Government of the rich, by the rich, for the rich

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

I do think quite a bit about what some of the more libertarian-minded individuals around here and elsewhere think about society and how it works and how it can be successful. This article sort of articulated my worst fears about the kind of government we would have

http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexcha...al_economy

In other words, rich Democrats and rich Republicans elect politicians with a diverse range of views, but all of which ultimately respond to the policy preferences of the rich.

I've heard a lot of talk around here in particular because this is honestly where I can have any good political discussion with people much further to the consevative and libertarian side of the political spectrum, whereas I am more of a liberal. There's also been a lot of related issues in the news lately concerning this very issue.
The government abuses of power and the citizen's revolt in Egypt and the democrat, union, and teacher's revolt in Wisconsin against its govenor's attempt to quash the union's bargaining power despite the union's desire to help with the state's budget issues by cutting back benefits and pay.

Now, what I honestly think makes a nation successful is when its government takes a minimal role in their social lives and thus allowing people to have complete freedom in choosing the course of their lives. I believe the government should only give opportunies here, such as in education and job availability and not take any away, such as though legislation of sex, such as gay marriage or a woman's right to choose to have an abortion or not. The government should certainly, I believe, protect citizens from the abuses that we can inflict upon one another - robbery, rape, murder, and so forth.

What I believe the government's role in our lives should be is the protection. I believe it is the right of every human to health, life, education, and our freedom from the tyranny and malfeasance of others. This is to say that I believe the government should provide all of the services that provide for the quality of life for the entire society as much as its safety and defense. I do not believe that human health, education, and other facets so important not only to each of us as individuals but even to the collective power of an entire society.
I have a problem with the idea that things like healthcare is left to those whose ultimately are looking for money and not for the general welfare of the human beings whose life literally depends on their service.

Human history - and especially American history - is filled with the tyranny and greed of the powerful over the powerless. American history had what many libertarians and conservatives - to whatever extent - want out of the economic system. For the first few decades of American history really was as close to true Lassiez-Faire capitalism as I've known in the world.
It was a time when the government's budget could fit on a single sheet of paper and human equality was measured between white male property owners and genocide against the native americans was as overlooked as human rights violations against the geneva convention at guantanimo bay was (and still is) during the Bush-Cheney Administration.
It didn't take long for it to fail, utterly, precisely for the same reasons that many large companies are giving us problems today, such as BP ignoring safety standards in the Gulf of Mexico or Pharmascuticals essentially charging Americans 100x or more for our prescription drugs than in other countries we would consider 3rd world nations, like Cuba. It was a time when the first American monopolies began to form and essentially had utter dominance in American life for decades, until the government had to step in and start the regulatory culture that we still have today.
And you see, the government made these changes for good reason - the American people demanded it. The railroads and Standard Oil and others abused their power over their employees and their customers, who frequently had little choice but to purchase their products, because like gasoline and healthcare today, there is no other shops in town. They were either purchased, run out of town, or simply out-competed until there was only one shop to buy from and other methods to keep their employees good and loyal, after all, as many have learned in modern times, once you're out of a job, there are few choices (particularly if your former job was the only local location that required someone with your set of skills) you have before you in terms of finding another job capable of supporting you and your family.
So, what American history has shown us is that Americans demanded protection from those abuses (child labor laws, work safety, minimum wage, the 40-hour work week, vacation days, etc) which was each fought and won against the desires of a number of employers over the few centuries of American history. It's also the entire reason of why Labor Unions exist and they existed during the day and age when protests against terrible work conditions was cause for the employers to call in the national guard to break up these protests through the use of force.

And so, the ultimate result of those battles is the America we see today, where the battle continues to wage in places like Wisconsin, who has a govenor who publically stated that despite the union's willingness to concede to pay and benefit cuts for the betterment of Wisconsin, the GOP leaders there are still more interested in tax cuts and labor union busting.
This isn't for some political ideal. This isn't even for the good of the struggling economy of Wisconsin.
This is to remove the rights of the employees - government and otherwise - of the state of Wisconsin.

Case and Point:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGJXQEHDH...ture=feedu

This isn't a battle even limited to that state, as many of those in the GOP and even many libertarians and tea party individuals within this country all want to see labor unions dead and the government reduced in power as much as possible out of what I can only imagine as the belief that rich and powerful companies are more good natured than the rich and powerful goverments.

Now, I'm not someone who finds companies inherantly evil - for every bad example I can name, I'm quite certain that I can find 1000 good companies - both small and local as well as those with billion dollar annual profits. They can be good or evil. Efficient and well-to-do and lazy and inefficent despite whatever percieved benefits given by rules and regulations and the law. Where I and libertarians differ is that I believe that governments are no different than companies in this regard.

I've been in a few discussions with a few of them - theVoid, Tiberius, and I think one or two others who appear to represent the position of a drastically reduced role of government and outright elimination of government in the realm of economics.
Personally, though, I take issue with this position and I'll tell you why -
First, it's highly conductive to the environment in which one company can come to completely dominate the market. Short of violating the law through the use of deadly force, this opens up an environment like those in American history against the abuses brought upon the employees of the steel industry, but this time, there are no unions (quashed by the company) and no goverment (lassiez-faire approach to economics). So how much freedom have we ended up with in this scenario? How and why is this good for society? How is this better than than a 1984-style "Big Brother" government?
I've been told that 'market forces' are supposed to control this. Employees are allowed to leave or not purchase unsafe products as private companies would provide many of these protections and can do so better than the government can.
My evidence against that is FOX News or any of the "big three" sources of information to the general American public - CBS, MSNBC, and FOX. Does anyone really trust any of those privately owned News Companies to fairly report the news? FOX beats the pants off the others for ratings, but they are the least trusted source of news broadcast on television.
They blatantly work effortlessly to promote an agenda and spin the news in the context of the GOP and republican party. What's to say that a privately owned company that's supposed to report on food safety couldn't be bought out in the same manner as a bribe to the food safety inspector?
I'd rather have a corrupt government offical in a democratically elected government because it's at least easier to change the political climate than a corrupt company that stays afloat entirely because they get legal kickbacks from one or more companies they should be regulating.

This only gets worse when you start to consider things like education and health.

Second, the greatest human achievements both before and since the industrial revolution have had as much to do with huge government projects. The entire space race would have never happened if the government didn't create and fund the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Not to mention the boon on the quality of human life that government organizations like the Environmental Protection Agency or the project that created the Hoover Dam. The Statue of Liberty was a joint venture by both the French and US governments.

When a goverment works well as many have and do (and it tends to be a thankless job, given the anti-government climate that seems to flourish in the United States, even among us "big-government" liberals), it can fly us to the moon and provide us the cohesiveness and solidarity that allowed so many to fight and die for their freedoms in Wars both new and old. When a company is a good company, it give you a happy life and place to work and even build up a legacy. Who doesn't remember Thomas Edison or Washington Carver or Bill Gates or Walt Disney and so many people who built a legacy and good, decent places that allowed people to happily build a life for themselves. When a Union works well, it protects those employees who simply want to work for a decent wage and reasonable hours - whether the trouble comes from government getting too far into your business or a company that patently ignores safety standards for its employees.

You see, I think that if history has shown us anything, is that the freest and happiest society exists when it has the most opposing forces at work. I consider this to be the "big three" - which each represents the government, the people, and the compprivate industry. When all of these things are in opposition, the result can be wonderous because they are forced to compromise and bargain with one another as a "gangster" union would have to answer to the government and complaining companies and employees over bad practices. Polluting companies have to answer to complaining citizens and government regulators. Unpopular senators (like a certain Wisconsin govenor) will have to answer to angry mobs of teachers, unions, and common citizens in their attempt to obliterate the union's ability to bargain and organize in their state.
Freedom flourishes in a system of checks and balances. Some of these can be corrupted, but there can bea systems for dealing with that as well.
I think the American system as well as several of those around the world, although all flawed, have figured this out. This is why I think the European systems, Canadian, American, Australian, and so many more have environments in which all of these forces exist, flourish, and remain in opposition to one another and thus allow each one of us to do as well as we can. We're all in this together.

Yet, the libertarian arguement states that the oppositional forces can come from people and competing companies rather than government (and/or union, as some have argued), but as history has shown, that isn't enough. It's been tried. It's failed. It's why things are now the way they are.

Now, I don't believe that governments, companies, unions, or people are inherantly evil. Quite the opposite in fact, but that has never stopped the few of those with power and influence from taking advantage of those who don't have the power to stop them. Be them government or a CEO or a Union leader. What a free society should strive to do is prevent those from being able to corrupt or take advantage of others in this way. Eliminating government will only be conductive to this environment. It's why communism will fail. It's why best and greatest answer is always everything in moderation. Everyone is equal to one anther in that it should be a given right to all humans to have equal power to one another - even if this isn't measured by wealth.

I believe in capitalism, but I believe in democracy more than anything else. One individual. One vote.

Anyway, thank you for reading my rant/random thoughts. I'd be interested in any thoughts that anyone may have regarding anything I've discussed above or the linked article.

[KichigaiNeko]

Arrgh!! wall of text!! I'll get back to you on this mate

[HeyItsZeus]

I completely agree with Jacob. I have been arguing this for the longest time.

Now the people on the right side of the spectrum will say: Gov't shouldn't do shit! The private sector will fix itself ........ (like fucking magic)

Honestly though. It only makes sense in this situation. American Conservatives have issues.

[Minimalist]

The private sector will fix itself

Those private sector cunts damn near finished us and they are still at it. Of course they oppose government. Government's job is to watch them.

[theVOID]

I do think quite a bit about what some of the more libertarian-minded individuals around here and elsewhere think about society and how it works and how it can be successful. This article sort of articulated my worst fears about the kind of government we would have

http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexcha...al_economy

So you do have a problem with government having such power as to create favourable legislation? If the government couldn't manipulate the economy like that the motivations and opportunities for the rich to hijack the system diminish.

Money should not be part of the political system, candidates should be required to campaign on equal budgets and the law makers shouldn't have the powers necessary to create these conditions for their buddies in the first place - In other words, elections should be about the number of people, not the number of dollars.

In other words, rich Democrats and rich Republicans elect politicians with a diverse range of views, but all of which ultimately respond to the policy preferences of the rich.

I've heard a lot of talk around here in particular because this is honestly where I can have any good political discussion with people much further to the consevative and libertarian side of the political spectrum, whereas I am more of a liberal. There's also been a lot of related issues in the news lately concerning this very issue.

