Oh, yeah? Where are these people? I don’t recall meeting any. YOUR default assumption is that anyone asking for help fall into that category until proven otherwise. You don’t seem to understand that you, monavis, are not entitled to the life history of every poor and/or disadvantaged person you encounter so you can pass judgement on them.
That is EXACTLY how you are coming across to most of us here. You might ask yourself why so many people view you like that based on your own words.
And most people of ANY generation do not want to be that position and ask for help because they need it.
Oh, like you never complained about going literal days without food? Maybe your generation was taught to suffer in silence rather than, you know, actually get the help they need. No thanks, what a stupid way to live.
I’m going to revisit this, in the light of my quote, since this is such a goddamned stupid idea.
Taxes pay for government, they pay for infrastructure, they pay to level the playing field.
Without Taxes, there is no Civilization.
And anyone who throws around the idea that taxes are theft if a complete fucking moron with no awareness of reality and who should probably be shipped off to the Kergeulen Islands where they can try living without any civilization or infrastructure and see how that works out.
First time I read that, I thought you said, “Without Texas, there is no civilization”, which I was not going to be able to get behind. On second reading, I guess I mostly agree. Carry on.
Yes taxes pay for infrastructure. If they paid for shoes for one thousand years naive statists like you would be arguing that in absence of government taxation, we would be going barefoot. There is nothing magical about infrastructure that makes it a necessity for government bureaucrats to sprinkle their fairy dust and make it happen.
You simply state with considerable gumption that taxes create civilization because they “pay for infrastructure” and “level the playing field”. You don’t even define civilization. You don’t know what it is. You are basically on the level of an ancient Egyptian. You see pyramids and say “Look! Civilization!” like a primitive being. Civilization, in case you were wondering, is when large amounts of individuals interact with eachother in a civilized manner. Do you suggest that your family, friends, neighbors, and other community members would stop acting in a civilized manner because government didn’t take money from them?
I submit that a person who doesn’t see the government as a gang of thieves robbing a productive populace is the naive one.
Property rights can be guaranteed by other methods and they have been in the past. You are wrong on historical grounds.
…a chasm between those that favor aggression and those who are peaceful…
Let’s be honest. You like government because you like having a say in how everyone else lives their lives. You like making decisions for people. You’re like that stereotypical Jewish Mother but much more ambitious
Capitalism is a better system.
No. Every person sets their own minimum wage. Everyone has a certain wage below which they will not work. Simple as that. When government interferes it forces people off of the books, which is fine with me, but isn’t an ideal situation.
Higher real wages lift people out of poverty. This is accomplished through increasing production, as far as I know, do you have a better mechanism?
I wouldn’t characterize myself as angry. I do believe you are projecting a bit, bud.
Thanks for the positive note.
I don’t believe they have done this intentionally, but they have forcibly monopolized so many functions that over time it has the effect of convincing people that they really are needed.
Yes the market has adapted to government intervention into the transportation industry and now there is sprawl everywhere. Roads have been overbuilt to a comical level.
No i confront the big picture.
I value schools as i value clothing, but I don’t think the government is needed to provide them and they do a poor job when they do. The military has cost us countless lives and wealth. I do not value them.
Macro forces are not forcing him to engage in snobbery and advocate theft. Even if we assume adjustments in the allocation of capital is the reason he was put out of work, he should adjust to present conditions.
Someone in the thread offered this as an opportunity. If he has more productive skills than flipping burgers, by all means, he should put them to use, but it is obvious his asking price is too high for the job he wants or else demand would meet supply.
If his productivity is as high as he seems to think there will be entreprenuerial opportunities there for him or someone else to take advantage of.
You are taking offense when there is none to be taken. For all I know this guy is Jonas Salk. Many of these liberals have quite a background but just don’t understand basic real deal supply/demand economics that you could learn from HenryHazlitt. Productivity is only realized when he is put to work in some line of production. Now it is zero. Possibly it could be incredibly high if the market swings back to valuing his labor at the rate it did before he was presumably laid off.
Pure fluff, bud.
Often people support aggression for pragmatic reasons, as you do here.
