a gun in your face was ludicrous. Not all contracts are signed beforehand. If you eat at a restaurant, you tacitly agree to pay the bill. If you get a haircut, you tacitly agree to pay the barber afterwards. By living in this country and using its services, you tacitly agree to pay taxes.

You think public enterprises are inefficient? What the fuck do you think will happen when road companies build superfluous highways right next to each other so each gets a slice of the action? Natural monopolies are an ugly place for private enterprise to be.

 

[televator]

It's not a fear tactic, it's a matter of human rights. I don't want a large portion of my income being taken from me by force. Can you justify why it should be, without simultaneously justifying theft and extortion?

I don't watch Glenn Beck or Fox News, so stop associating me with it.

Well, at least you're backing away from an immanent death situation.... theft and extortion. You pay for devices the government provides, in most cases there is full disclosure. Not seeing the theft and extortion in that. Now, where I think you have wiggle room is in whether or not it's justified to make it mandatory for all who participate in society to pay....it's not as though people could just move out of the country if they don't like it, just as it would be wrong to limit all options for people to private ones only. But if people chose not to pay tax, would we deny them the use of public roads? If they got to use the road regardless, wouldn't that make them the crooks? Private roads wouldn't alleviate such freedom of choice dilemmas either. If you don't like the way the road is maintained....there's just one road....what are you going to do?

But why work to be a member of society anyway? We share basic institutions, services, and culture because it's mutually beneficial to do so. It is mutually beneficial to set aside some of your personal liberty in favor of civility. People who seem adverse to this idea seem to want to have their cake and eat it too. Absolute personal liberty, and stable society....

Man, do you affiliate everyone you disagree with with theism? Atheism may be the logical stance, but it doesn't give you some magic card that you can play against whoever you debate with. You can't just make use of "theist" ad hominem and assume its a valid debate tactic. Such a stupid, stupid thing to do.

That'll show me the right way to argue. Yeah! :roll: Thank you for your constructive critique

It's not ad hominem to point out how one thing is like another thing. I've said nothing based on any presumption of your character. I should feel free to point out any similarities I might see....you definitely felt free to bring up Mao and communism in a prior discussion despite not clarifying the similarities. I'd stick to telling people that they are wrong in making such connections of speech or talking point likenesses and demonstrating or clarifying how they may be wrong instead of pulling the fallacy card where it doesn't apply and hoping that it'll bury an argument....as Arthur did.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Well, at least you're backing away from an immanent death situation.... theft and extortion. You pay for devices the government provides, in most cases there is full disclosure. Not seeing the theft and extortion in that. Now, where I think you have wiggle room is in whether or not it's justified to make it mandatory for all to pay....it's not as though people could just move out of the country if they don't like it, just as it would be wrong to force people to only have private options to choose from. But if people chose not to pay tax, would we deny them the use of public roads? If they got to use the road regardless, wouldn't that make them the crooks? Private roads wouldn't alleviate such freedom of choice dilemmas either. If you don't like the way the road is maintained....there's just one road....what are you going to do?

But why work to be a member of society anyway? We share basic institutions, services, and culture because it's mutually beneficial to do so. It is mutually beneficial to set aside some of you personal liberty in favor of civility. People who seem adverse to this idea seem to want to have their cake and eat it too. Absolute personal liberty, and stable society....

More than that, they want to eat your cake too and not pay for any of it. They want the government to do the creating of things like the Internet, and then they want the profits. They want the government to eliminate regulations and then have someone else pay to clean up the pollution. They want the security of police and military, while making sure they pay as little as possible for either. They want to socialize the risks and privatize the benefits in every case.

 

[AdmiralPeacock]

Yet here we are, communicating over the Internet - so not so ludicrous.

And you say I missed your point? This doesn't even require a response.

a) We're communicating using the internet. Because the original conception of the internet was based in a state program, you believe that it somehow discredits my entire stance.

I didn't say that, the strawman you hastily constructed did. I commented on irony of you stating your stance on medium originating in a variety of state funded programes.