The government abuses of power and the citizen's revolt in Egypt and the democrat, union, and teacher's revolt in Wisconsin against its govenor's attempt to quash the union's bargaining power despite the union's desire to help with the state's budget issues by cutting back benefits and pay.

The government shouldn't have any power to regulate unions at all - Again favourable conditions created by politicians with too much power.

Teachers and state employees make more on average than workers in the private sector (Average public individual income is $60k, private sector is $40k) they could stand to lose some of their benefits so the private sector workers pay less taxes. This doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed unions, it means the state should stop baying them undue benefits, such as higher pensions and better coverage.

Now, what I honestly think makes a nation successful is when its government takes a minimal role in their social lives and thus allowing people to have complete freedom in choosing the course of their lives.

I absolutely agree with that, and letting people have complete freedom in choosing their own lives includes not forcing people to buy health insurance from the government, not dictating the terms of their contracts etc.

I believe the government should only give opportunies here, such as in education and job availability and not take any away, such as though legislation of sex, such as gay marriage or a woman's right to choose to have an abortion or not. The government should certainly, I believe, protect citizens from the abuses that we can inflict upon one another - robbery, rape, murder, and so forth.

I agree here too, though they can't effectively protect from abuses, they can only effectively punish abusers.

What I believe the government's role in our lives should be is the protection. I believe it is the right of every human to health, life, education, and our freedom from the tyranny and malfeasance of others. This is to say that I believe the government should provide all of the services that provide for the quality of life for the entire society as much as its safety and defense. I do not believe that human health, education, and other facets so important not only to each of us as individuals but even to the collective power of an entire society.

Again, protection isn't something they can do that effectively, it's punishment that ultimately deters wrongdoers.

And where do these rights come from? Why does my being a particular species of primate entitle me to education? If I get sick has my 'right' to be healthy been thwarted? There are huge problems with these categorical imperatives.

I have a problem with the idea that things like healthcare is left to those whose ultimately are looking for money and not for the general welfare of the human beings whose life literally depends on their service.

Healthcare should be the responsibility of the individual to provide for those in his/her care. Public healthcare should only be for those who are unable to buy private insurance. And life doesn't depend on healthcare for the vast majority of most people's lives, it only depends on healthcare when we are sick. That's the point of insurance (or personal fiscal responsibility), to set aside resources for when we need them.

Human history - and especially American history - is filled with the tyranny and greed of the powerful over the powerless. American history had what many libertarians and conservatives - to whatever extent - want out of the economic system. For the first few decades of American history really was as close to true Lassiez-Faire capitalism as I've known in the world.

And it worked a treat, back when the government didn't have nearly as much power as they do now, the problem was not an economic one, it was a social one, the rights they had established for themselves were not consistently applied to others, and that's a travesty.

It was a time when the government's budget could fit on a single sheet of paper and human equality was measured between white male property owners and genocide against the native americans was as overlooked as human rights violations against the geneva convention at guantanimo bay was (and still is) during the Bush-Cheney Administration.

Agreed, Gitmo needs to go.

It didn't take long for it to fail, utterly, precisely for the same reasons that many large companies are giving us problems today, such as BP ignoring safety standards in the Gulf of Mexico or Pharmascuticals essentially charging Americans 100x or more for our prescription drugs than in other countries we would consider 3rd world nations, like Cuba. It was a time when the first American monopolies began to form and essentially had utter dominance in American life for decades, until the government had to step in and start the regulatory culture that we still have today.

Fail? What, the social bigotry that was permitted by biased and ignorant men? The economy didn't fail, it thrived for a very long time.

Oh, and the government created the first monopolies with exclusive contracts.

You already know I think price-fixing is a case of fraud and coercion, I'm against both those things.

And when exactly did these monopolies begin utter dominance? You've always been conveniently vague when you bring that up. The fact of a company controlling a market does not make them in control of people's lives, it only makes them in control of what they charge for products and services, and a non-coercive monopoly can only exist so long as customer demand exists and customer apathy prevents them from seeking another source - There is always a potential for competition.

And you see, the government made these changes for good reason - the American people demanded it.

That's a good reason? What if the american people demand that gays not marry or people be arrested for smoking pot? Oh wait...

The railroads and Standard Oil and others abused their power over their employees and their customers, who frequently had little choice but to purchase their products, because like gasoline and healthcare today, there is no other shops in town.

Firstly, this is why globalisation is awesome, competition is immense now compared to before, the two situations aren't the same by any means.

Secondly, Abused their power? Tell me, if I have product x am I obligated to give it to you at a price you can afford or am I allowed to charge what I like for it? Why should your wanting product x, not part of your being or property, obligate me to provide it to you for a price that you want to pay?

They were either purchased, run out of town,

Force and coercion, both something I condemn.

or simply out-competed until there was only one shop to buy from

Nothing wrong with that, so long as they don't use force or coercion to keep people out and instead dominate them in terms of cost to the consumers they can freely do it. Nobody is obligated to keep their competition in business.

and other methods to keep their employees good and loyal, after all, as many have learned in modern times, once you're out of a job, there are few choices (particularly if your former job was the only local location that required someone with your set of skills) you have before you in terms of finding another job capable of supporting you and your family.

That's what the welfare for the destitute poor is for. If you lose your job once you have spent all of your savings you can get welfare payments.

So, what American history has shown us is that Americans demanded protection from those abuses (child labor laws, work safety, minimum wage, the 40-hour work week, vacation days, etc) which was each fought and won against the desires of a number of employers over the few centuries of American history.

If an employer wants you to work more and you refuse, and provided you haven't signed a contract specifically with those terms, then the employer should have the right to find someone who will work.

It's also the entire reason of why Labor Unions exist and they existed during the day and age when protests against terrible work conditions was cause for the employers to call in the national guard to break up these protests through the use of force.

I'm for people having the right to form unions AND for their right to protest peacefully. I'm AGAINST governments having the right to break up these protests. This isn't an issue of small government, it's an issue of social liberties, the two are not by any means mutually exclusive.

And so, the ultimate result of those battles is the America we see today,

More broke and more unequal? Great example!

where the battle continues to wage in places like Wisconsin, who has a govenor who publically stated that despite the union's willingness to concede to pay and benefit cuts for the betterment of Wisconsin, the GOP leaders there are still more interested in tax cuts and labor union busting.

That GOP governor is a cunt. He shouldn't have that kind of power to being with.

Benefit cuts ARE tax cuts, benefits are funded through taxes... That aside I think the unions have been more than reasonable considering the economic climate.

This isn't for some political ideal. This isn't even for the good of the struggling economy of Wisconsin.
This is to remove the rights of the employees - government and otherwise - of the state of Wisconsin.

Agreed, this is an issue of government having power they shouldn't that they use not to uphold the law but to pursue an agenda.

This isn't a battle even limited to that state, as many of those in the GOP and even many libertarians and tea party individuals within this country all want to see labor unions dead and the government reduced in power as much as possible out of what I can only imagine as the belief that rich and powerful companies are more good natured than the rich and powerful goverments.

Firstly, reducing the government as much as possible includes removing their power to control the establishment of unions, what we're seeing with the Tea Baggers is hypocrisy, treachery and double standards - They're generally a bunch of idiots and assholes who want not to have a small government so much as they want conditions that suit them, they need much more than minimal government to get that, they need a decent level of authoritarianism.

Secondly, that is the same straw man you've used again and again. It is NOT a case of corporations being better for us than government, it is a case of PEOPLE being better able to run their own lives than the government. Corporations shouldn't have ANY obligation to improve our lives, they only have an obligation not to cause harm.

Now, I'm not someone who finds companies inherantly evil - for every bad example I can name, I'm quite certain that I can find 1000 good companies - both small and local as well as those with billion dollar annual profits.

Agreed, if not more than 1000:1.

They can be good or evil. Efficient and well-to-do and lazy and inefficent despite whatever percieved benefits given by rules and regulations and the law. Where I and libertarians differ is that I believe that governments are no different than companies in this regard.

A small government is the only form of efficient government, bureaucracy being a layer of cost is an inevitable fact of large government.

I've been in a few discussions with a few of them - theVoid, Tiberius, and I think one or two others who appear to represent the position of a drastically reduced role of government and outright elimination of government in the realm of economics.

NOT a libertarian, thank you.

Personally, though, I take issue with this position and I'll tell you why -
First, it's highly conductive to the environment in which one company can come to completely dominate the market. Short of violating the law through the use of deadly force, this opens up an environment like those in American history against the abuses brought upon the employees of the steel industry, but this time, there are no unions (quashed by the company) and no goverment (lassiez-faire approach to economics).

For fucks sake stop making straw men.

1. Free Market economics =/= No government (as you've been corrected on multiple times already).

2. Free market businesses can only 'quash' unions to the extent that they have the right to hire non union employees if they want.

3. The steel industry was coercive, forceful and fraudulent, that is NOT a failure of the free market, it is a failure of law and order.

So how much freedom have we ended up with in this scenario? How and why is this good for society? How is this better than than a 1984-style "Big Brother" government?

Your scenario is a straw man, when you have the fundamentals correct try again.

I've been told that 'market forces' are supposed to control this.

ANOTHER straw man... The free market controls the direction of economic growth, the supply and demand of products, the value of resources etc NOT the social liberties of the people OR the consequences of negligence, force, fraud or coercion - THAT is the role of government.

Employees are allowed to leave or not purchase unsafe products as private companies would provide many of these protections and can do so better than the government can.

No they wouldn't.

Unsafe == negligent.

It is in the best interest of the companies NOT to be negligent (as the vast majority do) because of the potential for imprisonment and losing the demand for their product to a competitor.

My evidence against that is FOX News or any of the "big three" sources of information to the general American public - CBS, MSNBC, and FOX. Does anyone really trust any of those privately owned News Companies to fairly report the news? FOX beats the pants off the others for ratings, but they are the least trusted source of news broadcast on television.

No more than I trust a state broadcaster not to be just as biased.

They blatantly work effortlessly to promote an agenda and spin the news in the context of the GOP and republican party. What's to say that a privately owned company that's supposed to report on food safety couldn't be bought out in the same manner as a bribe to the food safety inspector?

Safety = negligence = role of government. Not an issue.

I'd rather have a corrupt government offical in a democratically elected government because it's at least easier to change the political climate than a corrupt company that stays afloat entirely because they get legal kickbacks from one or more companies they should be regulating.

Not when your only two choices are essentially two sides of the same coin.

