Why libertarianism FAILS.

ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
Why libertarianism FAILS.

 Quite simply, it ignores that everyone is part of a society and that they are responsible to eachother to make the society work.

 

The only libertarian utopia in the world right now is Somalia.

 

 

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
aiia wrote:ClockCat

Quote:

aiia wrote:

 

 

ClockCat wrote:

 

 I think EXC is arguing for a gun ban.

 

 

I think you're trolling

 

I think EXC is, but you're the moderator.  Not to cause a ruckus, but are you pointing that out for shits-and-giggles or were you going to somehow reprimand ClockCat's behavio

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:o

aiia wrote:

ClockCat wrote:

 I think EXC is arguing for a gun ban.

I think you're trolling

 

Hardly. His argument is comprised of a fear of "men with guns". I am taking the logical followup to that.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

aiia wrote:

ClockCat wrote:

Public goods that are privatized only hurt societies.

 

What public goods?

Are you talking about water, air, parks, wild game, ice, ...what? What "public good" has been privatized?

 

Quote:
I stand by this. No one has said anything to disprove this to date, and all evidence seems to lead to support this statement.

 

lol This sounds familiar.

Do you remember, "No one has disproved "god" to date, and all the evidence seems to lead to support it"? 

Which fallacy is being made here, clock? Do you even know? Do you even care?

 

 

The red herring you just threw you mean? How can you even compare a sound argument to a fallacious one about a being that may or may not exist? Where have I made an argument that others have to disprove the existence of anything I made up?

 

I fully supported my argument earlier in the thread. I was simply summarizing it again, since it has gone on for 7 pages. If you want to take part in the discussion feel free, but please CONTRIBUTE to it.  

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
Thomathy wrote:[mod

Thomathy wrote:

[mod -deleted]

[read the rules]

That might be the first and last time I ever have something I've written deleted here.  What a crock of shit.


 

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:o

Thomathy wrote:

Thomathy wrote:

[mod -deleted]

[read the rules]

That might be the first and last time I ever have something I've written deleted here.  What a crock of shit.

 

 

 

 I did not see it before (I'm guessing aiia) deleted it. Why was it deleted?

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat wrote:Thomathy

[MOD - The rules read: Do not post your gripes about moderation]

Incidentally, I agree very strongly, as I ever have over this particular issue regarding libertarianism, with Eloise, whom I think elegantly lays out an excellent cooperative system.  Can we get the thread back on track now?

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
aiia wrote:ClockCat

aiia wrote:

ClockCat wrote:

Public goods that are privatized only hurt societies.

 

What public goods?

Are you talking about water, air, parks, wild game, ice, ...what? What "public good" has been privatized?

Well, you could google "companies purchasing water rights" or "water privatization" to get some stuff that has already happened. Privatizing the parks seems to be in the planning stages at present

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat wrote:aiia

ClockCat wrote:

aiia wrote:

ClockCat wrote:

 I think EXC is arguing for a gun ban.

I think you're trolling

 

Hardly. His argument is comprised of a fear of "men with guns". I am taking the logical followup to that.

It is obvious he was not arguing for banning guns. you are trolling

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:I

edit: doublepost.


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:I

jcgadfly wrote:

aiia wrote:

ClockCat wrote:

Public goods that are privatized only hurt societies.

 

What public goods?

Are you talking about water, air, parks, wild game, ice, ...what? What "public good" has been privatized?

Well, you could google "companies purchasing water rights" or "water privatization" to get some stuff that has already happened. Privatizing the parks seems to be in the planning stages at present

 

The water rights for the state I am in are owned privately. For the entire state.

 

Besides that, anything that helps the public as a whole is a public good. Things that increase the public welfare, and thereby improve society. Like libraries, schools, roads, basic heathcare, fire departments, basic communications (phone, internet), etc. 

 

Basically, it is anything that when privatized would directly pit private gain vs public welfare. This asks for problems. Public goods need to be publicly owned. If it is required to function normally in society, then it should be owned by the public. 

 

Everything else is fine as private. Just not what is needed to function in society. Removing the ability to function properly in society from part of the population drags down the whole society to that level, and makes a VERY clear class divide that becomes harder and harder to breach with time. Things that should be a "given" are not. You have people that are less and less able to correctly participate and contribute to development. Be it from hunger, disease, disability, lack of education, overrun roadways..they all function to remove people that could otherwise be effective participants in society.

 

They keep patching up the problems of privatization with public goods by making new problems, when this is the clear issue from what I can see at the heart of it. If increased profits take directly from the public welfare, then the problems are compounded without corruption even being a factor. 

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:o

aiia wrote:

ClockCat wrote:

aiia wrote:

ClockCat wrote:

 I think EXC is arguing for a gun ban.

I think you're trolling

 

Hardly. His argument is comprised of a fear of "men with guns". I am taking the logical followup to that.

It is obvious he was not arguing for banning guns. you are trolling

From what I can see his arguments revolve around that. He constantly makes references to "the men with guns" fearfully, so the simple solution is to remove the guns. Threat gone.

 

Now, are you going to contribute to this thread or make accusations? I would rather this not be derailed anymore.

 

Hoping you see the reason in that, thanks in advance. Smiling

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3139
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat wrote: I think EXC

ClockCat wrote:

 I think EXC is arguing for a gun ban.

How do you ban guns without sending in MWGs to take people's guns away? So you must have guns to enforce a universal ban on guns(or weapons). So it seems this would be impossible and illogical. Everyone would have to simultaneously give up their guns voluntarily. If the world ever got to be a place ruled by reason instead of the gun, the only use for guns would be to prevent others from using deadly force.

My argument is that if a political position is rational, it should amount to a minimal amount of having to use deadly force. Also, we should get ride of all the political BS and cut to the chase with any political position: What do you want MWGs to force on people? My answer is only preventing others from using deadly force.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7523
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Thomathy wrote:Thomathy

Thomathy wrote:

Thomathy wrote:

[mod -deleted]

[read the rules]

That might be the first and last time I ever have something I've written deleted here.  What a crock of shit.

 

Thomathy, I just recently was able to get to the bottom of this.  I don't think the rules should be applied in that way, especially towards you.  I've always considered you a very valuable member of the community.  As you know going way back with some posts I've featured from you.  Please accept my apologies, sorry for any frustration you felt.  I've restored the content to it's original state, but I do agree let's get back to the topic at hand.  

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
Thank you, Brian.EXC, you're

Thank you, Brian.

