Welfare - are you for or against it and why?

[theVOID]

I'll keep the 'doesn't affect the public' in mind the next time a city sues a company for dumping toxic chemicals in such a way as to affect the groundwater.
But hey, that's just india, it's not like companies never try to get around the evil EPA's enviornmental laws around here...

Do I really need to point out the difference between corruption and negligence? Like I've said countless times already, I am against the use of force, fraud, coercion and negligence. This was a case of negligence, not a case of corporate corruption, that would demand some such situation where the company influences the government to get them to pass laws enabling their legal dumping of waste products.

If a company is polluting the water supply they are neglecting their responsibilities, so they get locked up. And there are already laws against pollution, do you really think more regulations are going to make a difference? No, but harsher sentences might.

Oh... public health for example.
I believe cigarettes and smoke stacks that can cover an entire town in smog on a daily basis would each be an example of not being responsible.

When companies lied about the safety of tobacco products they were being negligent and/or fraudulent, those are both things I condemn. Selling tobacco under full disclosure? I don't have a single problem with that, if the tobacco companies are honest about their products they can sell them to whomever still wants to buy them - at that point it is the decision (and therefore the responsibility) of the customers for whatever health problems they may face - Under a small government system the people who smoke are paying for their own healthcare so their smoking impacts their premiums and the non smokers aren't forced to carry the burden of their decisions.

I'm not for pollution, I'm fully of the opinion that anthropomorphic climate change is a fact and thus pouting is negligence, not just an aesthetic inconvenience as some would believe. Polluting to a certain extent (whatever that is I'm not sure) is another example of negligence and should be punishable by imprisonment.

Also: The BP oil spill and their blatant disregard for safety and environmental laws.

Again, Negligence. The BP execs should have been arrested.

Indeed, and their desire to make a profit often supercedes that of their own customers and their own employees.

As long as there is no force, fraud, coercion or negligence they can do what they like.

And I've brought examples of companies behaving badly and for every corrupt, evil government that dared to get their hands in food safety, I can give twenty examples of governments that do just as well in terms of providing their promised services - regardless of relative power or influance - all the way from the federal level (the US government) to the local level (my own local city governments) who, every day, are making damn sure the roads are clear, people aren't freezing on the streets, and businesses have a good local climate in which to prosper, despite putting their filthy, filthy hands in the local economics and spending my money to do all of this.

Firstly, I'm for the government being involved in necessary infrastructure, it is one of the roles I think the government should have, controlling the development and maintenance of the roads (but contracting to other companies rather than owning construction companies) is something that I believe is necessary.

Secondly, there are examples of companies behaving badly but they are both the minority of companies and the ones who should be made an example of by imprisoning their executive boards.

Thirdly, Government intervention does not make the regions economic climate more tenable, it has the complete opposite effect - regulation discourages growth and employment and makes it more expensive for businesses to compete, that leads to outsourcing etc etc.

Fourthly, Have you forgotten how utterly broke your country is? My concerns with spending and getting in to debt are not the consequences faced today, but those a few years down the track when the debt gets called in and the financial support dries out. You think things are bad now? Wait until THAT happens.

Indeed, at the cost of the civil services that provides free, clean water,

Another role I think government should have.

police, road clearing services,

Again what I deem to be necessary social services. A public police force is one of the most important responsibilities for government, it is plainly detrimental to have a justice system that is motivated by profit. For that same reason I also think prisons should remain public, though prisoners should be required to work their debt to society off.

healthcare,

I believe basic healthcare is necessary, something for the destitute poor, those who are not should buy their own health insurance.

education,

Debatable, private schools are generally better in every aspect. I wouldn't mind state subsidies for the poor to help them afford education, but again I would prefer that we aren't taxed to fund across the board public education and instead familes would pay for their children's education with a private school.

making sure my food doesn't have rat poison in it

And how exactly do they do that other than upholding the threat of imprisonment for negligence?

and allowing me to have something for when I retire regardless of the condition of the economy or even my occupation.

Ideally you wouldn't be taxed so you could save for your own retirement and the government wouldn't continue with an ever expanding money supply that diminishes the purchasing power of those savings. I am strongly of the opinion that inflation is the single biggest detriment to low income earners, not only does it diminish the value of savings, it also causes constant increases in the cost of living. A level of social support for the destitute poor is, again, reasonable, but ultimately it should be our own responsibilities to ensure that we have a retirement fund such to provide a comfortable lifestyle when we cease work.

I'm not talking about their own money, I'm talking about people who buy private jets for corperate or company use (I suppose I should have said 'corperate jets' but I was thinking something completely different.)

That is their (the shareholders) money, if they want a corporate jet they can have one.

Be that as it may, you talk as if companies haven't figured out how to squander their own money on bad investments or inefficiency.