So if we were having this discussion over a phoneline, would it discredit your stance instead, since phones weren't invented by the state? Your logic makes absolutely no sense.

This doesn't even require a response.

b) Finland has a minimum speed law, great. First, I'm pretty sure no one's going to buy dial-up anymore anyway

There people in rural areas of the USA, Canada and Australia that still use dial-up - expand your field of experience. Indeed, at least here in Australia, the reason many rural areas are limited to dial-up is because the Private companies has consistently shown no interest in supplying

them with better connectivity technologies; despite their willingness to pay. Consequently it'll require state intervention to bring those poor buggers into the 21st century.

(but what if they wanted to? this law impedes their right to).

What possible reason would someone WANT dial-up. In any case, there is no law again own dial-up for private citizens, just from private companies offering it.

Second, this has nothing to do with increasing speed and decreasing cost.

Hmmmm minim speed, competitive market... yeah, it has a lot to do with increasing speed and decreasing cost.

Just by declaring that ISP's must provide above a certain speed doesn't mean you've provided society with the technology to increase internet speed (at lower cost).

You're grasping at straws now.

If the USA suddenly declared that by law every plane must fly at no less than 3000km/h, does this mean they've actually provided society with the technology to do so? Absolutely not. Zero logic here also.

You're right your logic here is no existence - good thing you said it and not me.

c) When I referenced iPods I was trying to explain how ridiculously irrelevant your argument is. A state had part in the invention of the internet, great. What point are you trying to prove? The free market invented iPods, automobiles, video games, light bulbs, etc. Again, what point are you trying to make?

I' ve told you what my point was, but I'll do it again. I was commenting on the irony of someone with such rabid anti-state sentiments communicating said sentiments over a medium developed in a variety of states.

Light humour.

Cute.

 

[kenandkids]

They want to socialize the risks and privatize the benefits in every case.

I really, REALLY like that line. Mind if I kipe it?

 

[televator]

^^ Well I first heard a similar line like that uttered by Cenk Uygur of TYT. Not sure that's where Joe got it from though.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

They want to socialize the risks and privatize the benefits in every case.

I really, REALLY like that line. Mind if I kipe it?

It is definitely not my line, so use it as much as you like. It is certainly an apt description of modern American conservative economic thinking.

 

[Ilikemustard]

Well, at least you're backing away from an immanent death situation.... theft and extortion. You pay for devices the government provides, in most cases there is full disclosure. Not seeing the theft and extortion in that.

The extortion is I pay for the government's services regardless of whether I want to use the service or not. If I don't want to buy a cheeseburger, McDonalds should not force me to buy their cheeseburgers. Do you see? And this isn't even taking into account the services which I am not entitled to that I'm still paying for.

But if people chose not to pay tax, would we deny them the use of public roads? If they got to use the road regardless, wouldn't that make them the crooks? Private roads wouldn't alleviate such freedom of choice dilemmas either. If you don't like the way the road is maintained....there's just one road....what are you going to do?

Do you live in some country where everyone lives on a single road? Kind of reminds me of that episode of South Park where they travel to Canada and there's just one road to everywhere...

But why work to be a member of society anyway? We share basic institutions, services, and culture because it's mutually beneficial to do so. It is mutually beneficial to set aside some of your personal liberty in favor of civility. People who seem adverse to this idea seem to want to have their cake and eat it too. Absolute personal liberty, and stable society....

Why do you need to set aside liberty for civility, may I ask? Note that I'm not supporting complete anarchism... Laws can still exist, and protection (police) can still be provided without 'sharing' services. I know you're going to throw a hundred reasons at me now declaring why private police and courts cannot exist... Just know I've probably heard them all before.

More than that, they want to eat your cake too and not pay for any of it. They want the government to do the creating of things like the Internet, and then they want the profits. They want the government to eliminate regulations and then have someone else pay to clean up the pollution. They want the security of police and military, while making sure they pay as little as possible for either. They want to socialize the risks and privatize the benefits in every case.