EXC, you're preference would be a government that did nothing but police?

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10687
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"You want to make changes to

"You want to make changes to the current laws to have your socialist utopia."

Love the subtle strawman of utopia there, since I never suggested it would be a utopia. Simply a more rational and effecient strategy.

"How can I go to a lawyer to know what's in your mind?"

Why should you go to a lawyer at all? For one thing, his knowledge of how law is wouldn't help you. For another, I'm not trying to do this by tomorrow. The strategy needs time for you right wingers to accept a few basic realities before discussions on actually implementing it can take place. Or an army to wipe you out of the picture, I suppose. But using an army would be counter to the very concept, and potentially damage it beyond repair. So I go with time. As such, I literally have no reason at all to compile a book of law for a society that, while as inevitable as human prosperity, is unlikely to begin to exist in my lifetime.

The rest of your post continues your tradition of making shit up, so I'll ignore it.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10687
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"I think that ZuS's

"I think that ZuS's mandated, choice-free and voluntary cooperation-free version of socialism is a guns to the head kind of deal. I can not imagine a government that "IN PRACTICE SECURE[s]" a total ban on the private ownership and management of businesses that isn't extremely oppressive. On the exact opposite side of the spectrum, Vastet's socialism is a voluntary "help each other out" kind of deal. Which is it socialists?"

Actually, from what I can tell, we're talking about the same thing.

" If I started a private business that lacked worker ownership or management would the police raid my home and imprison me? "

How are you going to start a business in the first place? Society owns buildings, resources, and land. You have nothing with which to start a business. If you think a specific service or commodity is needed in your area, you apply to start one. If it works, congrats. But you don't own it anymore than your neighbour does.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10687
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
If you are hoarding the

If you are hoarding the fruits of society, which would be theft, then yeah, you're going to jail.

"Or will I merely have the choice to cooperate with this socialist future society and have the choice to refuse to cooperate and engage in private business with others who refuse to cooperate with the socialist arrangement?"

You don't like it then leave. You don't leave then welcome to your cell.

"Some people here seem to be 'gun to the head' and 'I wish that there was a government ban on private enterprise' kind of socialsts and some seem to be happy, friendly 'let's all voluntarily work together for everyone's benefit' socialists. So which would a socialist future be: USSR-style worker counsels mandating actions or smurfs-style everyone helping out the community?"

Both. Eye-wink

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10687
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
double post

double post

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
One man's theft is another

One man's theft is another man's being rewarded for his success, eh EXC?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


bpwaddell
bpwaddell's picture
Posts: 46
Joined: 2009-10-29
User is offlineOffline
Somalian pirates we!

Brilliant !..

 


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3139
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Thomathy wrote:Thank you,

Thomathy wrote:

Thank you, Brian.

EXC, you're preference would be a government that did nothing but police?

I would prefer a government that does nothing but manage and provide incentives to solve problems. There is no reason the actual police could not be made up of volunteer citizens and private security companies with managers directly responsible to the citizens/voters. The idea being you pay for the service you actually require. So if you own a bar where your patrons are continually disturbing the peace, you would pay more than say a beauty salon.

The reason we need such a large police force is that the same people continually re-offend and they are never required to pay for the police services need to keep them in line.

There is no reason especially with modern technology all services could not be made pay as you go. And if people rich or poor continually avoid paying, society must deal with them so they are forced to pay or denied service.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3139
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: How are you

Vastet wrote:
How are you going to start a business in the first place? Society owns buildings, resources, and land. You have nothing with which to start a business. If you think a specific service or commodity is needed in your area, you apply to start one. If it works, congrats. But you don't own it anymore than your neighbour does.

OK. I agree with you. But the socialists never want to tax people based on their usage of resources and land. Why are so many socialists enamored with progressive income tax, profit tax, sales tax and VAT? Why not just a natural resource usage tax and service tax for things like roads, water, police, fire that can be privatized in many cases?

Imagine if the post office didn't require any postage, one could just drop a package off and it would be delivered no postage required. The post office would get its operating budget by sending everyone a bill they must pay based on their income. Some would pay nothing, others would pay way more than the service they used. Imagine if we did the same with gasoline? Made it free if you're low income, pay 100x what you use if you're rich. How much inefficiency, waste and laziness would that encourage?

There often is very little correlation between income and natural resource usage. For example software development, sure you need an office and some utilities, but that's about it. But socialist don't seem to mind taxing their income at 60% or more. We want to encourage businesses with low resource usage and and low impact on the environment. Pay as you go is the most efficient system. The poor can be dealt with through social programs, education and charity. We don't need to have an insane economic system to accommodate them.

http://divisionoflabour.com/archives/004246.php

And of course technology will allow people to be free from socialist economics if tax the system ever gets too insane.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/floating-city2.htm

 

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:And if people rich

EXC wrote:
And if people rich or poor continually avoid paying, society must deal with them so they are forced to pay or denied service.
Like ...forced by men with guns?  And what do you mean by denied service?  I'm having a hard time imagining this.  Do you mean that if someone is robbing them or assaulting them or anything then those who don't pay won't be helped and those who commit crimes against those who don't pay won't be punished, seeing as how they're committing crimes against those 'outside' the system?


 

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3139
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Thomathy wrote:EXC wrote:And

Thomathy wrote:

EXC wrote:
And if people rich or poor continually avoid paying, society must deal with them so they are forced to pay or denied service.
Like ...forced by men with guns?  And what do you mean by denied service?  I'm having a hard time imagining this.  Do you mean that if someone is robbing them or assaulting them or anything then those who don't pay won't be helped and those who commit crimes against those who don't pay won't be punished, seeing as how they're committing crimes against those 'outside' the system? 

Unfortunately guns are unavoidable, if you don't oppose people with guns with other guns, then you're slaves to the people with guns.

We already have a system that pretty much works this way so why is it hard to imagine? If you live in a rich community, the police are going to have more resources. We don't commit a lot a resources to solving crimes if the person is poor or not of the right status or race. This is just driven by cold hard economics and politics. I don't see how we can force rich communities to pay for the poor communities to have the same quality of service.

We can't just subsidize everyone's heating bill, the threat of being cut off from service is the only thing that makes people pay. So the same thing much be true for other services. But if a society has good education, rehab and limits on population growth, there would be few people that could not afford to pay for services if they wanted to work.

Basically what you're saying is the education and social services have failed the poor so let's just give them a minimal amount to live and some level of police services. Why not fix these problems through incentives instead of giving into police union demands and supporting a justice system that does not rehabilitate? Why not make the people that offend pay up if they ever want their freedom?