Another downside of government is their concern with short term popularity designed to get them through election cycles - There is very little concern by the government for long term implications of policy, such as the bailouts and stimulus spending, as well as the creation of the automotive bubble by offering subsidies - that combined with low interest rates and guaranteed loans was the same damn thing that was responsible for the housing bubble, the loans might be lower now but the interest rates are going to be the killer, seeing as they're currently at 0.25%... people who are already poor and who were coaxed into buying cars by government subsidies are going to see their teaser interest rates expire and be faced with the same repayment problems as before. Your country is going to need to borrow even more money from China, Japan, Russia, Australia, Canada and your other BIG financiers who own 14 trillion fucking dollars of your debt already... That's 14 thousand billion dollars, say it with me! Soon the rest of the world will cut you off and you'll have to start printing money just to cover the interest payments. The government will probably never default on their loan, so they'll start selling more and more treasuries (Fancy IOU's) to the Fed who will continue printing more $2 trillion bundles to pay for them, the value of your dollar will collapse, the value of savings will diminish, prices will skyrocket - Collapse.

What they should have done was ridden out the dotcom/NASDAQ bubble in the late 90's and again in early 2000's when it became apparent that the value of the Internet at the time had been overestimated and literally tens of thousands of companies who were valued by speculators at at hundreds of thousands to millions and in some cases billions of dollars weren't making a cent, pretty much all of them were taking loans against their speculated value and the bubble burst - That would have been a recession that would have been NOTHING compared to what is faced today OR what will happen in the future, instead, stimulus spending, low interest rates, guaranteed loans and subsidies for housing designed to 'absorb' the effect of the recession instead created a housing bubble - Bush obviously didn't get it, he still says that one of his great achievements was ending the recession in the early 2000's, the same actions that caused the housing bubble. Obama doesn't get it either sadly, he's doing pretty much the same thing, but spending 4 times as much, he's already outspent Bush's two terms.

This only gets worse when you start to consider things like education and health.

Private healthcare is a really competitive industry, given people expect to pay for their behaviours such as smoking and not exercising they can get it much cheaper that the cost per person in a public system. The government and charity can look after the uninsurable and those who can't afford it.

Second, the greatest human achievements both before and since the industrial revolution have had as much to do with huge government projects. The entire space race would have never happened if the government didn't create and fund the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Not to mention the boon on the quality of human life that government organizations like the Environmental Protection Agency or the project that created the Hoover Dam. The Statue of Liberty was a joint venture by both the French and US governments.

I'm not against research like that (I don't give a fuck about the statue, it's just aesthetic), these lines of research usually have implications that fall into the government's realm of responsibility, like defence, the NASA missions most certainly did. Saying that however, more and more larger and pioneering developments are being developed in the private sector, like the entire modern technology industry and private organisations offering space flight are emerging, I don't think government research will ever completely diminish but things are changing.

When a goverment works well as many have and do (and it tends to be a thankless job, given the anti-government climate that seems to flourish in the United States, even among us "big-government" liberals), it can fly us to the moon and provide us the cohesiveness and solidarity that allowed so many to fight and die for their freedoms in Wars both new and old.

Um, they're both roles for government that almost everyone wants, It's not an argument for or against, just a statement about some useful roles of government.

When a company is a good company, it give you a happy life and place to work and even build up a legacy.
Who doesn't remember Thomas Edison or Washington Carver or Bill Gates or Walt Disney and so many people who built a legacy and good, decent places that allowed people to happily build a life for themselves.

Right, good examples of capitalism.

When a Union works well, it protects those employees who simply want to work for a decent wage and reasonable hours - whether the trouble comes from government getting too far into your business or a company that patently ignores safety standards for its employees.

Yeah, and when a Union holds a business to ransom for hiring non union employees they are being just as bad as a business who fires people for being in a union.

And I don't see why there is such a problem with someone being willing to work longer and for less than someone else, we should have to compete for our jobs and not expect them to be handed to us on a platter.

You see, I think that if history has shown us anything, is that the freest and happiest society exists when it has the most opposing forces at work. I consider this to be the "big three" - which each represents the government, the people, and the compprivate industry. When all of these things are in opposition, the result can be wonderous because they are forced to compromise and bargain with one another as a "gangster" union would have to answer to the government and complaining companies and employees over bad practices. Polluting companies have to answer to complaining citizens and government regulators. Unpopular senators (like a certain Wisconsin govenor) will have to answer to angry mobs of teachers, unions, and common citizens in their attempt to obliterate the union's ability to bargain and organize in their state.

There are so many problems with that I hardly know where to begin... Firstly, the government and the people aren't supposed to be in opposition, the government is supposed to be an extension of the people. Secondly, the government isn't supposed to oppose business, it's supposed to create a climate in which business can be successful in order to give people jobs and bring money into the economy through exports - the government is supposed to oppose lawbreakers, represent the people on an international stage, defend the borders, look after basic infrastructure and stay the fuck out of people's personal lives.

Freedom flourishes in a system of checks and balances.

No, freedom flourishes when people are free to control their own lives and not have their lives diminished by others, the only freedoms that need exist are "Freedom From" freedoms, freedom from persecution for victimless crimes, free from regulations and instead punish the guilty, not those with the potential to be guilty at some later point in time. The only checks and balances needed are laws against force, fraud, coercion and negligence, after that people can do anything they like because they'd necessarily then be doing no harm to others.

Some of these can be corrupted, but there can bea systems for dealing with that as well.

Systems such as?

I think the American system as well as several of those around the world, although all flawed, have figured this out.

Figured out how to get into debt because they can't work out how to make do with the product of their own productivity, they need to import someone else's.

This is why I think the European systems, Canadian, American, Australian, and so many more have environments in which all of these forces exist, flourish, and remain in opposition to one another and thus allow each one of us to do as well as we can. We're all in this together.

Australia is $1 trillion in debt.
Canada's debt is $560 Billion.
America's debt is $14 trillion
Europe's total debt is $18 trillion

Last time I checked, when you're in the red flourishing is an illusion.

Yet, the libertarian arguement states that the oppositional forces can come from people and competing companies rather than government (and/or union, as some have argued), but as history has shown, that isn't enough. It's been tried. It's failed. It's why things are now the way they are.

And being that far in debt is success? The government is too damn big, it does too much shit it shouldn't, spends too much money and it's resource inefficient.

Now, I don't believe that governments, companies, unions, or people are inherantly evil. Quite the opposite in fact, but that has never stopped the few of those with power and influence from taking advantage of those who don't have the power to stop them.

Seriously, another straw man?

The government has the power to arrest them for breaking the law - That is NOT the same thing as regulation.

Be them government or a CEO or a Union leader. What a free society should strive to do is prevent those from being able to corrupt or take advantage of others in this way.

Be really careful with what you mean by 'take advantage' of someone. Am I not able to take advantage of a skill someone else has to achieve something? Am I not allowed to take advantage of someone's hospitality? It's NOT something you can be so vague about.

And again this is a straw man, depending on what you specifically mean by 'take advantage', no libertarians advocate someone being forced into anything they do not desire to do, it's only the pseudo-libertarian teabaggers with their authoritarian leanings that would do anything similar.

Eliminating government will only be conductive to this environment.

Another straw man, nobody wants to eliminate government.

It's why communism will fail. It's why best and greatest answer is always everything in moderation.

How naive a statement to make. Some things are right, some are wrong some are simply unknown. Arsenic in moderation? Be my guest...

Everyone is equal to one anther in that it should be a given right to all humans to have equal power to one another - even if this isn't measured by wealth.

Which is why you remove politics from capital, both in terms of outside funding for campaigns and outside interest in using the government to set up convenient legislation.

I believe in capitalism, but I believe in democracy more than anything else. One individual. One vote.

Agreed.

Anyway, thank you for reading my rant/random thoughts. I'd be interested in any thoughts that anyone may have regarding anything I've discussed above or the linked article.

You've got plenty of mine

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

I was going to respond to your post from the poll thread, but I figure I can make things less insane for me since this is essentially the same topic.

I have a problem with any corrupt or power-abusing body. The difference I see between you and I is that I think the government's influence on the economy is a positive one isofar as preventing companies from doing this very thing.
The odd thing about this is - and I do apoligize, as I did put you in the same anarcho-libertarian mix as Adrian and a few others - is that you agree with me on this front - at least in principle. The reason I find this odd is because the bulk of the government's influence on the economy (that isn't a result of corruption or some other negative influence) is through the regulation that does things like what the EPA or Food and Drug administration does - which is such an invaluable service that the only people I think that want to see them gone are the people whom these companies were created to police - the polluters and pharma companies for example.

Personally, I would *love* campaign reform like that. The citizens united ruling from the US supreme court not too long ago abjucated that corperations and unions no longer have a limit as to how much they can donate. I'd rather pay for it through taxes and give all government candidates an equal opportunity to state their positions. It would certainly go a long way to take corruption out of the system.

I do have to point out that the only reason the rich attempt to manipulate the system is because the system polices them, taxes them, and otherwise treats them the same as everyone else. Their very role as government affirms them as a target by the wealthy for corruption. The only way I could imagine that it would be possible to eliminate the government as a target for corruption for the rich is if the rich are given the power and influence - essentially displacing the government entirely.
Allowing companies like Citigroup to basically get everything they want.
Getting the government out of the economy isn't going to stop people from corrupting the government. If it's a small government, they'll try to expand it to help them. If it's a large government, they'll try to expand it to help them and reduce it where it hinders them. At least with a moderately sized democratic federal government that isn't afraid to battle for the common good, it can be much more of a positive force in this respect than a negative one.
This isn't to say that I want it to be a communist government - but I think the government's entire purpose is to work for the common good of all of its citizens to the extent that it can. Staying entirely out of the economy would be entirely contrary to this purpose.

The government shouldn't have any power to regulate unions at all - Again favourable conditions created by politicians with too much power.

Teachers and state employees make more on average than workers in the private sector (Average public individual income is $60k, private sector is $40k) they could stand to lose some of their benefits so the private sector workers pay less taxes. This doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed unions, it means the state should stop baying them undue benefits, such as higher pensions and better coverage.

Per hour, yes, but the yearly income of a teacher drags well behind what people generally make given the education required to become a teacher.
I think the entire US education system needs an overhaul given how far behind the rest of the world we are. Right now, I'd be for making school an all-year-round proposition, or at least add two months to the 3 month leave that teachers (and all educators in general) have so they can earn a much better wage.
However, I think this should be coupled with a reform in teacher qualifications so help alleviate teachers that think teaching creationism is the same thing as teaching science. Still, a lot of work yet to do in respect to the US education system. I don't know if things are different down under in this respect.