Hold up, you think it is the wealthy who suffer from government action? Right now the government is bigger than it has ever been, spending more on social programs than ever before, but the rich are getting richer. This is not because of the Bush tax cuts, buddy.
Nope. The government is an institution by the rich, and for the rich.
How do disparities arise on the free market? Because someone is providing a valuable service and is rewarded by revenues from customers. How is this unjust?
You have an absurdly antiquated view of corporations. Corporations, in the absence of government, can only make money by serving consumers. Are you against consumers being served?
I don’t know what you are going on about here.
LOL the OP is a beggar, in the sense he is begging for someone to support him. Anyway, the wealthy control the government in order to create these conditions.
Let me put it this way. Yes, corporations and wealthy people would have incredible power in a free society. They have that same power now except they are allowed to use guns and people like you defend what they are doing on the internet. If there was no facade of legitimized violence in the form of government, their actions would be laid bare.
LOL, no using a euphemism like “taxation” is a rhetorical device. This post cracked me up. Thanks.
Go 'Merica!
Property owners.
Road and sewer owners.
Really? Only government can pick up fucking trash? How far we have come. There is so much work to do
No need to maintain a military.
Private courts would settle disputes over encroachments on private property. Similar to how modern courts do, but without a monopoly.
Does the government even do this? JK. But really, why does the government need a monopoly on food inspection and licensing, I never understood this. The government has such a terrible approval rating compared to successful companies, yet they are tasked with making a lot of things safe. Underwriter’s Laboratories seems to be doing pretty well on the lamp front. Pretty sure private firms could handle pineapples.
Good lord have some dignity. Education is literally a lifelong endeavor. Do you think that 6 hours a day, 180 days a year, for 14 years or so is going to make or break the creation of a critically thinking human being? Did you go to public school?
Voluntary contributions seem to work in clothing, feeding, sheltering, entertaining, warming, cooling, cleaning, shaving, and occupying damn near the entire human race, so yes i think they will work.
I don’t expect you to believe me or my intentions, that is your right, I wasn’t complaining either just stating facts. I feel it has made me stronger knowing things could still be bad, but they aren’t. I never felt like I was suffering, I believed things would get better if I did things differently. I wouldn’t change my past for anything. It was my choice to live as I did.
“I am a libertarian” certainly takes less time to say than “I have a fantasy about how the world could work and the fact that my fantasy is completely unrealistic makes no difference to me.”
True. Time and time again groups of individuals institute governments to accomplish that end. If you disagree, please point to a civilization without a government.
Absolutely. In fact, even with a government and laws to define and enforce a standard of behavior we still have a non-trivial percentage of the population who refuse to play by the rules. We call them “criminals”. Do you suggest that the people who rob, rape, and kill other people will START acting in a civilized manner if we had no government?
Some people are altruistic and cooperative. Some are not. Without government, those held in check by threat of force will feel free to take whatever they can take from those weaker than them.
If by this you mean the strong hold the property and the weak hand it over you are correct.
No, I like government because I know I am not the strongest, meanest, and most ruthless person in the neighborhood. If I did not join with the other like-minded individuals to help fund things like a police department I would be regularly robbed and raped by those bigger, stronger, and more ruthless than I am.
Capitalism is an economic system, it is not a form of government.
And every corporation has a maximum wage above which they will not hire someone. If you think that a particularly wealthy corporation, or one that holds monopoly in an area, can’t skew wages downward you’re naive. It is NOT a level playing field and never has been. Those with more resources have more power to set wages.
Back when the government did nothing to provide a basic education we had a crap-load of people in every generation who had no education at all. Do you want to go back to the days when the majority could not even write their own names? No, a government education is not as good as a top-notch private education but it’s a damn sight better than no education at all.
Then you don’t mind being invaded and possibly enslaved by someone who DOES value them?
If someone is (hypothetically) willing to pay $100k a year to his burger-flippers but only needs 4 buger-flippers regardless of wages, and there are 20 people looking for burger-flipping work 16 of them are SOL. Then could have prime burger-flipping skills, they might be willing to burger-flip for only $50k a year, but if the supply of burger-flippers exceeds demands then it’s not a matter of those 16 being unqualified or without valuable skills, it’s a matter of more workers than needed. So…what do you intended to do with those 16 “extra” people?