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:Thomathy

EXC wrote:

Thomathy wrote:

Thank you, Brian.

EXC, you're preference would be a government that did nothing but police?

I would prefer a government that does nothing but manage and provide incentives to solve problems. There is no reason the actual police could not be made up of volunteer citizens and private security companies with managers directly responsible to the citizens/voters. The idea being you pay for the service you actually require. So if you own a bar where your patrons are continually disturbing the peace, you would pay more than say a beauty salon.

The reason we need such a large police force is that the same people continually re-offend and they are never required to pay for the police services need to keep them in line.

There is no reason especially with modern technology all services could not be made pay as you go. And if people rich or poor continually avoid paying, society must deal with them so they are forced to pay or denied service.

A government that provides incentives to solve problems? So you do want socialism?

Police "managers" responsible to voters/public? Still socialism.

Pay for the services of society you benefit from according to how much you benefit? Socialism with taxes.

I don't see any libertarianin=sm here at all...oh wait - the "forced to pay" thing - as long as you get to be in the men with guns.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3139
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:A government

jcgadfly wrote:

A government that provides incentives to solve problems? So you do want socialism?

How does one define socialism? The propaganda we get from many leftist is they want government to solve problems. Then we have high taxes for work and welfare benefits for no job skills. So it's incentivizing a continuation of the problems. I'm for education/rehab programs that actually solve the problems at lower costs. But now we are beholden to government unions, lawyer, judges, politicians, etc.. that have no incentive to change things because it would mean the end of their gravy train.

I am practical enough to understand that you can't pass out free unconditional benefits. There will be a small group of people that will refuse work/education/rehab if they can get freebies from the socialist government. There must be rules to cut benefits for all services off at some point.

jcgadfly wrote:

Police "managers" responsible to voters/public? Still socialism.

I'm for using citizens policing as much as possible. What I'm really against is having to be beholden to a police union and then have socialists tell me they work for the government and me. They work for themselves and their union. So how would privatizing police be any worse? It would mean more monopoly.

jcgadfly wrote:

Pay for the services of society you benefit from according to how much you benefit? Socialism with taxes.

What??? If I go to McDonalds, I pay for what I get no more no less, how is that socialism? They're the evil capitalists remember. There is no such thing a "services of society", individuals must work to provide you with a service, the whole society doesn't work to provide you with any services and products.

Again you have to separate what socialist propaganda is from how it is implemented. It's implementation is wealth redistribution at the point of a gun, but they continually try to obfuscate this and claim it's pay as you go and their own compassion.

The argument seem to boil down to semantics and calling things what they really are.

jcgadfly wrote:

I don't see any libertarianin=sm here at all...oh wait - the "forced to pay" thing - as long as you get to be in the men with guns.

Unfortunately, guns are unavoidable. If the the grocery store didn't at some point threaten you with a gun for taking food and not paying, everyone would loot the store. I'm willing to compromise and let a lot of people be the man with the gun. I just don't want a monopoly on this by the police unions.

What I want to distinguish are positive rights that impose a burden on someone else. Look at the leftists here, they claim health-care, food, etc.. are rights. Therefore, a person's liberty is at risk if the government doesn't provide these for free unconditionally. So they're trying to be libertarians, they just claim as rights things that impose burdens and restrictions on others. Most libertarians would say these positive rights are BS.

I claim that owning land and monopolizing natural resources for profit and not rights because they impose a burden on others. Many libertarians disagree with me and claim owning land and doing with it as you please is a right. So it seems the 'libertarian' title is pretty relative. Same with coerced or force birth control. Overpopulation imposes a lot of burdens on others, so breeding shouldn't be an unconditional right.

So I don't claim to be 'Libertarian'or 'Socialist' or anything. The meanings of these words have been so polluted by propaganda and people trying to hide their real agenda. I'm for liberty as long as it doesn't impose a lot of burdens and restrictions on others.

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:Unfortunately guns

EXC wrote:
Unfortunately guns are unavoidable, if you don't oppose people with guns with other guns, then you're slaves to the people with guns.

We already have a system that pretty much works this way so why is it hard to imagine? If you live in a rich community, the police are going to have more resources. We don't commit a lot a resources to solving crimes if the person is poor or not of the right status or race. This is just driven by cold hard economics and politics. I don't see how we can force rich communities to pay for the poor communities to have the same quality of service.

We can't just subsidize everyone's heating bill, the threat of being cut off from service is the only thing that makes people pay. So the same thing much be true for other services. But if a society has good education, rehab and limits on population growth, there would be few people that could not afford to pay for services if they wanted to work.

Basically what you're saying is the education and social services have failed the poor so let's just give them a minimal amount to live and some level of police services. Why not fix these problems through incentives instead of giving into police union demands and supporting a justice system that does not rehabilitate? Why not make the people that offend pay up if they ever want their freedom?

Actually, I was asking you questions.  I have not said anything.  You haven't actually answered my questions. 

The US does not currently have a system of law enforcement whereby people are denied the service of law (or can operate outside of the law) because they cannot pay (or people do not pay).  If indeed the US does have a system whereby the wealthy can somehow purchase better law enforcement, then I'm at a loss for words.  I don't live where you do so I am accustomed to police forces that are funded by municipalities and subsidized according to the population and the amount of crime, not the relative wealth of the population in particular areas.  It seems rather abhorrent to me to consider that some people should be better protected from crime by a service for the public good because they have more money.

I don't know, then, how you can compare heating (which is paid for individually) with a service for the public good.

Again, how do you mean for payment for policing to be forced and by whom would it be forced?  How would service be denied?

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3139
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Thomathy wrote:The US does

Thomathy wrote:

The US does not currently have a system of law enforcement whereby people are denied the service of law (or can operate outside of the law) because they cannot pay (or people do not pay).

Basically the local municipality funds the police. But if your city is broke, they obviously can't pay the police to respond. Look at Detroit now, the city is broke so they have to cut way back on the police, so a lot of crimes are not given little to any resources. It's just economics if there's no money to pay it doesn't matter what policy is.

Thomathy wrote:
  If indeed the US does have a system whereby the wealthy can somehow purchase better law enforcement, then I'm at a loss for words.

You have gated communities with private security and security equipment. And if you live in a wealth neighborhood the police have more resources. I think that's true everywhere in the world, you can buy security with money.