Are you a troll? Remember when I said I am against socialization of losses?

they want to eat your cake too and not pay for any of it

I'm assuming by 'they' you mean corporations... Because I certainly don't support this. If you want to eat your cake, you pay for it. What you're describing, quite ironically I might add, sounds very much like socialism.

They want the government to

I don't want the government to do anything. Did you miss the part where I said I was an anti-statist?

I didn't say that, the strawman you hastily constructed did. I commented on irony of you stating your stance on medium originating in a variety of state funded programes.

O rly?

"It's a bit hard for me to take that sort of argument or view serious when it was broadcast over a medium that was originally developed by several state funded projects"

It's a bit hard for you to take my view seriously. You don't call that discrediting my entire stance based on the fact that we are communicating over the internet? So to para-phrase what I said before, would it be difficult for you to take your view seriously if we were discussing this over a phone-line?

There people in rural areas of the USA, Canada and Australia that still use dial-up - expand your field of experience. Indeed, at least here in Australia, the reason many rural areas are limited to dial-up is because the Private companies has consistently shown no interest in supplying

them with better connectivity technologies; despite their willingness to pay. Consequently it'll require state intervention to bring those poor buggers into the 21st century.

Source please.
If it is cost effective to provide them with fast internet, and they are willing to pay, companies will provide them with fast internet. Think on this though: There isn't any public transport out in the bush, is there? No hotels? Many of the services that are readily available in cities are not available in the outback areas. Are you going to get the government to provide all of those services as well, at the taxpayer's expense? That's one of the costs of living far away from dense civilization.

What possible reason would someone WANT dial-up. In any case, there is no law again own dial-up for private citizens, just from private companies offering it.

I never said people would want dial-up. In fact I said "pretty sure no one's going to buy dial-up". What I did say was people's right to dial-up was impeded by law.
If private companies can't offer it by law how do you expect private citizens from obtaining it, silly?

Hmmmm minim speed, competitive market... yeah, it has a lot to do with increasing speed and decreasing cost.

Lol, nice argument there buddy. You might want to re-read what I said and form an actual argument that's a bit more in-depth than just "yes it is because I said so".

You're grasping at straws now.
You're right your logic here is no existence - good thing you said it and not me.

What another compelling argument. Geez, at this rate, you might just change my mind!

I' ve told you what my point was, but I'll do it again. I was commenting on the irony of someone with such rabid anti-state sentiments communicating said sentiments over a medium developed in a variety of states.

I'll go a step further and re-quote what you said so again just so you can read it again.

"It's a bit hard for me to take that sort of argument or view serious when it was broadcast over a medium that was originally developed by several state funded projects"

You can't take my view seriously because of an arbitrary point. How could this possibly be interpreted any other way?

your graphic imagery of them gratuitously waving a gun in your face was ludicrous

Try not paying taxes. Then try resisting arrest when they come for you. Then tell me my imagery is ludicrous.

Not all contracts are signed beforehand. If you eat at a restaurant, you tacitly agree to pay the bill. If you get a haircut, you tacitly agree to pay the barber afterwards. By living in this country and using its services, you tacitly agree to pay taxes.

This isn't even comparable, I don't know why you would even think it is. It's obvious when I walk into a restaurant and order food that I'm agreeing to pay the cost, otherwise I wouldn't have ordered food. If I never walk into the restaurant and I never order food, yet the restaurant forces me to pay for their service under threat of force, would you jump to their defence exclaiming that I "tacitly agreed to pay them"?
I do not agree to pay taxes, and I do not agree to use a country's 'services'.
You still haven't justified why the state can steal my money to build their roads, but a private road company can't.

You think public enterprises are inefficient? What the fuck do you think will happen when road companies build superfluous highways right next to each other so each gets a slice of the action? Natural monopolies are an ugly place for private enterprise to be.