In the Great Recession you had 5-6 qualified people for every available job. Your notion that people will someone magically be employed if they’re willing and qualified breaks down under such circumstances. The supply of jobs does not magically expand. So… what does your system do for all those extra people?
BULLSHIT. Social programs have been systematically cut and cut again since the 1990’s, and that has only accelerated in recent years.
Corporations make money by serving consumers. They do not, however, need to treat their workers with any sort of kindness or consideration in order to serve consumers if those are two different groups. The Romans make a crapload of profit off salt mines and kept their consumers happy but at the same time worked the salt miners to death.
Labor law is to protect workers from abuse by employers who will happily abuse those workers in the pursuit of profits.
Or, to make it a little more personal - this year I had a (now former) employer who simply did not pay me for 6 weeks of wages. I held up my part of the bargain, she did not and basically told me to fuck off. Because we have laws and government I took her to court for redress. Would you prefer if, in a world without government, I hired a couple of thugs to go and literally beat the money out of her? How would that be a better situation?
Actually, in my area we do NOT have municipal trash pickup. You either haul your own garbage away, or you pay a company to do it. You know, your wet-dream fantasy brought to life.
Well, there are problems with all that. First, we have people dumping their garbage in our dumpster, essentially trying to make us pay for their garbage removal. So we had to go out and buy a lock for the dumpster. We have people who simply toss their garbage into their backyards, attracting various vermin and leading to the occasional trash fire. We have people who still attempt to simply dump their trash next to the dumpsters of other people who are paying for garbage removal. This has led to the occasional fist fight in the area, once in awhile resulting in hospitalization of one or several parties. We have people who dump their garbage in public areas, in local rivers and ponds, and toss it into the backyards of other people.
I don’t see an improvement over municipal pick up here. Without police to break up the fights and a fire department to put out the occasional fire I imagine the situation would only deteriorate.
Having lived under both systems I’d rather have municipal garbage pickup, it’s more efficient and there are many fewer problems with trash dumping and fighting, but I don’t have a choice at present.
Enjoy your new overlords, then.
Right… and they couldn’t possible favor the owners of those courts…:rolleyes:
Then you are ignorant of history.
I’m not sure you understand what “voluntary” means. I don’t know any clothing manufacturer’s, food producers, house builders, utility companies, or barbers who volunteer, that is work for free. Or are you going to maintain that asking you to use words correctly is the threat of force and some sort of coercion?
I’d actually feel a lot better about you if you DID complain. Complaining is normal. Complaining is recognition that there is something wrong. Your passive acceptance of appalling conditions makes me ill and your continuing humblebragging only increases the nausea.
It was your choice to go days without food? You wouldn’t want a past were you could at least eat daily? Lady, that’s sick. It’s like an anorexic on the verge of death still protesting she’s not hungry.
I find it tragic you’ve been conditioned to passively accept appalling conditions.
You’re the one who brought up spelling in the first place, dipshit.
And I am not bothered that you had a different life. I just think you’re not very smart because you can’t understand that your experiences are the result of countless random factors, and you can’t assume that everyone with a different outcome is lazier than you.
If we were to adopt the Libertarian scheme of doing things, we’d see an even more extreme allocation of capital than we see now. It would be much like the monarchies of old, only without laws. Quite a vision you got there, hope you get to be on top.
Try to understand that progress is one of the macro forces that put people to work. We have increased industrialization, which equals increased productivity. But it puts people out of work in the process. A wise and humane society will recognize that and provide a safety net rather than relying entirely on scolding.
Try reading up on the history of private fire departments. They’re a fucking joke- the result was people’s homes burning down for no good reason. Libertopia!
You really never have nothing to say, but you post in damn near every thread. Why try so hard to be mediocre?
Tellingly the Jewish Mother is trying to steer me towards more successful pursuits like advocating violence. You fulfill the caricature so completely. From now on I will read all of your posts in that voice.
I consider you deeply challenged. Ireland lasted a 1000 hears without a government.
Just because governments have succeeded in gaining control over the productive class, it does not follow that this is the ideal situation. Minorities have I instituted governments so they can exploit the majority.