 

Thomathy wrote:
I don't live where you do so I am accustomed to police forces that are funded by municipalities and subsidized according to the population and the amount of crime, not the relative wealth of the population in particular areas.  It seems rather abhorrent to me to consider that some people should be better protected from crime by a service for the public good because they have more money.

Welcome to the real world. And I think in Canada too you have differing levels of police depending on how much protection the local community can afford.

Thomathy wrote:

I don't know, then, how you can compare heating (which is paid for individually) with a service for the public good.

Why is that? I don't understand why the police is a "public good" when they service individuals in need. What is a private security company then? Why isn't the gas company a service for the public good, same as a grocery store. So why don't we make these vital services then free if one can't pay?

Thomathy wrote:

Again, how do you mean for payment for policing to be forced and by whom would it be forced? 

I believe if you have a home or business, you should have the option to go with your own private security as long as they obey the law. So you wouldn't pay taxes for any public police. If you don't have good security, you would have to pay a tax to pay for public policing and fire if you pose a risk to others.

But let's say you install high tech security in your home or business, so it's much less unlikely you would ever need to call the police. But your neighbor does not. The way it is now, you both pay the same taxes, so this disincentives innovation and efficiency. It's just like if the post office just sent you a bill based on your income instead of postage for the packages you send.

Thomathy wrote:

How would service be denied?

It would work the same as insurance. You pay on regular basis for police and fire services that would be available when you call. If you don't have insurance and you then ask for police and fire services, they would send you a bill which you could try to collect from the criminals.

For the people that can't afford insurance, you get them into social services/job training programs until they can afford insurance for what they need. If they refuse these programs, service must be denied as in you're on your own to protect yourself. Some people may prefer this over having to rely on someone else. Some people would rather take the risk that they won't need police and healthcare rather than work to pay for these, why can't they make this choice?

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:Why is that? I

EXC wrote:

Why is that? I don't understand why the police is a "public good" when they service individuals in need.

What are you thinking, EXC? Police forces investigate and prosecute crime in the name of protecting the entire population of their district. It's a service to that community to ensure that the laws they depend on for security are enforced universally and thus are dependable. The police are enforcing communal law, communal will, not individual will, individuals don't get to dictate what security they receive from the police, there is no servicing of indiviual needs.

 

EXC wrote:

It would work the same as insurance. You pay on regular basis for police and fire services that would be available when you call. If you don't have insurance and you then ask for police and fire services, they would send you a bill which you could try to collect from the criminals.

 

We had that exact system here in Queensland only a few years ago, for ambulance/paramedic services. It's now been dumped and we've gone the way of other Australian States. We, now, have a universal fee attached to our electricity bills to fund the ambulance service. The reason it changed was because the old system left the ambulance service crippled from chronic underfunding, people were avoiding ambulances, visitors from other states wouldn't be insured and could drop off the radar before the bill was collected... ultimately the few actual payers left were propping up the entire state ambulance service and there just wasn't enough. Now everyone pays (and pays less the fee dropped from ~$90pa to ~$45pa) and the ambulance service is, for all foreseeable purposes, properly funded.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:Basically the

EXC wrote:

Basically the local municipality funds the police. But if your city is broke, they obviously can't pay the police to respond. Look at Detroit now, the city is broke so they have to cut way back on the police, so a lot of crimes are not given little to any resources. It's just economics if there's no money to pay it doesn't matter what policy is.

You have gated communities with private security and security equipment. And if you live in a wealth neighborhood the police have more resources. I think that's true everywhere in the world, you can buy security with money.

Yeah, Detroit is in America, where the police force obviously isn't subsidized.  That's not the case where I live. Your examples simply don't illustrate reality for me.  I've never seen a gated community anywhere I've lived.  The only place I've ever seen gated communities is around Detroit.  Further, gated communities would be protected by hired security to meet the demands of the residents who so choose to live gated, not by municipal police.  Perhaps it's different in Detroit.  The police do not have more resources in wealthy neighbourhoods here.  They have the same resources everywhere in the city, because that's how they're funded; they're municipal police.  I won't explain it again.  I'm not getting in an argument with you about our different realities.

EXC wrote:
Welcome to the real world. And I think in Canada too you have differing levels of police depending on how much protection the local community can afford.
Yeah, your world isn't mine.  Again, no, police have the same funding and the same resources across entire municipalities, not according to the relative wealth of a particular community.  I'm not going to argue about it with you.

EXC wrote:
Thomathy wrote:
I don't know, then, how you can compare heating (which is paid for individually) with a service for the public good.
Why is that? I don't understand why the police is a "public good" when they service individuals in need.
Well, they don't only service individuals in need.  They are there to stop crime in progress and to enforce the law.  Sometimes breaking the law doesn't mean helping someone in need.

Quote:
What is a private security company then?
You know very well, and it's different than a police force.  It's a company paid to provide specific security to someone who requests it and can afford it.What is a company that sells surveillance equipment?  That was a silly question to ask.

Quote:
Why isn't the gas company a service for the public good, same as a grocery store. So why don't we make these vital services then free if one can't pay?
Municipal police forces aren't provided for free and I've never said they are, so you can stop throwing up irrelevant statements and questions and red herrings whenever you like.

EXC wrote:
Thomathy wrote:
Again, how do you mean for payment for policing to be forced and by whom would it be forced?
I believe if you have a home or business, you should have the option to go with your own private security as long as they obey the law. So you wouldn't pay taxes for any public police. If you don't have good security, you would have to pay a tax to pay for public policing and fire if you pose a risk to others.
Okay, maybe the question is too difficult to understand.  I'll break it down for you.

A) How would the payment for policing be enforced?

B) By whom would the payment for policing be enforced?

EXC wrote:
But let's say you install high tech security in your home or business, so it's much less unlikely you would ever need to call the police. But your neighbor does not. The way it is now, you both pay the same taxes, so this disincentives innovation and efficiency. It's just like if the post office just sent you a bill based on your income instead of postage for the packages you send.
What?  Irrelevance, EXC.  That doesn't have anything to do with what I'm talking to you about.  And judging by the burgeoning security business (and the fact that law enforcement suits need to constantly upgrade their tools), I don't see how the current system is a disincentive for innovation.  Further, 'taxes are a disincentive for efficiency' doesn't even make sense.