Government should definately have the power to regulate unions for the same reason they should regulate business - to prevent them from becoming corrupt. Philidelphia was famous for a long time because Unions essentially took over the city like a giant mafia ring.

I absolutely agree with that, and letting people have complete freedom in choosing their own lives includes not forcing people to buy health insurance from the government, not dictating the terms of their contracts etc.

Yes, but where we disagree is that I also believe that if the government didn't 'interfere' in many ways, the result would be that the non-governmental bodies - be they mafia-style unions, corperations more interested in money that human life, or some other powerful group taking advantage of the powerless - would take advantage of the population in such a negative way that the result can be just as bad as a big brother 1984 government.
The result is the same - but the vehicle of doing so would be entirely different.

So the result is a government that should be not too small to be effective but not too big as to become a problem in and of itself. So, the best path to freedom given this is that some interferance is possible at the cost of some freedoms. Such 'costs' come in the form of security - be them against pollution, foreign terrorists, local criminals, poisoned food, natural disaster, or whatever.

The reason the government is forcing everyone to buy health insurance runs precisely along these grounds and for a number of reasons -
The democrats folded like a wet paper in a hurricane against the republicans on the public option (to force competition amongst the providers) and the single-payer system - both of which I was hugely in favor of. Mandating health insurance is the worst option, but it (among the other parts of the healthcare law) at least force the health insurance to compete and actually provide the healthcare they kept denying to patients to line their pockets by keeping the pay gap between those who paid into insurance and those who drew from their insurance as wide as possible.
The mandate isn't my favorite option either, but at the very least, it'll do two things: 1) It'll cover everyone and the poorer individuals will get financial help in doing this. 2) It'll keep the insurance companies solvent by giving them the largest constituent base possible now that they actually have to provide healthcare that people need to live.

I really don't like it that much, but only because it was #3 on a list of 3 - but at least it'll hold until the law is changed to allow in a public option or replace the entire thing with single payer - both of which are far better options.

Since I suspect you may disagree with this since I know your position is that only the poorest people should get healthcare from the government, I will say something pertinent on that fact:

I'm actually somewhat perplexed by some of your statements. You state that the government is terrible at everything, but you're fine with them controlling our power, water, santitation, police, fire fighting services, libraries, and a poor-only healthcare, but people should shit bricks if they decide to start manufacturing or providing healthcare for all?
If the government's hand in healthcare is so goddamn terrible, then why do we have government at all? The only difference between local and federal governments is size. The size of the federal goverment makes it no less corrupt outside of those who choose to corrupt it.
I understand that you're not a libertarian, but many of your arguements certainly sound libertarian. In any case, I completely disagree that only the poor should get government healthcare (and my arguements to private v public education is mirrored with this arguement) because healthcare should be a right and not a privilage. This isn't to say that I don't think private healthcare providers should exist, but I don't think your financial capabilities should be a stopping point to getting all the healthcare you need, when you need it.
The very definition of 'freest possible' includes the right to health and education.
So, in conclusion, I do believe that the path to being a free and definatively a prosperous nation MUST include free healthcare and education, or something as close as possible to that.

I agree here too, though they can't effectively protect from abuses, they can only effectively punish abusers.

I don't understand where you draw a distinction between providing protection and dispensing justice. This is generally how justice is dispensed once a criminal has committed a crime.
Prevention generally involves enforcement of laws.
Perhaps I was using the wrong term - assuming 'protection' meant like how the police protect a witness by having escorts and watches around to prevent harm to this person.
What I meant is 'protection' by way of enforcement of laws. For example, Obama did pass a law that's supposed to protect credit card and bank customers from certain abuses they impose on their customers (spiking interest rates, predatory banking fees). As someone who has had to pay hundreds of dollars in fees for using my debit card to buy candy bars and other minor items, I can't say enough good things about this particular interferance in the US economy and business practices.

Isofar as social legislation, I believe the government should have minimal interference here precisely because there's nothing to regulate that would have any benefit the way preventing overly harmful monopolies would be a boon to what should be a thriving civilization. Which is to say that preventing gays from marrying or allowing them to marry would have no effect on society other than affecting the relative freedoms of its constituancy negatively through its restriction and positively through its allowance of gay marriage.
Since allowing individuals to have rights requires no laws or regulations, then clearly a free soecity would have minimal influence here.
That minimal influence would, however, have to come in the form of laws protecting victims of crime by those who would use their freedoms and rights to harm another's freedoms and rights. This very act, in and of itself, would be a restriction of freedoms. I can't dump my trash just anywhere, for example.

The same concept applies to the economy. You've been arguing for minimal influence on the economy, but the vast majority of the regulations you've been railing against and siding with are all designed to ultimately do the same thing.

And where do these rights come from? Why does my being a particular species of primate entitle me to education? If I get sick has my 'right' to be healthy been thwarted? There are huge problems with these categorical imperatives.

US and International Law. It's an ideal that so many have aspired to in the past (human equality) and so so many have fought and died for.
The idea that health and education should be a right to all comes from the idea that providing these to everyone does two things - it's better for society to have a population that's as healthy as possible and as educated as possible. On the personal level, the best way to lead your life in the manner of your choosing, having the best education and healthcare made available to you is universally conductive toward this end - this end being the idea of the freest possible nation and the most prosperous possible nation.
I can't imagine anything (that's feasible) that would be more conductive to this end. I don't think profiteering off of education and our health and/or only giving non-basic education to the wealthy is going to help with anything except widening the wealth gap by keeping the poor under-educated to compete in the modern world.

Healthcare should be the responsibility of the individual to provide for those in his/her care. Public healthcare should only be for those who are unable to buy private insurance. And life doesn't depend on healthcare for the vast majority of most people's lives, it only depends on healthcare when we are sick. That's the point of insurance (or personal fiscal responsibility), to set aside resources for when we need them.

And why is that? Why should the quality of my overall health and education depend so completely on my ability to pay? Why should, if I were exceptionally wealthy, able able to have better healthcare than someone who can't pay for the more luxurious private insurance?
We're not talking about protecting assets like cars or some communist ideal where everything is 'free' but mediocre (at best) here, we're talking about the quality of a person's health, or rather, the value of one person's life over another.
I don't think you could possibly argue for wealthy individuals getting better quality healthcare without also arguing that the value of those individuals being healthy is much greater than those in the 'underclass' getting comparatively gypped for no other reason than their relative wealth.

I could make the same arguement for the degree of police protection or fire protection and so on. Or rather, according to your logic, why exactly shouldn't they be under private control? Why shouldn't everything? Why shouldn't even the federal government be a corperation that people can choose to pay into or not?
You seem to be going out of your way to state just how incompetant and wasteful government is, so why exactly shouldn't, then, government be completely eliminated with law and order being subject to what is, essentially a 'public' corperation where votes are determined by shareholders (which would be the equivelent of a politician's consituancy.)
I know you've stated you're not a libertarian but none of your arguements against government aren't ones that I could use against coperations or unions or anyone else.
The government doesn't succeed or fail any better or worse than any company in any sense of the word - but their focus and priorities are different. They don't need to make a profit, their 'customers' are the same people as their 'shareholders' and 'bosses/supervisors' (in a democratic society), so the quality of their service MUST be good, immediate, and immensely efficient.

This isn't always the result, but you can't argue that government isn't incapable of it - even at the federal level.

Fail? What, the social bigotry that was permitted by biased and ignorant men? The economy didn't fail, it thrived for a very long time.

Oh, and the government created the first monopolies with exclusive contracts.

You already know I think price-fixing is a case of fraud and coercion, I'm against both those things.

And when exactly did these monopolies begin utter dominance? You've always been conveniently vague when you bring that up. The fact of a company controlling a market does not make them in control of people's lives, it only makes them in control of what they charge for products and services, and a non-coercive monopoly can only exist so long as customer demand exists and customer apathy prevents them from seeking another source - There is always a potential for competition.

Perhaps failed was the wrong word to use, because looking back, that seems to imply that the economy failed like a car that needs a complete engine replacement failed as a car.
But I used the term with the intention of describing that the economy, which started out with a fairly hands-off approach to the economy, like a car that goes through oil as fast as it does gasoline, but it still works.
I'm not sure if it was 100% hands-off, honestly, but I understand that, as a startup nation, the rules of the economy back then were fairly light compared to today enough that I would consider it a hands-off economy. The post office actually predates the United States, for example, so there is a federal organization competing with the private sector even in 1776. Still, given that, assuming anything about what the libertarians and conservatives state about how the government interferance in the economy works, then clearly the US economy should have been going downhill since the early 20th century. Instead, the correlation has been going up, even despite economic recessions both recently and in years past.

In any case, yes, the government has created and still maintains a number of state-sponsered monopolies. The power utility in the United States is an excellent example of this, because they are all technically private industries and state-enforced monopolies. They are legal monopolies.

From my understanding, the business restrictions and responsibilities upon them (because they are a necessary utility and because they are a monopoly) is much greater than other companies for the express purpose of providing power reliably across the entire nation, which is that these companies cannot, for example, artificially raise their prices to line their pockets without reprocussions.

This is why that paper on the other thread that you thought didn't agree with my arguement actually did work into my overall point.

And when exactly did these monopolies begin utter dominance? You've always been conveniently vague when you bring that up. The fact of a company controlling a market does not make them in control of people's lives, it only makes them in control of what they charge for products and services, and a non-coercive monopoly can only exist so long as customer demand exists and customer apathy prevents them from seeking another source - There is always a potential for competition.

Yes, funny how that happens. And when there's nowhere to go - they ask their government to start trust-busting. But when your "utterly dominated" field is something important like pharma drugs, oil, railroads (circa 19th century), or something important when that company has no competition (thus filling the role of monopoly) - then there is an enormous impact on the life of everyone in a particular society. We saw this when oil prices reached 140$ a barrel - even if that was pure supply & demand, it still affected every corner of our oil-dependant world.
Microsoft, on the other hand, controls an area of the market that can be easily replaced overnight by another company because of the nature of their product. If you're in a US state with one healthcare provider and they don't provide you with the life-saving cancer treatment you need to live, then there isn't anywhere for you to go except the grave unless you're wealthy enough to buy it yourself and even if they can, it would still very likely ruin this individual financially.

Potential competition isn't going to make companies pay fair wages and set fair prices. Only real competition does that.

That's a good reason? What if the american people demand that gays not marry or people be arrested for smoking pot? Oh wait...

Yes, because people who demand that gays shouldn't marry is exactly as valid as people who demand to not be put into poverty by runaway healthcare costs because their insurer refuses to give healthcare and charges their customers exhorberant prices by having the government limit that company's power through regulation has exactly the same validity.