Nope. The only legitimate crimes are those against person and property. Who says only the government can enforce a standard of behavior? I guess the same people who say only government can pick up trash. Competitive protection firms would be superior to governments who have a monopoly on this function today. Of course there will be a minority of bad apples. That’s why this function is too important to leave to governments.
Uhh isn’t this the arrangement we have now? Strong government taking from the weak individual?
So your suggestion is that people would stop funding police if the government wasn’t around, but yet you and like minded individuals all recognize the need for protection. Seems contradictory, no?
Capitalism is a better system than the one he mentioned. He didn’t say name a better form of government.
There is no mythical power here. No actor has power over anyone else. They both have the right to end the arrangement at any time. You are referencing a time in history where physical mobility was an impediment. This simply does not exist anymore. It is a severely antiquated narrative. Anyone in anyplace can move clear across the country at little expense and effort. Employers know this. That is why they must compete on an expanding marketplace for labor. Your gilded age demagoguery is a bit outdated.
You don’t understand what education is so you can’t discuss it with any effectiveness. “No education at all” has never happened in any society in the history of mankind with or without government providing it. Education is a lifelong pursuit. It isn’t a brick building built in the 60s that resembles a prison. Literacy was improving at a faster rate before mandatory government schools were prevalent. The division of labor made it possible for people to have more free time to learn and teach because they weren’t scraping to survive.
Get real quick, son, or I’m gonna give up on you. The idea that a country could and would have a desire to occupy the United States or any part of it is old-fashioned silliness. The most powerful military in the world can’t effectively control a backwater like Afghanistan. How would a country occupy a heavily armed libertarian society?
I don’t intend to do anything with them, because I don’t have a pathological need to control the lives of others. Things that they could do is find other ways to satisfy the desires of consumers through voluntary exchange.
Think outside the box. Jobs exist to satisfy consumer desires. “Available job” is a ridiculous concept. It implies that when this job is filled, all consumer demand is being met. I assure you consumer demand will never be completely satisfied, therefore there will always be lines of production that are in need of labor.
Someone is spouting off campaign rhetoric without looking at the numbers.
You reference a point in time in which government created different legal classes of human being and made exploitation possible, and you worry what would happen in absence of government. Quite a trick.
As a test for you to determine if I should even continue this exercise, will you answer a question for me? What effect would the institution of US labor laws in Bangladesh have on the quality of life there? If your answer is something other than “these laws would plunge Bangadesh into abject poverty and cause mass starvation in the streets”, we can stop now. If you realize that this would indeed take place, perhaps you will also realize the reason we can afford to have these laws is because we enjoy a standard of living such that our working conditions are congruent with our living conditions, and these laws really don’t do a whole lot.
That speaks to your own morality. I submit that your morality wouldn’t deteriorate in absence of government and you would take her to a private arbitration service.
No way, the poor couldn’t afford that. Trash will be piling up as high as the eye could see, the plague will run rampant.
Sounds like your God, Democracy, has failed to protect property rights.
What makes you think private firms can’t supply those services?
How do you know it is more efficient? Have you examined the cost structure of various municipalities and .compared them to your private service?
You mean like government courts favor the government? Well one reason would be competition. The government courts have none so they engage in corruption. Private courts would be discouraged from corruption because a bad reputation means they go out of business.
He’ll of an argument, there.
Voluntary simply means the freedom from coercion. Clothing, food, haircuts, etc are provided to consumers the world over by an intricate series of voluntary transactions.
Pure fluff. Retread of tired arguments already addressed. One thing though, what exactly is an “extreme allocation of capital”? For example when Boeing builds huge factories, putting thousands to work, making FLIGHT economical to more and more people everyday. Is that what you had in mind? Or how about when governments in ancient Egypt allocated capital towards building huge shapes? Who best allocates resources in these “extreme” instances?
I scolded the OP for being a snob and refusing to take a job he thinks himself better than. So far nobody has confronted this claim.
Oh sure, Mr. Fancy Schmantzy you think I’m advocating violence? Well, it would be a more successful pursuit than libertarianism, that’s for sure. It sounds like you want the US to join Bangladesh in a race to the bottom for standard of living. Some American you are! Better you should go to Bangladesh without a dollar and see how much you’d ache for good old American protection under the law.