EXC wrote:
Thomathy wrote:
How would service be denied?
It would work the same as insurance. You pay on regular basis for police and fire services that would be available when you call. If you don't have insurance and you then ask for police and fire services, they would send you a bill which you could try to collect from the criminals.
But that doesn't answer the question.  Service isn't being denied, you're being sent a bill for using it ...and there's no guarantee that you'd pay.  This goes back to who would enforce payment.  I'll ask the question again:

C) How would service be denied?

EXC wrote:
For the people that can't afford insurance, you get them into social services/job training programs until they can afford insurance for what they need. If they refuse these programs, service must be denied as in you're on your own to protect yourself. Some people may prefer this over having to rely on someone else. Some people would rather take the risk that they won't need police and healthcare rather than work to pay for these, why can't they make this choice?
You don't try very hard to be coherent, do you?

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
I don't think EXC quite

I don't think EXC quite understands, Eloise.

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3139
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:What are you

Eloise wrote:

What are you thinking, EXC? Police forces investigate and prosecute crime in the name of protecting the entire population of their district. It's a service to that community to ensure that the laws they depend on for security are enforced universally and thus are dependable. The police are enforcing communal law, communal will, not individual will, individuals don't get to dictate what security they receive from the police, there is no servicing of indiviual needs. 

What? The rich can hire private investigators. Banks and the rich hire extra security. Are you interested in paying for all the extra security needed for a rich bank that has lot of cash on hand? And how is a grociery store any different?

And no they are not dependable. Police unions go on strike. The police ran away after Katrina and the LA riots, can the citizens sue for thier money back as they would a business? California and many cities are broke now because of economics, so they cut way back on police and investigations.

The other think I don't get is you want the police to lock up people that don't obey the rules of society, fine. So if paying for the police is one of the rules of society, why do you support a system that allows the poor or those that fake being poor to continually not pay their share? You say if you can't pay that's OK, someone else can be force to pay your share, while you still get to be a member of society. If they refuse job training, rehab or birth control and they continue being a burden to the rest of society, aren't they acting like criiminals and not rule following members of society? So either pay your share, get into a training program so you can pay or just have society leave you alone.

Eloise wrote:

We had that exact system here in Queensland only a few years ago, for ambulance/paramedic services. It's now been dumped and we've gone the way of other Australian States. We, now, have a universal fee attached to our electricity bills to fund the ambulance service. The reason it changed was because the old system left the ambulance service crippled from chronic underfunding, people were avoiding ambulances, visitors from other states wouldn't be insured and could drop off the radar before the bill was collected... ultimately the few actual payers left were propping up the entire state ambulance service and there just wasn't enough. Now everyone pays (and pays less the fee dropped from ~$90pa to ~$45pa) and the ambulance service is, for all foreseeable purposes, properly funded.

So the problem was really the logistics of collecting the bill. So it's just easier to collect the fees this way. The gov. can cut off your electricity if you don't pay. Not a perfect system, but maybe that's the best they can do.

And why are there so many people in Queensland that can afford to buy ambulance insurance? Does the education and job training services fail to get people into jobs so they can afford this?

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3139
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Thomathy wrote:You know very

Thomathy wrote:

You know very well, and it's different than a police force.

In what way? They can carry a gun, walk a beat, make arrests, prevent crimes and investigate crimes after the fact. The only difference is they have a different beat.

Thomathy wrote:

  It's a company paid to provide specific security to someone who requests it and can afford it.

And a city hires a police union to provide specific security to the citizens who request it. If the city can't afford it(i.e. California, Detroit, etc..) they must cut way back. If I live on a cruise ship or in a gated community, the private security is the police, right? The only difference is they kick you out if you don't pay.

Thomathy wrote:

What is a company that sells surveillance equipment?  That was a silly question to ask.

Not really. I used to work for a surveillance camera company. Now with technology, we can reduce the number of police that are needed to discourage crime and catch criminals. So we could for example have 1 cop for 500 people instead of 1 for 50 with the same level of crime prevention. But guess who get gets first dibs on money from the government? We were not a recurring cost where they must pay our pensions and benefits for the rest of our lives. But we'd only get crumbs from the public treasury. We had to rely on private money for income. We only got public business after a horrific crime occurs and people realize that cameras could have prevented or caught the criminal.

Thomathy wrote:

Municipal police forces aren't provided for free and I've never said they are, so you can stop throwing up irrelevant statements and questions and red herrings whenever you like.

Under the current system, the services are free if you can avoid paying sales and income tax. And individuals and businesses pay nearly nothing but received a lot of service. That's just a statement of fact.

Thomathy wrote:

A) How would the payment for policing be enforced?

B) By whom would the payment for policing be enforced?

Same as any other business, you don't pay, you don't get service. Convicted criminals must pay off the costs of their arrest in work camps before being released. If you own a home or business that becomes a nuisance to others, you get a bill, you don't pay the bill, men with guns come and take your property.

Thomathy wrote:

I don't see how the current system is a disincentive for innovation.  Further, 'taxes are a disincentive for efficiency' doesn't even make sense.

Because if the consumer is not paying the bill for the service directly, they have no incentive to look for the best service at the best price. Therefore little if any innovation and cost reductions.

The current system is designed to provide good pay, benefits, pensions and job security to police unions, lawyers, judges, prison guards, etc... Not to actually solve the crime problem.

Thomathy wrote:

C) How would service be denied?

There would be a small security management group that would be directly accountable to the citizens/voters. So these managers would be hired and fired at will. They would certify private companies that could be hired by an individual or business for security or investigation. They would put a bounty on catching criminals. You could either pay these companies like insurance or after the fact. To visit public place, one would pay a user fee part of which would go to security. We already do this in our state and national parks, public roads. Just extend this to all public areas.

Now for people that don't have money to pay. You send a social worker to find out what the problem is. Then the social worker gets them what they need to enable them to get a job to buy the services they require. This may be education, drug treatment, day care, medical treatment, etc... But if you tell the social worker to "fuck off, I'm not working, getting job training or using birth control", then you are told you're on your own then, no free services. And if you become a nuisance or burden to others, you go to a work camp or jail, that are also privately run rather than government union monopoly.

Thomathy wrote:

You don't try very hard to be coherent, do you?

The problem you have is that you can't imagine a society where personal responsibility is required of all members. You're OK with a system that let's people take advantage of having other people pay for their services. You claim we claim you want this great society where we all take care of each other, but then there is no requirement that an individual should ever contribute anything to receive benefits, so to me this logic is incoherent.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:Eloise wrote:What

EXC wrote:

Eloise wrote:

What are you thinking, EXC? Police forces investigate and prosecute crime in the name of protecting the entire population of their district. It's a service to that community to ensure that the laws they depend on for security are enforced universally and thus are dependable. The police are enforcing communal law, communal will, not individual will, individuals don't get to dictate what security they receive from the police, there is no servicing of indiviual needs. 