Firstly, this is why globalisation is awesome, competition is immense now compared to before, the two situations aren't the same by any means.

Secondly, Abused their power? Tell me, if I have product x am I obligated to give it to you at a price you can afford or am I allowed to charge what I like for it? Why should your wanting product x, not part of your being or property, obligate me to provide it to you for a price that you want to pay?

I agree that globalization is awesome for that reason.
It doesn't help with how the Pharma companies in the US charge US citizens one enormously inflated price and charge everyone else (where they have competition) something more like what you'd see when they don't have dominance in the market. So... great for the people who benefit from those drugs being sold at a fair price. Too bad for those in whatever nation in which those products have no competition.

Think about it. This is why worldwide free trade is still a pipe dream. If your company has a monopoly in a wealthy, paying country where you can inflate your prices to wherever, what reason would you have to want something so obviously beneficial to everyone else and so obviously detrimental to you?

Two points on your second point:
1) The customer's income is irrelevant to your ability to set your price, unless you're a legal monopoly, in which case, yes, you would be obligated to provide your product at a particular price.
2) Again, your scenario entirely depends on your product and other situational modifiers. Private utilities? Yes. Pensils in a market with stiff competition and your regulations are loose, no. You can go ahead and charge 100$ a pensil but not enough would buy them to keep you solvent.
But a natural monopoly that could act like a less-than-ethical company assuming that they had few, if any restrictions have 95+% of the market base of customers literally dependant upon your service and products to live in a modern era? No. They can set whatever prices they can get away with that doesn't cause an open revolt, which is a lot considering what health insurance companies in the US have been getting away with these past few decades.

Nothing wrong with that, so long as they don't use force or coercion to keep people out and instead dominate them in terms of cost to the consumers they can freely do it. Nobody is obligated to keep their competition in business.

No. Being that good at competing isn't the problem. My problem is what happens afterword. Depending on the product, we could end up with google (which is a wonderful product that dominates the search engine market for good reason - but can be easily and completely replaced, at least compared with health insurance monopolies, where people literally depend on them for their life.)
You could also end up with Standard Oil.

and other methods to keep their employees good and loyal, after all, as many have learned in modern times, once you're out of a job, there are few choices (particularly if your former job was the only local location that required someone with your set of skills) you have before you in terms of finding another job capable of supporting you and your family.

That's what the welfare for the destitute poor is for. If you lose your job once you have spent all of your savings you can get welfare payments.

So in other words, you have to bankrupt yourself by spending every solitary dime you own before getting government assistance to help you during the time you need it the most?
I'm sure a family with children would definately understand that it's better to be destitute than be considered lazy by being allowed to have money while still needing assistance so you can keep your home and keep feeding you children (or just yourself) and keep your life going.
Whether or not you have money in the bank is irrelevant as to whether or not you seriously need the assistance until you get back on your feet or some lazy asshole who illegally draws from welfare or legally 'games the system.'

If an employer wants you to work more and you refuse, and provided you haven't signed a contract specifically with those terms, then the employer should have the right to find someone who will work.

Oh please, Void, what are you even talking about here? Yes, if employee A agreed to work for employer A for Y monies/hour for Z time/week like most jobs around the world now, then the employee not doing the work he signed up for is grounds for firing.
Of course, employees were once, in the US and many places around the world, hired their employees under the same auspisions but overwork them, underpay them, force them to work in unsafe and stressful conditions, among other horrible things that led the government to do things like tell companies that they can't pay their emploeyees below a certain wage and for no more than 40 hours (some exceptions, like overtime, apply) a week, and so forth.
More government interferance in the economy to stop businesses from abusing their own employees.

I'm for people having the right to form unions AND for their right to protest peacefully. I'm AGAINST governments having the right to break up these protests. This isn't an issue of small government, it's an issue of social liberties, the two are not by any means mutually exclusive.

Indeed, but it is an issue of government. Both the protestors and the company being protested are often both the constituancy of a government, so involvement in some manner or another is inevitable at some point in time.
I'm interested in how you had to qualify the protests as only peaceful ones.
So then a government should have the right to quash a not-peaceful protest but not a company that's chocking the life out of its employees to the point that it has caused them to protest?
What if this was before the 40 hour workweek and minimum wage laws and their employees were being forced to work 60~80 hour weeks at below-poverty wages? Perhaps something modern day but not quite as severe, like McDonald's and Wal-Mart's infamous treatment of their employees.
Union formations are always an option, but not one that can always be successful. The unions that exist were fought for and fought hard for - in some cases with blood.
Government interferance, that evil, ugly government hand of regulation, has done far more to benefit workers than any union and perhaps even all of them combined.

More broke and more unequal? Great example!

I was going to say "a world superpower", but sure.
America's debt has far more to do with politicians who run and win elections based on telling their constituants on the basis of keeping benefits, cutting taxes, and cutting government regulation. Our present situation is a result of this from over the last 29 years.

In fact, you've done quite well in naming several nations that have an enormous amount of debt earlier similarly to the US (if not quite in scope), but how many nations aren't in debt that is also a 1st-world nation? And of those nations, how many of them have 'hands off' approach to their economy? How about that gold standard economic system you keep touting?

That GOP governor is a cunt. He shouldn't have that kind of power to being with.

Benefit cuts ARE tax cuts, benefits are funded through taxes... That aside I think the unions have been more than reasonable considering the economic climate.

Benefit cuts of government employees are spending cuts. Tax cuts are what happen when you collect less in taxes from your constituants and benefits are not taxes.
Otherwise, then we agree on this point.

This isn't for some political ideal. This isn't even for the good of the struggling economy of Wisconsin.
This is to remove the rights of the employees - government and otherwise - of the state of Wisconsin.

Agreed, this is an issue of government having power they shouldn't that they use not to uphold the law but to pursue an agenda.

Indeed - but he's enacting this law at the behest of the Koch brothers and others like them.
This isn't the government pursuing an agenda, this is rich people and the companies they own gaming the system to their favor - the very thing government should prevent - it's own corruption by these forces to prevent these abuses of power.

Firstly, reducing the government as much as possible includes removing their power to control the establishment of unions, what we're seeing with the Tea Baggers is hypocrisy, treachery and double standards - They're generally a bunch of idiots and assholes who want not to have a small government so much as they want conditions that suit them, they need much more than minimal government to get that, they need a decent level of authoritarianism.

Secondly, that is the same straw man you've used again and again. It is NOT a case of corporations being better for us than government, it is a case of PEOPLE being better able to run their own lives than the government. Corporations shouldn't have ANY obligation to improve our lives, they only have an obligation not to cause harm.

On your second point, it's an obligation they won't follow if it doesn't help their bottom line.
Also, whose point am I strawman-ing? I didn't address the post you responded to specifically to you or any one particular person.

On your first point, yes, the government would have less power to regulate unions. If you look at philidelphia history, you'll find that they can be just as bad as the kind of monopolies and thugs I've been consistently bringing up.

You also keep bringing up something about the obligations companies have in regards to doing things like improving my life, which IS a strawman. The two of us want the same thing (more overall prosperity), but where we disagree is that I think more prosperity is a result of government interferance as much as anything else.
America's slide into recession today is a result of moving toward capitalism and capitalism's effect on government and the politicians corrupted by the people who want to game the system to benefit themselves than anything the government has done to actually benefit society, like forming the Environmental protection agency, which is very much the kind of government interferance on the economy that you appear to be arguing against because enviornmental laws tweak market forces that can have a negative impact and, of course, come out of my taxes to enforce sometimes controversial environmental laws that further still directly affect the economy from the government.
Yet, this is for my benefit because clearly people already dump too much crap where it shouldn't go even despite the EPA's influence.
You appear to be arguing for these benefits (the government protecting against a company directly harming my person) but against government interferance on the economy (which is exactly what the EPA does) despite diminishing my own economic freedom (by taking money from my paycheck in taxes to pay the EPA's overhead costs.

This line of reasoning is why we're having this conversation and part of my rants on the other thread and this one.

A small government is the only form of efficient government, bureaucracy being a layer of cost is an inevitable fact of large government.

Yes, but a lot of that burocracy is there for a reason - like many of those health-insurance stipulations you mentioned earlier - how is the government supposed to make sure you've expended every possible option before running for government assistance without having to bother with red tape? They do this exactly because those are the conditions for giving out taxpayer money for this purpose because being slightly more inefficient is the price for being thorough to make sure taxpayer dollars isn't wasted because some guy decided to game welfare for free money.
Smaller governments only seem efficient by comparision because their responsibilities is likely comparatively smaller.
As such, I'm not going to say that you're wrong, but I will say that large governments are far more accountable, than, say, Microsoft.

NOT a libertarian, thank you.

Fair enough. You've proven that I clearly lumped you in with a far more radical crowd than I should have.
You and I appear to agree on more issues than which we disagree.

For fucks sake stop making straw men.

1. Free Market economics =/= No government (as you've been corrected on multiple times already).

Corrected? Yes, in the sense that you offered a correction. Whether that correction is correct or that my statements were wrong is another matter entirely.

In any case, whose arguements am I misconstruing? Yours? I mentioned your screen name as well as Adrian's but I'm not really arguing against either of you. I made the post you're responding to here entirely seporate (though related) to our other conversation that I guess will mere here.
I've stated quite clearly what I'm arguing against, which is essentially the idealism that government is entirely bad and should be kept to a minimum in all aspects of life.

2. Free market businesses can only 'quash' unions to the extent that they have the right to hire non union employees if they want.

3. The steel industry was coercive, forceful and fraudulent, that is NOT a failure of the free market, it is a failure of law and order.

Yes. Law and order that exists as enforcement of government regulation which exists as government interferance of the economy.

Your scenario is a straw man, when you have the fundamentals correct try again.

I strawman fallacy is when I essentially make an arguement made by someone I'm in opposition to in an arguement as being something other than what it is.
Specifically,

A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.

Who is my opponent, Void? I made the post you responded to entirely seporate from our other discussion and not specifically directed toward anyone other than the arguement I stated I was arguing against in the post you responded to. As such, I have committed no strawman fallacy.

ANOTHER straw man... The free market controls the direction of economic growth, the supply and demand of products, the value of resources etc NOT the social liberties of the people OR the consequences of negligence, force, fraud or coercion - THAT is the role of government.

Indeed, which is why government interferance in the market is and indeed can easily be a positive force instead of a universally negative one.

No more than I trust a state broadcaster not to be just as biased.

Fair enough. As long as we agree that people are the problem and not just government or business or union.