Supply and demand, my friend, supply and demand. A road company will not invest in a road if there are already so many roads that they will not make a profit. Roads cost a lot of money, it's only worth the cost if there is so much traffic that the roads already in existence are experiencing congestion. Also, if roads are constructed inefficiently such that it's difficult for you to get to work in the morning, another road company will come in and compete, providing you with a more efficient way of getting to work. So road companies are regulated by competition to build efficient roads.

This idea that a state is required for roads to be constructed is outdated and just silly.

 

[AdmiralPeacock]

I didn't say that, the strawman you hastily constructed did. I commented on irony of you stating your stance on medium originating in a variety of state funded programes.

O rly?

"It's a bit hard for me to take that sort of argument or view serious when it was broadcast over a medium that was originally developed by several state funded projects"

It's a bit hard for you to take my view seriously. You don't call that discrediting my entire stance based on the fact that we are communicating over the internet? So to para-phrase what I said before, would it be difficult for you to take your view seriously if we were discussing this over a phone-line?

The irony is that delicious - but no, obviously it would not have the same weight of irony.

There people in rural areas of the USA, Canada and Australia that still use dial-up - expand your field of experience. Indeed, at least here in Australia, the reason many rural areas are limited to dial-up is because the Private companies has consistently shown no interest in supplying

them with better connectivity technologies; despite their willingness to pay. Consequently it'll require state intervention to bring those poor buggers into the 21st century.

Source please.

Well it was initially anecdotal, based on my own experience with meeting people online and knowing people living in rural areas of my own country - but I have found this article, I'm not sure of it's realizability - but I'm sure it's indicative enough to warrant further investigation.

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/FCCSurvey.pdf
and
http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2011/db0106/DA-10-2414A1.pdf

If it is cost effective to provide them with fast internet, and they are willing to pay, companies will provide them with fast internet. Think on this though: There isn't any public transport out in the bush, is there? No hotels? Many of the services that are readily available in cities are not available in the outback areas. Are you going to get the government to provide all of those services as well, at the taxpayer's expense? That's one of the costs of living far away from dense civilization.

Actually I do expect the government to provide transport, education and health to rural areas - it makes sense, where the fuck do you think your food comes from?

What possible reason would someone WANT dial-up. In any case, there is no law again own dial-up for private citizens, just from private companies offering it.

I never said people would want dial-up. In fact I said "pretty sure no one's going to buy dial-up". What I did say was people's right to dial-up was impeded by law.
If private companies can't offer it by law how do you expect private citizens from obtaining it, silly?

Heh, yeah... what is the name of this imaginary world you live in called?

Hmmmm minim speed, competitive market... yeah, it has a lot to do with increasing speed and decreasing cost.

Lol, nice argument there buddy. You might want to re-read what I said and form an actual argument that's a bit more in-depth than just "yes it is because I said so".

Basic principles of a market - there is a minim standard with many bidders, to stay alive in such a market you have to provide the best service... ie official minim standards increase efficiency and lowers cost. duh.

 

[televator]

The extortion is I pay for the government's services regardless of whether I want to use the service or not. If I don't want to buy a cheeseburger, McDonalds should not force me to buy their cheeseburgers. Do you see? And this isn't even taking into account the services which I am not entitled to that I'm still paying for.

Cheese burgers don't need accommodations and services because they don't get handicapped, fall ill, or lose jobs like people do. People aren't some commodity or byproduct. They are what society is for, of, and by, but you call it extortion to provide for these safety nets that benefit many people and can be open to you should you ever fall into appropriate and unfortunate circumstances.

Do you live in some country where everyone lives on a single road? Kind of reminds me of that episode of South Park where they travel to Canada and there's just one road to everywhere...

You either misunderstood, or you're skewing the point on purpose. I live in a country where my drive way leads to one road. In this fantasy of yours (I'll call it the United Corporations of America), that one road owned by one company leads to another road owned (presumably) by another. There aren't roads owned by different companies built parallel to each other. The point is that you only have one immediate option and thus you end up with the same problem with lack of options. Plus, now there's a higher cost per individual, as only the people using the roads pay the toll.