What? The rich can hire private investigators. Banks and the rich hire extra security.

Those are private services, and in those cases the individual gets to pick and choose the service they receive in detailed form.

EXC wrote:

Are you interested in paying for all the extra security needed for a rich bank that has lot of cash on hand? And how is a grociery store any different?

You will have to rephrase this, I can't make out what you're trying to say.

EXC wrote:

And no they are not dependable. Police unions go on strike. The police ran away after Katrina and the LA riots, can the citizens sue for thier money back as they would a business? California and many cities are broke now because of economics, so they cut way back on police and investigations.

Yep there are problems with the system in your country, and sometimes in mine too, but we were speaking inprinciple, if you recall. You asked what in principle was different between private protection/security and a public police force, and I gave you the difference.

A separate principle speaks to the issue of an under-performing public police force ie the one where the Police force is managed by representatives periodically elected by the people who depend on the service. A failure to properly equip, train, hire... et al management responsibilities, that results in a problem for the public is in principle, soluble via changing the management in elections. Again there are problems in practice, but if you're asking for the difference in principle between this and a change of management in private business it's pretty clear what that is, don't you think?

EXC wrote:

The other think I don't get is you want the police to lock up people that don't obey the rules of society, fine. So if paying for the police is one of the rules of society, why do you support a system that allows the poor or those that fake being poor to continually not pay their share?

Because it makes perfect sense if you're not totally hung up on money being the only and primary thing of any value in a society, but you are so I guess you may never get it.

 

EXC wrote:

If they refuse job training, rehab or birth control and they continue being a burden to the rest of society, aren't they acting like criiminals and not rule following members of society? So either pay your share, get into a training program so you can pay or just have society leave you alone.

EXC there are a lot of reasons people are poor, and laziness is not even a major one so just give it up and do some deeper reading into the sociology that you are trying to use to make this argument. You're just using some insidious propaganda here, do you know that?

 

EXC wrote:

So the problem was really the logistics of collecting the bill. So it's just easier to collect the fees this way.

No, the reasons were

1. The old system had been chronically underfunded for years and was operating skeletally;

2. Migration from the south exponentiated the demand on the old system and it needed a massive upgrade;

3. People from the south were long accustomed to paying for their ambulance service in state taxes and asked for it to be changed.

EXC wrote:

The gov. can cut off your electricity if you don't pay.

That's not the reason for it being on the Electricity Bill. It's there so that the fee is collected per household, and because the electricity companies already have means to extend concessions to those who need it.

EXC wrote:

And why are there so many people in Queensland that can afford to buy ambulance insurance?

Queensland was a country state and most of the people in it lived happily and cpomfortably on fairly meagre means for decades. Recently a massive influx of people from the southern states changed that reality drastically and quickly. Prices of almost everything tripled in less than 10 years due to the massive increase of demand and wages lagged behind for a good while as this was happening.  Basically all services started failing due to the speedy rise in population here and all people found their pockets emptier very quickly.  The state is still in the process of adjusting to it's new, much larger, population.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3139
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:Those are

Eloise wrote:

Those are private services, and in those cases the individual gets to pick and choose the service they receive in detailed form.

Aren't the citizens supposed to choose what service they receive from the police in a democracy? I don't see any difference except public policing is designed so that those that can pay supplement those that can't pay. I'm just saying let's try to have a society where everyone pays.

Eloise wrote:

You will have to rephrase this, I can't make out what you're trying to say.

If you think having the treasury pay for all policing in a society is a good idea, why do the banks have to hire extra security guards? Why doesn't the government provide the extra police they need for their business for free? Isn't that your idea of things just send in police wherever we want to prevent crime.

My point is you probably have a problem with the police being used to beef up a rich bank's security, but you have no problem using the police to beef up security in a poor neighborhood at the rich neighborhoods expense, right? So it seems the real agenda is wealth redistribution just as in socialized medicine.

Eloise wrote:

A separate principle speaks to the issue of an under-performing public police force ie the one where the Police force is managed by representatives periodically elected by the people who depend on the service. A failure to properly equip, train, hire... et al management responsibilities, that results in a problem for the public is in principle, soluble via changing the management in elections. Again there are problems in practice, but if you're asking for the difference in principle between this and a change of management in private business it's pretty clear what that is, don't you think?

But if your grocery store is under performing, you go to another. We don't have that option when were force to pay for a police union monopoly. The biggest problem we have in California is we don't get good value over the long run for the police. Taxpayers are force to pay ridiculous pensions, health care and other benefits for a long time for every officer. It's kind of a racket and it's help bankrupt our state.

Eloise wrote:

Because it makes perfect sense if you're not totally hung up on money being the only and primary thing of any value in a society, but you are so I guess you may never get it. 

I'm not hung up on money. I think it's a shame we moved away from individuals and communities doing their own volunteer policing and fire protection. The government unions and socialist that insist on taxing anyone with money are the ones that seem hung up on it. I believe because we are hung up on what money can buy that we become slave to the healthcare industry, police/fire unions.

Eloise wrote:

EXC there are a lot of reasons people are poor, and laziness is not even a major one so just give it up and do some deeper reading into the sociology that you are trying to use to make this argument. You're just using some insidious propaganda here, do you know that?

I agree. That's why I support a system where anyone is so poor they can't pay for security and health care can be evaluated by a social worker. They can get them what they need to get out of poverty which may be counseling, education, rehab, birth control, etc... What I don't support is a system that enables and encourages people to stay in poverty and continually take more than they would ever give back.

EXC wrote:

1. The old system had been chronically underfunded for years and was operating skeletally;

Because they couldn't collect the bill. And you have a lot of poor people without insurance.

EXC wrote:

2. Migration from the south exponentiated the demand on the old system and it needed a massive upgrade;

Doesn't that argue then for mandatory birth controls and programs to get people out of poverty?

EXC wrote:

3. People from the south were long accustomed to paying for their ambulance service in state taxes and asked for it to be changed.

Maybe that part of what attracted them to QL. They could get other people to pay for their services, so life was better for the poor in QL. So you offer people a free lunch and then you're all surprised when a lot of people show up for it?

EXC wrote:

That's not the reason for it being on the Electricity Bill. It's there so that the fee is collected per household, and because the electricity companies already have means to extend concessions to those who need it.