Not when your only two choices are essentially two sides of the same coin.

Agreed. As I stated earlier, I would love me some campaign finance reform but just election reform in general for this very reason. I would prefer to elect a person into government instead of figureheads for political parties.

Another downside of government is their concern with short term popularity designed to get them through election cycles - There is very little concern by the government for long term implications of policy, such as the bailouts and stimulus spending, as well as the creation of the automotive bubble by offering subsidies - that combined with low interest rates and guaranteed loans was the same damn thing that was responsible for the housing bubble, the loans might be lower now but the interest rates are going to be the killer, seeing as they're currently at 0.25%... people who are already poor and who were coaxed into buying cars by government subsidies are going to see their teaser interest rates expire and be faced with the same repayment problems as before. Your country is going to need to borrow even more money from China, Japan, Russia, Australia, Canada and your other BIG financiers who own 14 trillion fucking dollars of your debt already... That's 14 thousand billion dollars, say it with me! Soon the rest of the world will cut you off and you'll have to start printing money just to cover the interest payments. The government will probably never default on their loan, so they'll start selling more and more treasuries (Fancy IOU's) to the Fed who will continue printing more $2 trillion bundles to pay for them, the value of your dollar will collapse, the value of savings will diminish, prices will skyrocket - Collapse.

What they should have done was ridden out the dotcom/NASDAQ bubble in the late 90's and again in early 2000's when it became apparent that the value of the Internet at the time had been overestimated and literally tens of thousands of companies who were valued by speculators at at hundreds of thousands to millions and in some cases billions of dollars weren't making a cent, pretty much all of them were taking loans against their speculated value and the bubble burst - That would have been a recession that would have been NOTHING compared to what is faced today OR what will happen in the future, instead, stimulus spending, low interest rates, guaranteed loans and subsidies for housing designed to 'absorb' the effect of the recession instead created a housing bubble - Bush obviously didn't get it, he still says that one of his great achievements was ending the recession in the early 2000's, the same actions that caused the housing bubble. Obama doesn't get it either sadly, he's doing pretty much the same thing, but spending 4 times as much, he's already outspent Bush's two terms.

There are a lot of points here... but I both agree and disagree with many of them.
I definately don't disagree with government short-sightedness, but I consider that as much a problem with people in general than government alone. You can really see this in people when it comes to the green movement, which is itself a whole other can of worms but there are many real concerns there about climate change that have legitimate claims that people ignore just so they can keep burning coal even though the long term detriment is highly likely to have a very negative impact. Even though, if you feel that's an illegitimate arguement, there are many others like it that showcase how short-sighted people are in general.
Election cycles don't help the matter, which brings me right back to campaign reform so politicians don't have to worry about donations to their campaigns.
(It won't fix it, but it'll go a long way to helping).

Private healthcare is a really competitive industry, given people expect to pay for their behaviours such as smoking and not exercising they can get it much cheaper that the cost per person in a public system. The government and charity can look after the uninsurable and those who can't afford it.

I don't know how competative the healthcare industry is in australia, but it's a very different matter here. The US Federal government can only regulate companies that cross state lines, so health insurance companies restrict their customer base to individiual states and virtually every state in the union has one insurance provider or another with near-total control of the market and are the embodiment of everything I've been ranting against along with the pharma drug companies.

Health insurance and drug companies are almost always what I'm referring to when I talk about the healthcare industry in discussions like this. I definately don't mean hospitals, doctor's offices, or things like that and I definately want to make this clear now.

I'm not against research like that (I don't give a fuck about the statue, it's just aesthetic), these lines of research usually have implications that fall into the government's realm of responsibility, like defence, the NASA missions most certainly did. Saying that however, more and more larger and pioneering developments are being developed in the private sector, like the entire modern technology industry and private organisations offering space flight are emerging, I don't think government research will ever completely diminish but things are changing.

Maybe, but one thing that a man named Ed Shultz on MSNBC noted (and this is off-topic) that was a really good point is that the US doesn't build like it used to anymore. Our time in the 'world wonder engineering project' business has been over for some decades now and numerous other countries are building 21st century engineering projects (single-building cities, high-speed rail, and so on) while the US is still mired in 20th century problems. I'm not even going to talk about what I think of our education system, which I feel is just.... sad.

The private industry is certainly making great strides in doing what only used to require huge government investment, but that's more thanks to technological development, which is a human thing and not a private-public thing.

I know (now at least) that you werent' arguing against this point, but many of my points here were for people who generally don't think government is good for anything.

Um, they're both roles for government that almost everyone wants, It's not an argument for or against, just a statement about some useful roles of government.

Agreed.

Right, good examples of capitalism.

It's more a statement about people than anything, but yes.
I'm not against capitalism. What I'm for is regulated capitalism.

Yeah, and when a Union holds a business to ransom for hiring non union employees they are being just as bad as a business who fires people for being in a union.

And I don't see why there is such a problem with someone being willing to work longer and for less than someone else, we should have to compete for our jobs and not expect them to be handed to us on a platter.

It's not a matter of what someone is willing to do - it's a matter of what someone is forced to do. Not necessarily against their will, but rather because it's their only choice. (And that choice isn't always determined by the availability of other jobs.)

There are so many problems with that I hardly know where to begin... Firstly, the government and the people aren't supposed to be in opposition, the government is supposed to be an extension of the people. Secondly, the government isn't supposed to oppose business, it's supposed to create a climate in which business can be successful in order to give people jobs and bring money into the economy through exports - the government is supposed to oppose lawbreakers, represent the people on an international stage, defend the borders, look after basic infrastructure and stay the fuck out of people's personal lives.

Okay. Firstly, yes, no one is supposed to be in opposition to one another. They're supposed to look out for one another, but you can't expect people to actually follow through with that ideal, so they must exist in opposition to one another so that when one gains too much power, the other forces can counterbalance that power.
An illegal monopoly can get trust-busted by the government.
A corrupt government can be voted or revolutionized out of power.
Governments and businesses can enact policies to get people to treat one another in a positive way, like outlawing murder and companies that create positive work enviornments.

No, freedom flourishes when people are free to control their own lives and not have their lives diminished by others, the only freedoms that need exist are "Freedom From" freedoms, freedom from persecution for victimless crimes, free from regulations and instead punish the guilty, not those with the potential to be guilty at some later point in time. The only checks and balances needed are laws against force, fraud, coercion and negligence, after that people can do anything they like because they'd necessarily then be doing no harm to others.

Which is why it can only flourish in a system of checks and balances - to prevent their lives from being diminished by others!

Systems such as?

Democracies.

Australia is $1 trillion in debt.
Canada's debt is $560 Billion.
America's debt is $14 trillion
Europe's total debt is $18 trillion

Last time I checked, when you're in the red flourishing is an illusion.

Being in the black doesn't mean you're flourishing either, so your point is irrelevant.

And being that far in debt is success? The government is too damn big, it does too much shit it shouldn't, spends too much money and it's resource inefficient.

Their debt and the US's has nothing to do with the government's size. It has more to do with the people who were elected into office.
If I became CEO because I was voted in by the majority of shareholders of a huge billion-dollar company and ran it deep into the red, that doesn't say anything about the company's size or even that it can or has been successful, generally speaking.
The US has always had debt, but the enormous degree of our debt didn't come about until "Reagonomics" plagued us all and the republicans adopted it as their bible despite math working against them and their idiotic trickle-down economics.

The government has the power to arrest them for breaking the law - That is NOT the same thing as regulation.

Punishment is he result of enforcement of regulation.
Regulations are laws designed specifically to regulate. Thus, enforcement of laws and enforcement of regulation end up being the same thing.

Be really careful with what you mean by 'take advantage' of someone. Am I not able to take advantage of a skill someone else has to achieve something? Am I not allowed to take advantage of someone's hospitality? It's NOT something you can be so vague about.

And again this is a straw man, depending on what you specifically mean by 'take advantage', no libertarians advocate someone being forced into anything they do not desire to do, it's only the pseudo-libertarian teabaggers with their authoritarian leanings that would do anything similar.

I would have figured that my use of 'take advantage of' would be synonymous with something like the term 'duping' or 'taking advantage of' like "The bossman takes advantage of his position as regional manager and the fact that his secretary desperately needs her job by sexually harassing her whenever he can because he knows she won't lawyer up."
It's my mistake for using the more general description of the term which merely means to use or profit from, which is itself benign. I will be more specific in the future.

On your last point though, libertarians do indeed don't advocate someone being forced into doing something they don't want to do, but they think the solution is akin to removing the cops from the streets, figuring that the citizens will sort things out for themselves.
And indeed that solution may very well work, but I would suspect that the result would be very, very bloody and the resulting society would look very chaotic and very darwinian.

I do agree on every tea party statement you've made. They very clearly appear to be a front for right-wing extremeists.

How naive a statement to make. Some things are right, some are wrong some are simply unknown. Arsenic in moderation? Be my guest...

http://web2.airmail.net/uthman/elements_of_body.html

In a 70 Kilogram person, there is approximately 7 milligrams of arsenic in the human body.
Also 6mg of Mercury and .1mg of uranium.
So yes. Moderation.

Which is why you remove politics from capital, both in terms of outside funding for campaigns and outside interest in using the government to set up convenient legislation.

Agreed here. Citizens United (thanks to a certain conservative justice in the supreme court) was among the worst things to ever happen in US politics in my lifetime.

You've got plenty of mine

Sure. This has been quite entertaining. I live for these discussions.

[HeyItsZeus]

Dear Darkest of Angels and Void,

If your posts weren't so damn long I would find the time to argue with you.

[Minimalist]

Yeah....multiple quotes can quickly kill a thread.

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

Yeah, sorry about that. I have a bad tendancy to respond to everything thoroughly, but needlessly.
I'll try to be more poignant in the future.

[theVOID]

I have a problem with any corrupt or power-abusing body. The difference I see between you and I is that I think the government's influence on the economy is a positive one isofar as preventing companies from doing this very thing.

Doing what specifically?

The odd thing about this is - and I do apoligize, as I did put you in the same anarcho-libertarian mix as Adrian and a few others - is that you agree with me on this front - at least in principle.

I find myself defending libertarians often (so I can see how you'd get confused), mostly because of the plethora of strawman arguments launched against them, then again I would point out any straw man, regardless of how similar to my position it is.

Oh, and I can tell you now that most of what you think is Adrian's position actually isn't, he's certainly more anarchistic than me but he's not an anarchist.

