Federal Government Shutdown

[Violet]

It actually DOES apply.

Not a single example you provided could in any way effectively replace government as a way to accomplish the things I listed. At least, you certainly didn't show how. And it's ok.. I don't think you can.

Government is a corporation... one that often collects enormous amounts of money in 'taxes'.

It is not some supernatural force that simply accomplishes things better than any other force I will use roads as an example of the failings of government regarding such.

http://www.burntorangereport.com/diary/1...ng-repairs

Privatized roads are a business that must maintain their -specific roads- to turn the most effective profit. Not that they necessarily will recognize this, what with everything in every system being fallible

Charitable food banks here, for example, barely put a dent in the need. Food stamps are far more effective.

Food stamps existing strongly decreases donation factors, this is what would likely occur if food stamps were suddenly and wholly removed (and it's a cycle):

<Food riots>
<Media headlines>
<Massive donations to food charities>
<Ruckus dies down as people have food>
<People start to run short on food again>
<Food riots>

Honestly, these are only symptoms for the real issues. Me, I'd rather see every one of those properly dealt with... and clearly our government isn't handling these specifically (clashes with other corporate interests, you'll understand).

That's my point. I'm not saying no other entity can ameliorate these needs on an extremely limited basis. I think that was implied, and you needn't question my maturity over it. Of course they can. But that's what government is FOR. If you don't like what it's doing, get in up to your elbows, no utensils, and work your ass off to change it. Government, properly regulated, CAN accomplish big, important tasks for society. Ours has just gone of the rails. And look around you... easy to see why.

That's my point. I'm not saying other corporations can always accomplish what an extorting corporation can accomplish. You're so incredibly defensive: yes I'm going to to have a ribbing at your maturity over it

What a government is 'for' is entirely goal dependent of said government. Understand, please, that not all governments are 'by the people', and not all governments are 'for the people', in whatever subjective capacity either of these statements may at one time or another entail (or not entail!).

It is incredibly difficult for anyone, by themselves (or with a gigantic group!), to change a strongly ingrained government. What body are you going to rely upon to regulate *GOVERNMENT*? <semi-genuine curiosity>

Government is in the market of doing 'big important things'.

---

Right, because it's totally done only for PR and not the delicious tax writeoffs, and they're also done in such sizable quantities so as to cover the entire destitute populace. I'm sure we'll be able to rely on that.

What if PRWORA hadn't been passed?

I'm just a little curious as to what issue we'd then be talking about Dat opportunism, yo.

I detailed what a fucking travesty this would be in another post and why there's a reason private concerns are not likely to provide good services on these affairs to people on an equal scale. They are profit-motivated, and while they can strike deals, how do you expect they're going to profit from city streets? What, is there going to be a toll booth at every light, can we expect competing road-owning companies to connect to one another, to purchase existing roads? And again, how would they profit from this? By charging the businesses and home-owners to pay fees to use those roads? And what happens if you can't pay it? Is your car booted from pulling out of your driveway? Road repair ain't cheap, you know, and nickel-and-dime income from small localities isn't even gonna make the companies break even, let alone profit in any substantial way. And don't even get me started on a private industry of police and firefighters and courts and prisons. That shit has actually been tried in Pennsylvia. How did that turn out?

How about a tax fee? You pay the tax, you can drive a vehicle on all of the roads of this company. You don't pay the fare, obviously you can't use the roads.

There are an awful lot of road types that exist, it doesn't have to be asphalt specifically. Sidewalks are a courtesy.

Private police and firefighters aren't really a problem. You realize, correct, that courts/prisons/police/fire-fighting are traditionally roles of the community? If a community desires a better <whatever>, they can come together as a community, and raise the money they need to get <private company> to do one of these for them, better.

I kind of have a background in community politics. Not all communities will always do 'the right thing' (assuming there is a 'right thing'), but in general they'll get their shit handled. We have it *damn good*, but (after the shake-up riots) things could well return to an earlier time and work out ahead of even (how we got where we are in the first place).

... If I didn't have to pay taxes, and someone made sure I was fed, I would gladly volunteer to assist community construction/repair services. Somehow, I get the feeling that a damn good portion of people would as well. Something about 'society kind of functions', or something like that.

Yes. They can be taken over by private interests...if our goal is to completely blow up our nation and send it crashing into the ground culturally, socially, and economically.

Economics take on a completely different meaning when most of your society cannot afford a mcdonalds cheeseburger as priced. Namely, earning zero in said society is a hell of a lot less detrimental than earning zero in a society where every price on everything is significantly higher.

Socio-culturally, we'd change... but it won't completely stomp on local culture. Actually, I'd say that such de-corporatizing would be central to an American cultural revolution.

They are the only method that a sane individual or voting population would ever consider. Literalism alone does not make a good argument, Vae. If we always went by the list of literal possibilities in every argument we'd never get anywhere. It's generally agreed upon that you only list the reasonable arguments and leave the ridiculous ones out of the equation. Occam's razor.

Only having one method to *ever consider* is not a positive trait in an individual. It's a mark against creativity and adaptability, in particular.

My argument isn't entirely about literalism... I use literalism as a tool to uncover the flaws in other people's thinking, and to arrive at a better (more complete) understanding of <a subject>, hopefully for both parties. My current argument is that people are rather entrenched in their beliefs, and it'll take a flood to drive them from the ditches.

Government is extortion. It's a reasonable argument in 'the modern era' in some respects... but as a business (which is is): America's government (specifically) is failing. You have a corporate government that allows other corporate interests to buy-into its policy.

And that probably isn't going to change unless your government is purged and restructured from the ground up. Odd that you bring up Occam's razor, which is the wisdom of nonassumptiveness, in that post

Only because of Federal mandates about workman's comp and mandatory safety protocols. Look back at the Industrial Revolution era, especially in the beginning of the 20th century, if you want a prime example of how little of a shit corporations or even "small businesses" could give about workplace safety or employee well-being without Federal mandates. QED.

Yeah, I remember it. You are familiar with cycles, yes? Use your noggin.