They do and they should suffer the consequences, a good business is one that minimises bad investments and is efficient with it's resources. That is not to say that every company is a model of efficiency, it is to say that generally private organisations are much more cost efficient than governments. Those who make too many bad investments and waste money will fail, so be it.

An example:

A few state owned enterprises here were losing money since they were bought into public control some 30 years prior, the state owned telecom was a liability that was sucking in money, this was almost entirely due to the government trying to predict the market trends and manipulate them to meet a predetermined agenda, it was only when telecom was sold that it become profitable, more affordable and contributed more to the country than it cost. This was the case for all of the assets that were sold. The ones who were maintained were locked out, the government has absolutely no active role in setting the agenda, they operate as if they were private companies for which the taxpayers are the shareholders.

Is it wrong to collaborate with your copetitors to be able to sell your product at 100x their market cost to a customer base that literally depend upon your product (like the pharma companies?)
Is that legally theft?

While that article isn't in great detail it appears to be a case of corporate fraud, again something that I believe is an offence that should be punishable by imprisonment.

It might be in a society that allowed its government to get its filthy hands into monopoly busting and customer protection, which is where my tax dollars go.

Right, some tax dollars, most of them go places they're better off not being. You seem to think i'm an Anarchist or something, not at all true.

Indeed, if the government doesn't have that power, then those companies don't need to buy off those politicians. Instead, those companies can do whatever lying, cheating, or other activities that would be illegal in a nation like the United States currently.

That is all fraud, it's still illegal.

My point again was that a government that creates favourable conditions is worse than a government that simply upholds the law - The risk of corruption is too high to give governments that kind of power to shape the economy. What the most greedy company can do within the confines of the law in a free market is BETTER than what the most greedy company can do given unfair advantage by government.

It's like saying that there wouldn't be any crime if there were no laws - as if that was a desirable position to have.

I agree that would't be desirable, I don't at all advocate no laws, I advocate less regulation, tougher punishments.

And that is a problem (that politicians are always thinking about their election cycles), which is a good analogy for the way companies are always thinking of maximizing their profits, even over human life.

They go to jail if they have contributed to someone's loss of life. Again a case of neglecting their responsibilities and obligations to the law.

Yes, we could have let those banks collapse and possibly have even allowed America to collapse into a third world nation along with them, given the number of destitute and jobless people that would have resulted once these huge huge companies defaulted and went belly-up.

Crash? Absolutely no. These nations would have faced a longer and deeper recession or even a depression but would have recovered in a much more healthy state, instead they've just prolonged the problem with debt and it's going to be even worse than it should have been. It's just like a junkie who's high on heroin, he can keep dosing to keep himself from feeling like absolute shit, but he's still going to feel rotten and each time he doses to making himself feel better he had a bigger withdrawal than before. Eventually if he doesn't come down he's going to crash. Our countries have an addiction to cash and the governments crave popularity, the end result just like the junkie's ever growing severity of withdrawal is the ever growing deficit. Ultimately just like the junkie can go through the withdrawals and after some serious pain get back to normal, the government can stop spending and make some decisions that will be painful and unpopular in the short term, but it's the only way they're ultimately going to solve the problem of the imbalance in the economy and get out of their ridiculously large debts.

How dare the government think of doing anything to help the nation they're charged with protecting and the economy they're charged with making sure doesn't collapse....

I've explained why their actions are only going to have short term gain, the long term consequences are going to be much worse, they should have taken their tough medicine when they first got sick. The best thing the government can do is let the economy sort it's self out, let the bad decisions have their consequences.

Wow. What insight about how criminals don't care about the law, so clearly because criminals don't care about the law, it's pointless to regulate them. Are you serious?

Yeah, in most cases. Laws against fraud, force, coercion and negligence as well as much tougher sentences are really the best you can do, telling businesses how to direct their resources, what contracts and terms they are allowed to agree to, how they have to structure their liabilities etc is mostly a waste of time that is detrimental to the growth and prosperity of the economy, it makes it more expensive for the businesses who are not interested in breaking the law to continue to grow - regulation makes all business suffer to prevent the few malicious. stronger punishment and stronger deterrents for those who do break the law are more effective.

With that logic, then the only thing keeping the world from a perfect utopia is all law, government, and society everywhere. We should just live in total anarchy ... because people totally won't take advantage of other people like that. Puh-lease.

Complete strawman. I'm not saying no laws I'm saying we should replace a great deal of regulation with after-the-fact punishments and much stronger deterrents, more prison sentences instead of more nanny-watch and fines, otherwise we are penalising those who would not do wrong because of the few that would.

Of course it gives them the opportunity to influence polticians - because there's a law or regulation they want to work around. If it didn't exist, they would be able to do it anyway regardless of the harm it would cause.