The reason I find this odd is because the bulk of the government's influence on the economy (that isn't a result of corruption or some other negative influence) is through the regulation that does things like what the EPA or Food and Drug administration does - which is such an invaluable service that the only people I think that want to see them gone are the people whom these companies were created to police - the polluters and pharma companies for example.

Firstly, regulation is expensive and most of the people being regulated (as in the majority of companies who fall into this jurisdiction) are ethical and wouldn't be negligent in their responsibility to begin with, what that creates is 1) A cost to the taxpayer to pay for regulators (which are fucking expensive), 2) A cost of compliance to the majority businesses who are ethical 3) Marginal effect at preventing those who disregard the law from offending.

The cost of ethical businesses to comply with regulations prevents employment and raises in real wages as the overhead increases substantially.

You agreed earlier that the number of ethical companies is around 1000:1, do you think that it is either cost effective or fair to police 1000 innocent companies to try and prevent the 1 unethical one? It is like the police doing random raids on your house because 1:1000 homes will be committing an offence.

IMO it is a FAR more effective of a system to have much less regulation and much tougher sentences for people who do offend, that way the cost to the taxpayer is reduced, the cost of compliance on the ethical companies is reduced and the people who do offend get much more than a "cease and desist" order or some fines.

The only laws you need are laws against force, fraud, coercion and negligence, double the sentences for breaking these tenets and you've got a system that is more fair, more cost effective and

Personally, I would *love* campaign reform like that. The citizens united ruling from the US supreme court not too long ago abjucated that corperations and unions no longer have a limit as to how much they can donate. I'd rather pay for it through taxes and give all government candidates an equal opportunity to state their positions. It would certainly go a long way to take corruption out of the system.

Agreed completely, now remove the ability for government to great favourable conditions and you remove the incentive for unethical corporations corrupt politicians completely.

I do have to point out that the only reason the rich attempt to manipulate the system is because the system polices them, taxes them, and otherwise treats them the same as everyone else.

Policing is not regulating, keep that in mind.

Regulating is not confined to businesses either, government regulates in the form of a massive myriad of tax breaks, subsidies, interference with the money market, loan guarantees etc.

Their very role as government affirms them as a target by the wealthy for corruption.

Not their very role as government, a specific set of powers that through regulation can be used to manipulate the financial and money markets, give tax breaks and subsidies etc and it's almost always completely producer driven, not consumer driven - most of the time it's to the detriment of the consumer. Look at GM, they make inferior products at higher prices, and in order to make them affordable the government has to subsidise the fuck out of their cars and impose hefty taxes on imported vehicles - They did the same with Harely davidson when they almost went bust by tripling the cost to buy foreign bikes and giving huge subsidies on harley bikes - This did NOTHING to benefit the consumer just as the actions with GM do nothing to benefit the consumer, they hurt the consumer by removing really affordable quality imported bikes and cars from their reach and replacing them with products that seem slightly cheaper but actually aren't by the time you take into account all of the taxes required to pay the subsidies.

GM should have failed, so should have Harley, instead they're hopping along on a tax-payer crutch.

The only way I could imagine that it would be possible to eliminate the government as a target for corruption for the rich is if the rich are given the power and influence - essentially displacing the government entirely.

Or how about this: Remove the government from the markets completely save from their ability to imprison or fine anyone who has used force, fraud, coercion or neglected their responsibilities to society. This way the unethical corporations have no means by which to create the favourable conditions upon which they can really exploit people, instead they're on a level playing field where any competitor has a completely fair shot and the corporation in question can't hide behind exclusive contracts and subsidies and the competitors (especially the international ones) don't have to account for all the extra tax on their product effectively pricing them out of the market.

This sort of thing limits competition and the government does it all the time. This doesn't help the consumers AT ALL - it only helps the producers.

Allowing companies like Citigroup to basically get everything they want.

Broken link.

Getting the government out of the economy isn't going to stop people from corrupting the government. If it's a small government, they'll try to expand it to help them.

And when the government has no obligations to these companies for campaign financing or the power to make these laws because they are ultimately accountable to an independent court (and not a government appointed one) who operates entirely on the principles that have been set the corporates have no means by which they can create the conditions they want to get an anti-competitive advantage.

If it's a large government, they'll try to expand it to help them and reduce it where it hinders them.

Of course they will, any government who manipulates the markets in terms of subsidies, taxes, tax breaks, tariffs, excise and import tax, guaranteed loans and low interest rates etc has the ability to create exactly the kind of conditions that these companies need.

Let's also not forget that the government is fucking useless when it comes to making financial predictions and directing the market. When the government offered the subsidies, tax breaks and taxes to direct investors towards the housing market they cocked up completely, there is a VERY simple reason why, All businesses take risks in terms of investment and SOME investments go bad, when you direct the entire market in one direction and it goes bad rather than just SOME investors losing money the MAJORITY do. Then you're faced with a recession as the overvalued speculation of these government enticed market segments becomes apparent and everyone tries to get out of their investments as quickly as possible - This sort of massive and abrupt imbalances NEVER happen in the free market because investment portfolios are much more spread out and even if one segment goes belly-up the overall picture doesn't change a hell of a lot.

This is where the government can either chose to let the bad investments fail and weather out the recession (and hopefully learn their lesson) or they can try and absorb the recession in another round of market manipulation and inevitably cause another bubble and find themselves in a fucking TON of debt.

At least with a moderately sized democratic federal government that isn't afraid to battle for the common good, it can be much more of a positive force in this respect than a negative one.

I disagree, a moderate government still has the power to regulate which is not only unfair on ethical businesses, detrimental to growth and job creation and ultimately create costs that are passed on to consumers (raising the cost of living) they also have the power to create favourable conditions when corrupted (and often inadvertently, seeing as how much of their 'advice' comes from these same corporate interests) as well as having the ability to manipulate the markets which NEVER has a good result.

The markets are self organising and emergent systems that arise from supply and demand, they are FAR too complex for any organisation to predict, let alone manipulate, that is why investments are supposed to be risks and risks are supposed to have consequence and reward, when you remove the risk you create recklessness.

This isn't to say that I want it to be a communist government

I should hope not, that would make you verifiably insane.

- but I think the government's entire purpose is to work for the common good of all of its citizens to the extent that it can. Staying entirely out of the economy would be entirely contrary to this purpose.

No it wouldn't, for the reasons i've laid out above.

Per hour, yes, but the yearly income of a teacher drags well behind what people generally make given the education required to become a teacher.

No, those are annual figures nation wide.

I think the entire US education system needs an overhaul given how far behind the rest of the world we are. Right now, I'd be for making school an all-year-round proposition, or at least add two months to the 3 month leave that teachers (and all educators in general) have so they can earn a much better wage.

You want to give them MORE time off? They already have more paid leave than almost any other profession you can name.

However, I think this should be coupled with a reform in teacher qualifications so help alleviate teachers that think teaching creationism is the same thing as teaching science. Still, a lot of work yet to do in respect to the US education system. I don't know if things are different down under in this respect.

It shouldn't be up to the teachers at all, it should be entirely the decision of the community board, and since they are public there should be no religion involved. A private school can teach whatever the fuck it likes.

Government should definately have the power to regulate unions for the same reason they should regulate business - to prevent them from becoming corrupt. Philidelphia was famous for a long time because Unions essentially took over the city like a giant mafia ring.

If you regulate neither you maintain the balance, the workers are free to join unions and if their demands get out of hand the employers are free to hire non union workers or outsource.

Yes, but where we disagree is that I also believe that if the government didn't 'interfere' in many ways, the result would be that the non-governmental bodies - be they mafia-style unions, corperations more interested in money that human life, or some other powerful group taking advantage of the powerless - would take advantage of the population in such a negative way that the result can be just as bad as a big brother 1984 government.

No no no, regulations of employment law caused that stranglehold too!

As for the mafia-union or plutocracy thing, that would only happen with no law and order (or favourable laws), not "no regulation".

As long as the unions aren't using force, fraud coercion or neglecting their responsibilities they can do whatever the fuck they like, like iv'e said before the unions and corporates aren't obligated to give us anything, they're simply obligated NOT to break the law, If I agree to join a union or take a job that is between me and the union or employer.

So the result is a government that should be not too small to be effective but not too big as to become a problem in and of itself.

I agree with that, but I think the right size is much smaller than you. A government that meets those criteria doesn't fuck with the money supply, doesn't regulate ethical businesses, doesn't make people but health insurance from them, doesn't offer guarantees and subsidies, it simply provides a safety net for emergencies both personal and natural, defends the borders, prevents our freedoms from being thwarted and stays out of our personal lives.

If the government was only concerned with the markets so far as preventing the use of force, fraud, coercion or negligence and opened up trade completely at both national and international levels you get the following effect:

No control of the money supply limits inflation, keeps the cost of living from rising, keeps the value of people's savings stable which provides a substantially lesser need for social security, keeps the value of real wages rising (real wages (measured in purchasing power) are currently falling due to government stupidity causing inflation to rise) and causes prices to fall (like they used to before all this keynesian horseshit) because productive capacity increases with technological improvements lowering the cost of producing and creating more market competition.

Corporations compete on a fair playing field and constantly have to compete against both national and international rivals for market share, trade taxes and subsidies no longer favour producers and they no longer get an unfair advantage in local markets, the price wars continue and it is the consumers who benefit rather than the producers.

Unions can't hold to ransom businesses because the employees have to compete against rivals both nationally and internationally.

That should make my point, but I could go on and on and on and on...

So, the best path to freedom given this is that some interferance is possible at the cost of some freedoms. Such 'costs' come in the form of security - be them against pollution, foreign terrorists, local criminals, poisoned food, natural disaster, or whatever.

You don't need regulation for pollution, or food, you need laws against negligence and prison for people who are guilty.

You can't regulate criminals, you can only punish.

Terrorists come under defence.

Natural disasters are part of the social safety net, it should be funded through an accumulation of tax revenue and not debt unless absolutely necessary.

The reason the government is forcing everyone to buy health insurance runs precisely along these grounds and for a number of reasons -

Well at least you admit it's forced, lets get to the added layer of bureaucracy being a waste of resources and why it's better for those who can afford it to buy their own insurance later.

The democrats folded like a wet paper in a hurricane against the republicans on the public option (to force competition amongst the providers) and the single-payer system - both of which I was hugely in favor of.

Public options never increase competition, they tried it here in NZ and the cost of healthcare has kept rising while the quality diminishes.

Mandating health insurance is the worst option, but it (among the other parts of the healthcare law) at least force the health insurance to compete and actually provide the healthcare they kept denying to patients to line their pockets by keeping the pay gap between those who paid into insurance and those who drew from their insurance as wide as possible.