Then why not just send it as a separate bill? I think the idea was pay or we shut your electricity off. Maybe free electricity is another reason a lot of poor people moved to QL. In California, we have people with high tax bills and businesses moving out. But people come and stay for the entitlements and government benefits, so we're broke.

EXC wrote:

Queensland was a country state and most of the people in it lived happily and cpomfortably on fairly meagre means for decades.

Probably much like the American west, rugged individuals. The first settlers didn't demand tons of services from the government. They were responsible for their own security. They didn't say I can't live without expensive police and health care.

EXC wrote:

Recently a massive influx of people from the southern states changed that reality drastically and quickly. Prices of almost everything tripled in less than 10 years due to the massive increase of demand and wages lagged behind for a good while as this was happening.  Basically all services started failing due to the speedy rise in population here and all people found their pockets emptier very quickly.  The state is still in the process of adjusting to it's new, much larger, population.

What do you expect when you offer people a free lunch and no mandatory birth control?

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:Thomathy wrote:You

EXC wrote:

Thomathy wrote:

You know very well, and it's different than a police force.

In what way? They can carry a gun, walk a beat, make arrests, prevent crimes and investigate crimes after the fact. The only difference is they have a different beat.

No, they can't carry guns.  They can detain people, but not make arrests, the can prevent crimes and they can't investigate crimes (at least not to any useful degree).  (I don't know what 'walk a beat' is.)  Apparently, it's different in the States.

Quote:
And a city hires a police union to provide specific security to the citizens who request it. If the city can't afford it(i.e. California, Detroit, etc..) they must cut way back. If I live on a cruise ship or in a gated community, the private security is the police, right? The only difference is they kick you out if you don't pay.
Irrelevant.  I've already told you that our realities are different and that I wouldn't argue with you about it.  A hired security company does not equal the police.

 

EXC wrote:
Thomathy wrote:

Municipal police forces aren't provided for free and I've never said they are, so you can stop throwing up irrelevant statements and questions and red herrings whenever you like.

Under the current system, the services are free if you can avoid paying sales and income tax. And individuals and businesses pay nearly nothing but received a lot of service. That's just a statement of fact.

That's a lie.  Everyone pays tax so that the level of service can be funded.  Everyone has access to the same level of service.  It's impossible to avoid paying tax.

EXC wrote:
Thomathy wrote:

A) How would the payment for policing be enforced?

Same as any other business, you don't pay, you don't get service.
Alright, what about in cases of missing people or murders?  Who picks up the bill to cover the investigations and the searches?

EXC wrote:
Convicted criminals must pay off the costs of their arrest in work camps before being released.
I don't know what to say to this.

EXC wrote:
Thomathy wrote:
B) By whom would the payment for policing be enforced?
If you own a home or business that becomes a nuisance to others, you get a bill, you don't pay the bill, men with guns come and take your property.
There's still men with guns forcing people to pay for services they may not want.  How can anyone operate outside this system, then?  Earlier you said there may be people who choose not to pay for policing (or fire) services.  What incentive could there possibly be for a private agency to go after someone who never paid for their services and if, say, that person had committed a murder, anonymously, how could they be found and to whom would they answer, especially given the possibility that there would be several private agencies at work all paid by different people with varying levels of service and clearly different agendas?  I'm just not seeing how the rule of law would be kept in a system whereby people are paying for service as they go or for particular services to serve their own agendas.

EXC wrote:
Thomathy wrote:

I don't see how the current system is a disincentive for innovation.  Further, 'taxes are a disincentive for efficiency' doesn't even make sense.

Because if the consumer is not paying the bill for the service directly, they have no incentive to look for the best service at the best price. Therefore little if any innovation and cost reductions.

The current system is designed to provide good pay, benefits, pensions and job security to police unions, lawyers, judges, prison guards, etc... Not to actually solve the crime problem.

I'm afraid that doesn't mean your proposed system is better.  The current system could be managed to help solve the crime problem.  The current system, however, deals with crime after the fact and not before it.  There is no mandate for the justice system to solve the problems of poverty or the other factors that encourage and lead to crime.

Thomathy wrote:

C) How would service be denied?

There would be a small security management group that would be directly accountable to the citizens/voters. So these managers would be hired and fired at will. They would certify private companies that could be hired by an individual or business for security or investigation. They would put a bounty on catching criminals. You could either pay these companies like insurance or after the fact. To visit public place, one would pay a user fee part of which would go to security. We already do this in our state and national parks, public roads. Just extend this to all public areas.

Entirely unnecessary, you're essentially replacing the blanket and minuscule universal tax for these services with a more explicit and larger personal payment.  I fail to see how your system could be of benefit.  Such a system might, in fact, suffer from underfunding.

EXC wrote:
Now for people that don't have money to pay. You send a social worker to find out what the problem is. Then the social worker gets them what they need to enable them to get a job to buy the services they require. This may be education, drug treatment, day care, medical treatment, etc... But if you tell the social worker to "fuck off, I'm not working, getting job training or using birth control", then you are told you're on your own then, no free services. And if you become a nuisance or burden to others, you go to a work camp or jail, that are also privately run rather than government union monopoly.
So, people don't actually have a choice but to pay for the system, and they would end up paying a larger sum than the taxes they're currently charged which pays for a well-funded system that does what it is mandated to do?  Never mind how it is that the social worker gets paid or the myriad other problems I've discovered in this system.  I'm sure you could think of a contingency for every possibility, but your proposed system is essentially a pipe dream and well that it is.

EXC wrote:
Thomathy wrote:
You don't try very hard to be coherent, do you?
The problem you have is that you can't imagine a society where personal responsibility is required of all members. You're OK with a system that let's people take advantage of having other people pay for their services.
No, my problem is that you don't seem to be entirely sane.

EXC wrote:
You claim we claim you want this great society where we all take care of each other, but then there is no requirement that an individual should ever contribute anything to receive benefits, so to me this logic is incoherent.
I haven't made that claim, EXC, so again, stop making up positions.

I'm quite done with this.  You've once again proved that you don't want to enter into a conversation without being dishonest, misconstruing, factually inaccurate, ignorant or irrelevant.  Gosh, I've just had the strongest déjà vu.

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10687
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"But the socialists never

"But the socialists never want to tax people based on their usage of resources and land."