Again, point to even one instance where we have a civilization without a government. Surely this has been tried somewhere?
I mean, sure, everyone could walk around naked all the time as that is a “natural” state for humanity, but it sure would cause problems in anything but a mild or tropical climate. Clothing enables us to live in places we otherwise simply couldn’t. Governments allow us to do things collectively we would not be able to do as individuals. If you don’t value those things you are welcome to go live in the woods or someplace without laws, just as people who don’t like clothing are free to live in nudist colonies or tropical climates where that is feasible. The rest of us, however, have decided we like wearing clothes and we get some advantage from government whether you approve or not. How dare you attempt to force your anarchist ways upon us!
Government doesn’t have a monopoly on it. There are, indeed private security firms all over the place. Even now, I could hire someone to guard my property and secure my dumpster against illicit trash dumpers. I don’t need to do that, however, as the local sheriff provides security for my area and will also enforce local laws against littering and trespassing.
There was also that day someone attempted to steal our pickup and we enforced the law ourselves via use of our family crossbow. We received no penalty for doing so because we acted within the rules.
So I don’t get your assertion that somehow the government has a monopoly on force or enforcement because in my experience that is simply not true. Nor do I see much distinction between calling a private security force to remove a trespasser vs. calling the local sheriff to do so - in both cases the problem is solved. For the private firm I’ll be paying directly, for the sheriff indirectly in the form of taxes. Since I pay either way does it really matter?
I have to disagree - I’m a pretty weak individual and the government hasn’t taken anything from me. Well, OK, I pay sales taxes but everyone does and that’s supposedly what pays for the things like roads and flood control and police and fire protection. If I didn’t pay taxes I’d still pay for these things directly.
Sure, we don’t pay for water and sewer because we have a well and septic… but do you know how much a new well costs? We have our water tested yearly to guard against contamination but, if that occurred, we’d pretty much be forced to move because we can’t afford to purchase a tanker of water periodically. We don’t pay sewer taxes but the septic tank requires pumping at intervals, and just check out the prices for replacing a system that deteriorates or is damaged. Seems to me the choice is either pay in installments - water and sewer taxes - or pay large sums every so many years - well and septic systems. Either way you pay.
Not at all. It’s far more efficient to collectively pay for one police department than to have competing firms, or everyone attempting to create a private security force. When the European-descended colonists spread out across North America it was your dream of self-reliant protection, every man for himself providing his own security. Yet time and time again people instituted a sheriff or police force. Why is that? Why do we see that pattern over and over again? If your way is so superior why don’t people who live under that system keep it?
Bullshit again. Sure, I can move anywhere in the country - but I can’t easily move to another country. Nations have very strict immigration rules. Employers know this. So companies move their business to a different place with less expensive workers, leaving devastated economies in their wake. It’s no secret that hundred of thousands of jobs that used to employ Americans are now done by people in India, China, and lots of other places. Because the companies can move freely but workers can’t it’s not a level playing field.
You know damn well we’re talking about basic literacy and math, without which you can’t advance in “life long education” these days. So please, cease redefining things and moving goalposts.
Why?
Don’t we have resources? Don’t we have people to exploit? And why think it’s someone from outside? You think it inconceivable an ambitious man might want control of a city? A county or two?
That’s how slavery starts - a strong man puts a gun to your head and says “Screw wages - if you work for me I’ll let you live, if you don’t, I’ll kill you”. The playing field isn’t level because he has a gun and you don’t. He’s just dropped your “willing to work” wage to zero, hasn’t he?
That’s the big flaw in your fantasy: you assume the playing field starts level and it doesn’t, and it will continue level, and it won’t.
The US military can’t “effectively control” Afghanistan because we aren’t willing to slaughter indiscriminately. We certainly have the power to obliterate everyone inside the borders but we choose not to nuke them. Because we’re that nice or something. The Taliban continues to exploit our niceness. Meanwhile, they shoot school girls seeking some of that “life-long education” in the head, or throw acid in their faces, or set them on fire. So much for human kindness and logical thought.