You simply cannot have a tilted playing field without force, as long as the government creates favourable conditions and uses the threat of police force to maintain that playing field you will see much much worse than a government who is simply concerned with those who offend, a government who doesn't have so much power as to be able to so thoroughly manipulate the direction of the economy and the allocation of resources in the first place.

Oh really? When was that? Was it after WW2 during the roaring fifties, when taxes was far, far higher than it was today?

Prior to that as well, And as I've heard in many economic debates and lectures on this exact subject people didn't actually pay more taxes, the tax system was structured at a maximum level and then depending on the circumstance you would be given tax breaks - That is in complete opposition to a system that starts at a minimum taxable amount and enforces tax on special circumstances. Equating the raw tax brackets from the two tax methods is like comparing apples and oranges, you have to find a commonality, like total percent of income paid given all the circumstances, to make a meaningful comparison.

After the enormous number of social and regulatory laws that Hoover, FDR, and other presidents instituted?

Are you serious? With Hoover debt rose 20% and his efforts to end the depression were such a failure that he got obliterated in the elections for his second term. Hoover was a statist and the country suffered for it, even FDR slammed him for taxing and spending and mismanaging the economy.

FDR wasn't much better economically, though he was an amazing diplomat, he managed to do precisely what I am concerned will happen by stimulating the economy, he caused a deep recession, it only essentially ended because of the war. He also created social security which is essentially a state-run pay as you go ponzy scheme, just like that the first people to get in do great, but after a couple of generations the system becomes untenable and the last people into the scheme risk losing everything, despite paying for the retired generations.

Was this back during the industrial revolution after the civil war but before the depression when we were still on the gold standard and before things like big oil, the railroad monopolies, and other institutions that were dealt with through the institution of regulation?

You know that on the gold standard the cost of living went down every year for decade after decade right?

I seem to recall the biggest and greatest American events (including the moon landing) well after the sweeping social reforms that made America much like it is today, which was a result of busting the monopolies that resulted from our far more unregulated history during the 1800s.

Made america like it is today? Yeah, swimming in debt and more unequal than ever.

American Lassiez-Faire capitalism didn't last long until a few companies just fucking took over and started setting their own prices.

You might want to read that article again, it's not so closely aligned to your position as you think, For instance, it has examples of EXACTLY what I am talking about when I say 'favourable conditions'.

"These companies were granted exclusive contracts for these works by the colonial administrators. Even after the American Revolution, many of these colonial holdovers still functioned due to the contracts and land they held."

And an argument against needed anti-monopolistic measures:

"Just as U.S. Steel couldn't dominate the market indefinitely because of innovative domestic and international competition, the same is true for Microsoft. A non-coercive monopoly only exists as long as brand loyalty and consumer apathy keep people from searching for a better alternative"

And an argument for why monopolies aren't necessarily bad:

"The break up of AT&T by Reagan in the 1980s gave birth to the "baby bells". Since that time, many of the baby bells have begun to merge and increase in size in order to provide better service to a wider area. Very likely, the break up of AT&T caused a sharp reduction in service quality for many customers and, in some cases, higher prices"

Anticompetitive conditions spawned by the government, go figure...

Amtrak, DARPA, the Post Office, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and others I don't have the time to look up now.

What do they make, what do they sell it for? What do competitors sell it for? How much funding do they receive?

All of that information is necessary to determine whether or not these public companies actually produce more for less.

I couldn't find any government run manufacturing businesses and I'm not sure why you limited your question to those.

1) Because they're easy to evaluate. 2) I didn't just talk about manufacturing, i made the point regarding GP's too.

Further, your example is cutting hairs. I'm talking about the quality of service but mostly the ability of people to actually run these businesses or government organizations - not the price of a manufactured product or whether or not it recieves subsidies.

Considering subsidies and costs is absolutely essential in making the determination...

I assume because you're trying to "get" me somehow by focusing it into such a narrow topic, but I don't really care either way.

Pick a broader topic then.

For the same reason I'm not a libertarian.

Firstly, I'm not a libertarian, I'd consider myself a right-liberal.

Secondly, To me the reasons for not being a communist and not being a libertarian seem opposite ends of the scale.

I'm really not interested in having the wealthy elite in this country run my life as much as I don't want a government to do the same.

I don't want the elite running the country either, and their most effective tool for doing so is through the government. When they get the government on their side they have the police on their side, we should keep the government completely independent of business interests.

What you don't realize is that you're advocating the same thing as communism under the same magical and unrealistic thinking that makes people think communism can work.

You've already shown no real understanding of my position, either that or you've deliberately applied it poorly to score points. After this response you should have a more than clear understanding of much of my position and an understanding of how bad your assumptions were about it.