It's an ass backwards way of doing it, the government should NEVER force a private company to do business with someone, it's plainly authoritarian, instead those people who cannot afford to get insurance (and it would necessarily be means tested) will be provided for by the government safety net when they get sick.

This arrangement would make healthcare amongst the majority better and cheaper and rates would be adjustable based on factors like obesity, smoking, drug use, fitness etc, those people who have a proactive role in their health reap the benefits via lower premiums.

Essentially, insurance is for the unexpected risks, it is way of setting aside resources for when they are needed, people with long term health problems don't need insurance, they need healthcare, two different things.

Charity and government can look after healthcare, health insurance should be (almost) entirely private.

The mandate isn't my favorite option either, but at the very least, it'll do two things: 1) It'll cover everyone and the poorer individuals will get financial help in doing this.

If someone has money and doesn't want health insurance (he has savings instead) why should the government require him to buy it?

2) It'll keep the insurance companies solvent by giving them the largest constituent base possible now that they actually have to provide healthcare that people need to live.

It has the opposite effect, it is completely beside the point of insurance to cover people who need ongoing and predetermined care, how the fuck is making the insurance companies cover someone who couldn't possibly put into the fund more than they take out going to keep them solvent? It's not...

Charity and Government could cover this small portion of the sector all by themselves, keep the insurance companies out of it, now instead you have TWO layers to go through, the insurance company and the government, that is FAR more overhead than is necessary.

I really don't like it that much, but only because it was #3 on a list of 3 - but at least it'll hold until the law is changed to allow in a public option or replace the entire thing with single payer - both of which are far better options.

Fuck all of those options, Single payer removes quality, increases cost and lowers innovation. Public option just takes money from elsewhere in the economy to offer subsidies healthcare, this has a negative impact on competition.

What you need is private insurance for anyone who can afford it and charity and government for the uninsurable and the destitute poor.

Since I suspect you may disagree with this since I know your position is that only the poorest people should get healthcare from the government, I will say something pertinent on that fact:

I'm actually somewhat perplexed by some of your statements. You state that the government is terrible at everything,

Complete straw man.

but you're fine with them controlling our power

Power INFRASTRUCTURE, they don't sell power, they keep the lines open for competition. Government run power companies are a joke.

water

Water INFRASTRUCTURE, they own and maintain the pipes but contract to private companies to provide the water and pumping stations.

santitation

Contracted out.

police, fire fighting services,

Yeah, they're essential, a private police force is corruptible far more so than a public one, this is a somewhat rare instance of where that is true. Fire services aren't profitable but they are necessary, thus it falls on the taxpayer

libraries

No....

and a poor-only healthcare

Only where Charity can't cover it.

, but people should shit bricks if they decide to start manufacturing

Why the fuck should the government be involved in manufacturing at all? Firstly, It's a complete conflict of interests from a government that is supposed to maintain a fair and free economic playing field. Secondly, government can't predict manufacturing demand as well as a free market because the free market is made of a great many manufacturers all catering to different fields and this makes the total liability for the investments involved spread out much more - Unlike a government manufacturing sector when a manufacturing industry collapses only a small portion of the total manufacturing investment is lost, the rest of the investment is still out there gaining capital and accounting for the shortfall.

Thirdly, governments are FAR worse at allocating resources than the vast web of supply and demand, just do some research on the USSR manufacturing sector, it was a complete fucking joke, seriously you'll laugh out loud when you hear about the blunders.

or providing healthcare for all?

Kills competition which in turn limits growth and innovation and keeps prices rising (through ever increasing taxes) not to mention the government bureaucracy is more inefficient with resources and public health systems worldwide have huge problems with retaining quality staff.

If the government's hand in healthcare is so goddamn terrible, then why do we have government at all?

It's not 'goddamn terrible' it's just worse than individual health insurance.

And how the hell do you get from "government healthcare sucks" to "no government"?

We need the government to provide defence, law and order, represent us on an international stage, look after the essential infrastructure and provide services that are needed but not possibly profitable.

The only difference between local and federal governments is size. The size of the federal goverment makes it no less corrupt outside of those who choose to corrupt it.

Yes it does, the bigger the government the more power it has and the more potential there is for abuse, these potential opportunities for abuse create more motivation for unethical corporations to take advantage of the system and also increases the number of people that it is possible to corrupt.

I understand that you're not a libertarian, but many of your arguements certainly sound libertarian.

There are no individual "libertarian" arguments any more than there are individual "socialist" arguments, it's the accumulation of positions that defines what your political label is. I'm not a Libertarian because I'm not far enough to the right (slightly) and not as anarchistic/minarchistic as they are (more significantly), I'm pretty damn close though, when it comes to the free market especially, we really only disagree about what should be taken completely out of the market.

In any case, I completely disagree that only the poor should get government healthcare (and my arguements to private v public education is mirrored with this arguement) because healthcare should be a right and not a privilage.

A right? Why? Where do these rights come from? How are they not arbitrary constraints?

And no less people are covered in my way of doing things, the burden is simply moved from the inefficient government spending to personal spending.

This isn't to say that I don't think private healthcare providers should exist,

If everyone is already buying healthcare through taxes they can't exist.

but I don't think your financial capabilities should be a stopping point to getting all the healthcare you need, when you need it.

Neither do I, I simply think that because it is FAR more resource effective to spend the money personally we should do so.

The very definition of 'freest possible' includes the right to health and education.

No it doesn't. The only freedoms that exist are "Free from" freedoms. Freedom is being free from a constraint that would otherwise be imposed upon you - Forcing someone to buy healthcare is not a freedom, it is a constraint.

So, in conclusion, I do believe that the path to being a free and definatively a prosperous nation MUST include free healthcare and education, or something as close as possible to that.

Bollocks, freedom is about not being imposed upon, not being required to buy healthcare, not having unnecessary taxes imposed upon you so that you are free to spend your productivity as you like, free to make your own decisions in ALL areas of your life and to do so without punishment so long as you do not impose yourself on the freedoms of others.

I don't understand where you draw a distinction between providing protection and dispensing justice.

Protection is before the fact, punishment is after the fact.

This is generally how justice is dispensed once a criminal has committed a crime.

Justice =/= protection.

Prevention generally involves enforcement of laws.

No, not unless that law demands you do some action x to avoid consequence y, like wearing a bike helmet, and even then the enforcement of the law is a punishment for not following the rules intended to protect, it's sort of the same as the difference between regulation and punishment, a regulation is before the fact.

Perhaps I was using the wrong term - assuming 'protection' meant like how the police protect a witness by having escorts and watches around to prevent harm to this person.

No, that example is valid.

What I meant is 'protection' by way of enforcement of laws.

Protection by way of deterrent? "I am deterred from committing act x by fear of punishment y"

For example, Obama did pass a law that's supposed to protect credit card and bank customers from certain abuses they impose on their customers (spiking interest rates, predatory banking fees). As someone who has had to pay hundreds of dollars in fees for using my debit card to buy candy bars and other minor items, I can't say enough good things about this particular interferance in the US economy and business practices.

You might have a good point depending on the specifics.

If it was a case of you signing an agreement without paying attention to the details I can sympathise but it's ultimately your fault. Private companies are NOT obligated to provide you ANYTHING at the price you want to pay, they set their prices to satisfy demand and by agreeing to those terms it's your responsibility. You should have taken a loan instead or looked for a credit line with better rates.

If it was a case of the credit card company misleading customers with hidden terms or obfuscation then it's a case of corporate fraud and they should have been arrested and forced to refund all fees and pay retribution.

If it was a case of credit companies price fixing to eliminate competition while lying about being competitive it was also corporate fraud and they should again be arrested and forced to refund the fees and pay retribution.

Again, it depends on the circumstances. Regulation in this case is still less effective than strict and thorough punishments for offenders, it's both a cost to the taxpayer and a cost that the ethical companies will have to pass on, raising the cost of taking out even good lines of credit.

Isofar as social legislation, I believe the government should have minimal interference here precisely because there's nothing to regulate that would have any benefit the way preventing overly harmful monopolies would be a boon to what should be a thriving civilization.

Except they don't just take down the harmful ones with their blanket regulations, they impact on the non-coercive monopolies too, the ones who have the entire market not because of price fixing or force or fraud or coercion, but because they have secured the customer demand - There is nothing wrong with that.

Which is to say that preventing gays from marrying or allowing them to marry would have no effect on society other than affecting the relative freedoms of its constituancy negatively through its restriction and positively through its allowance of gay marriage.

Agreed.

Since allowing individuals to have rights requires no laws or regulations, then clearly a free soecity would have minimal influence here.

It does require laws so far as making it illegal to use force, fraud, coercion or neglecting your responsibilities, they are the only types of laws you need.

That minimal influence would, however, have to come in the form of laws protecting victims of crime by those who would use their freedoms and rights to harm another's freedoms and rights. This very act, in and of itself, would be a restriction of freedoms. I can't dump my trash just anywhere, for example.

Right because it's negligent.

The same concept applies to the economy. You've been arguing for minimal influence on the economy, but the vast majority of the regulations you've been railing against and siding with are all designed to ultimately do the same thing.

But they don't just punish for thwarting freedoms, they take an active role in manipulating the markets and the money supply controlling the direction of the market which is usually disastrous, it's what cause the dotcom, NASDAQ and hosing bubble which led to massive stimulus and bailouts which lead to debt which led to the Fed going through QE1 & 2 printing more money to buy the debt of the US government that, because the USD is the global reserve currency, forced the other nations to also print money (which devalues the dollar and increases prices) in order to keep their currency at the same level relative to the dollar so their exports don't suffer, this increases the global money supply which allows nations to bid up prices on commodities like oli, gas, corn, wheat, beef etc which causes the cost of living to rise: The government and Fed caused this global inflation which is BY FAR the biggest burden on the working man GLOBALLY.

SEE: http://fetch.noxsolutions.com/schiff/aud...022811.mp3

Regulation also harms many more ethical companies than it prevents unethical ones, it burdens them with an extra cost of doing business that is ultimately seen as an increase in prices and a lack of capital for investment resulting in less jobs. That is something that 1) Increases the cost of living 2) Increases the burden on the taxpayer for both the cost of regulators AND the cost of supporting more unemployed people.

It is more effective to have harsher punishment for those that do wrong than it is to regulate the markets which are far too dynamic, complicated and adaptive for any government can deal with.

*This seems like it's just going to repeat, if there is anything specific you want me to answer from below post it in your next reply*