Or they could just start robbing people at gunpoint, I suppose. With three out of four start up businesses failing even in good economic times it seems inevitable to me that someone will sooner or later go for a strong-arm approach.
The problem is that these days companies are going to other countries to obtain labor. Since I can’t emigrate to someplace like China to get one of those jobs at a wage that we’ll assume is adequate for China I might well be screwed. I can’t get to the job. Again, the playing field isn’t level.
Did or did not Congress end extended unemployment benefits? End them, right - thus, the cost of funding that has gone down, not up.
Did or did not Congress roll back money for foodstamps? Less money, right - therefore the cost of funding that has gone down, not up.
Rinse and repeat for just about everything that remains of “welfare”. Your claims do not hold up.
I know what would happen in the absence of government. Those with more resources, with weapons, and who are strongest and most ruthless will have an advantage over everyone else. You’ll have leaders/rulers and followers/servants. Maximizing “profits” for those on top means giving less and less to those on the bottom. We’d be back to aristocracy and peasants, and probably some slavery thrown in as well because slavery can be very profitable for those fortunate enough to be owners.
I see - you will not even consider evidence to the contrary for your views. Which labor laws, exactly, were you considering? While I agree instantaneously imposing US minimum wage on Bangladesh would not be a good idea instituting some sort of minimum wage might be beneficial. Laws limiting number of hours per week, or certain types of safety protocols like sufficient emergency exits would likely be of great benefit.
If you want to go over a list of specific labor laws we can discuss pros and cons but you’re simply dismissing the whole concept out of hand.
Really? Labor laws have given me several thousand dollars I wouldn’t otherwise have because someone else tried to cheat the rules. Sorry, from my viewpoint that actually is something worthwhile.
Also, I’m pretty sure we’re NOT talking about the same “standard of living” even though we both live in the same country.
You’re talking about someone who flat out said there was no way she’d ever pay me those wages, even through she admitted she owed them to me. What the hell is private arbitration going to do? At some point she will have to be forced to cough up the money she admits she owes me. At present, that takes the form of garnishing her assets and a warrant for her arrest if she fails to cooperate. And she is still resisting. Apparently the only thing that will compel her to pay is either her loss of freedom/a jail cell or something more forceful than that.
This is how it went:
I called her asked me when she would pay me. She told me when she felt like it
I went to arbitration. It was determined she owed me the money. She admitted she owed me the money. After the money failed to arrive at the agreed upon time she said she had no intention of ever paying me.
I took her to court. She lost. She stated again she has no intention of paying me.
I am now engaged in legal action to, yes, force her to either pay me or spend some serious time behind bars.
So, tell me, how would this play out differently in your scenario? She doesn’t want to play fair.
As for my morality - are you so sure about that? Perhaps it is the threat of punishment at the hands of the government that prevents me from going to her home in the middle of the night and crushing her kneecaps, then ransacking her home for valuables. You don’t really know if I’m that sort of person or not, but under your system (or rather, lack of system) I could do exactly that. She would have no recourse but to defend herself - and I am, physically, stronger and in much better shape than she is.
You see, the government protects both of us in this situation. I have a recourse to get what is mine, and at the same time she has much less to fear from me as far as physical coercion goes.
Please do not presume to know what gods I do or do not worship.
Our present system balances individual rights and freedom against collective security. In addition, I do have the fallback option of living in a castle law state where, under some circumstances, I am allowed to protect myself with lethal force (although garbage dumping does not qualify for that). No system will ever function perfectly and anyone who claims otherwise is stupid.
I have lived in numerous places in 5 different states. I have paid taxes for municipal garbage pick up and I have paid for private pickup. Invariably, the dollar amount of taxes going towards trash pick up is always smaller than the cost of a private service, typically half. ALWAYS. In addition, I do not have to personally vet companies who do this, nor do I have to purchase locks for my outside trash bins and dumpsters, nor do I have the cost of disposing of other peoples’ garbage or enforcing anti-dumping laws myself, all of which are an additional cost of time, effort, and money.
My conclusion, based on life experience: municipal trash pickup is superior to private trash pickup.
Funny, though - I seem to have done well in the “corrupt” government-run courts. Why should I discard a system that so far has benefited me?