Why do you need to set aside liberty for civility, may I ask? Note that I'm not supporting complete anarchism... Laws can still exist, and protection (police) can still be provided without 'sharing' services. I know you're going to throw a hundred reasons at me now declaring why private police and courts cannot exist... Just know I've probably heard them all before.

Because not putting any consideration on the impact of your actions on the people around you would make you a social detriment. Also I thought you said you were against this "corporatism", but now you're willing to make them the cops and hand over all judicial matters to them?

 

[Gnug215]

Mod note:

Why are most of the posts in this topic filled with implicit/explicit insults, strawmen and obscene amounts of ridicule and sarcasm?

Could we please elevate the level of discourse just a tad? Instead of constantly misrepresenting opposing views, could we get some clarification questions and reasoned arguments?

Thank you.

 

[Gnug215]

How about we try to get to core of this stuff instead?

Ilikemustard, since you currently seem to be sole voice on the private side, how about talking more in depth about a relatively fully-formed, plausible model that is an alternative to... the current state of things, I suppose.

The rest of you... could you try to clarify your positions a bit? I am seeing some arguments, but I'm not seeing a cohesive explanation for your positions. (Genrally speaking. It's the gist of what I've seen from some of the posts here so far.)

Also, does this debate have to be a matter of either or? It seems to be we have a bit of both in most societies today, and it does seem like both sides here realize and accept that, and are NOT in fact debating for the extreme version of either side - which leads me to wonder how deep the disagreements really are.

Lastly, I'm wondering what people here think about the basic view of human nature in terms of these two different versions of society. I've always had the notion that not everyone functions in the same way, so there would never be a society that would work perfectly for every kind of personality. With that in mind, I personally think it's clear that any extreme kind of society will always be unstable, because some people will always work against it.

Arrh.

 

[ArthurWilborn]

Well, many people who argue for more privatization generally believe that people have strong desires for private possessions and personal gain, and this impulse overwhelms the desire to improve and be productive. Thus, a welfare or subsidy arrangement is seen in the same way as an addict and an enabler.

The "addict", the person receiving the services, is contented because they receive what they want in exchange for nothing or very little. Thus, they have no desire to exert effort to improve themselves or their situation. They remain in a dependent position.

The "enabler", out of a desire to help, gives the "addict" support. However, this merely encourages the "addict's" counterproductive behavior and gives them no incentive to change or improve.

Note that this is just a metaphor and is not meant to be pejorative.

Unlike Mustard, I contend that governments are necessary; if for no other reason then simple pragmatics. People like having governments, and there are some functions they can perform reasonably well.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Also, does this debate have to be a matter of either or? It seems to be we have a bit of both in most societies today, and it does seem like both sides here realize and accept that, and are NOT in fact debating for the extreme version of either side - which leads me to wonder how deep the disagreements really are.

The level of disagreement is based on the distance from the middle? Certainly someone who tends to see a necessity for balance will have large differences with people on either extreme. For instance, I'm all for balance so I have to reject pure socialism and pure capitalism as nonsensical points of view.

Lastly, I'm wondering what people here think about the basic view of human nature in terms of these two different versions of society. I've always had the notion that not everyone functions in the same way, so there would never be a society that would work perfectly for every kind of personality. With that in mind, I personally think it's clear that any extreme kind of society will always be unstable, because some people will always work against it.

Arrh.

There's something wrong with the thinking of people who think that "free markets" are the solution while condemning government as being incapable of producing positive results, and vice versa. The reality of human nature is that markets don't do anything... people do things. Most of us understand on some level that government is just people too, but some people have less awareness than others. The idea that government should get out of the way and allow free markets to find solutions... it is just dumb! It is saying people should get out of the way and allow people to find solutions.

I think that people who ignore that simple truth have a distorted and unhealthy viewpoint of reality, and seem to also have issues with seeing people in general. Empathy issues, among other things. The idea that each person is an island and a rejection of things like social responsibility may just be a political view, but it often seems like a basic perspective of being disconnected from people in general.