Many don't, but I would. Not necessarily tax, per say, but there should be some preventative measure to restrict use of resources and territories to that which is necessary for a sustainable society and the ecosystem it would by necessity depend on. In the case where damage is unavoidable, a plan should be drawn up to protect the area which is to be damaged in order to facilitate repair and reconstruction efforts after the fact, which should also be mandated.

"Why are so many socialists enamored with progressive income tax, profit tax, sales tax and VAT? Why not just a natural resource usage tax and service tax for things like roads, water, police, fire that can be privatized in many cases?"

I think many socialists haven't thought their ideas all the way through. The socialists that your standard arguments apply to would not get my support anymore than they would gain yours.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10687
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"Imagine if the post office

"Imagine if the post office ~ would that encourage?"

Lets just say the results would not be pretty.

"There often is very little correlation between income and natural resource usage. For example software development, sure you need an office and some utilities, but that's about it. But socialist don't seem to mind taxing their income at 60% or more. We want to encourage businesses with low resource usage and and low impact on the environment. Pay as you go is the most efficient system. The poor can be dealt with through social programs, education and charity. We don't need to have an insane economic system to accommodate them."

But I don't want to accomodate the poor. I'd much rather see the lowest rungs of the ladder be jumped so that the only way you can even be poor is by refusing to lift a finger. By necessity, some allowances must be made. For perfect example, children. I can't ethically support child labour for mulitple reasons. Yet they would still be afforded basic necessities at the least.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10687
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
This would be considered

This would be considered investment in the future of society, as there can hardly be a society without new generations. But once their education was completed, they'd be expected to use that education to their, and by proxy society's, benefit. If one decided for whatever reason not to work, then services and benefits of society would be removed until they decided to contribute.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:Eloise wrote:Those

EXC wrote:

Eloise wrote:

Those are private services, and in those cases the individual gets to pick and choose the service they receive in detailed form.

Aren't the citizens supposed to choose what service they receive from the police in a democracy?

Not individually. Individuals do not get to decide what is right and wrong that a police force should pursue, that is decided by a relatively constant and concise set of laws that apply , in principle, to the entire state, not a select few determined by whether they have bought their idea of security from the police guard. 

Put it this way, a private security guard which you might hire to protect your interests still must act at all times within the state law, enforced by the public police. There is your major difference illustrated EXC, the public police force is entrusted with the will of the entire state and it trumps the will of a private hirer.

EXC wrote:

I don't see any difference except public policing is designed so that those that can pay supplement those that can't pay.

No, it's designed with the intent of enforcing the collective will of the citizens uniformly across the area. Paying more if you have more is not a matter of supplementing for the sake of others who can't pay, it's a matter of supplementing for the sake of yourself because a uniformly enforced laws across your state give you comfort and make you more secure.

EXC wrote:

Eloise wrote:

You will have to rephrase this, I can't make out what you're trying to say.

If you think having the treasury pay for all policing in a society is a good idea, why do the banks have to hire extra security guards?

Oh, I see. I'm not saying state funded policing is necessarily the best idea and I never did say that, and I've said there are problems with it. But you're straying from the point again, EXC. You posed your original question as what in principle is different between private and public policing. We are talking about differences in principle, not practice.

If you want to have a discussion about differences in practice then introduce it properly and we'll discuss it. At the moment you're just conflating principle and practice in an attempt to trap me with an argument I never made.

 

 

EXC wrote:

But if your grocery store is under performing, you go to another. We don't have that option when were force to pay for a police union monopoly.

Well, yeah, you do have the choice, at least in principle. but your citizens need to make it a priority on the political agenda to retract the union powers at the root of the problem. I don't know what you're talking about, first hand, cause I'm not a US citizen. However if there is really the problem you're talking about, political action is possible if you have a democracy.

 

EXC wrote:

I'm not hung up on money.

Wow, well you really could've fooled me.

EXC wrote:

The government unions and socialist that insist on taxing anyone with money are the ones that seem hung up on it. I believe because we are hung up on what money can buy that we become slave to the healthcare industry, police/fire unions.

EXC, I live in a country with socialised health, workers unions and quite a substantial welfare system, it doesn't bother us like that.

 

EXC wrote:

I agree. That's why I support a system where anyone is so poor they can't pay for security and health care can be evaluated by a social worker. They can get them what they need to get out of poverty which may be counseling, education, rehab, birth control, etc...

You make it sound so.... cheap! LOL. Social work is generally only effective if it is ongoing for quite a substantial length of time. You seem to be entertaining the ludicrous idea that one social worker, one visit and one referral will solve a poor persons problems, I just can't laugh loud enough at that, honestly.

 

EXC wrote:

What I don't support is a system that enables and encourages people to stay in poverty and continually take more than they would ever give back.

I'm afraid that is what it takes to lift people with the usual compound issues of long term poverty out of them, they will stay in poverty and continually take more than they can give back for quite an extended period of time. Some people are poor because of short lived personal issues, but most of the poor are poor because of long entrenched and difficult to change cultural, race and gender issues. If your system is not willing to commit to generations of supporting gradual adaptation then it's not equipped to deal with poverty.

 

EXC wrote:

Eloise wrote:

2. Migration from the south exponentiated the demand on the old system and it needed a massive upgrade;

Doesn't that argue then for mandatory birth controls and programs to get people out of poverty?

I don't see how. Australia's population is quite small and was in decline at the time that this migration began.

EXC wrote:

Eloise wrote:

3. People from the south were long accustomed to paying for their ambulance service in state taxes and asked for it to be changed.

Maybe that part of what attracted them to QL.

Er, no. Actually it was more a result of a massive rush on property investment in the southern states pricing people out of them.

EXC wrote:

They could get other people to pay for their services, so life was better for the poor in QL.

No life was better because the rents and property prices were approximately a third the size of the southern states, and holding stable. In Sydney and Melbourne prices were increasing by the day.

EXC wrote:

So you offer people a free lunch and then you're all surprised when a lot of people show up for it?

Or... alternately, if you offer hungry people an affordable lunch, they'll tell their friends to come eat there.

EXC wrote:

Eloise wrote:

That's not the reason for it being on the Electricity Bill. It's there so that the fee is collected per household, and because the electricity companies already have means to extend concessions to those who need it.

Then why not just send it as a separate bill? I think the idea was pay or we shut your electricity off. Maybe free electricity is another reason a lot of poor people moved to QL.

Huh? No the electricity wasn't free.

Anyhow, if you want to know which people moved to Qld they were mostly families and investors, not poor. And there were a lot of reasons, but the property price bubbles in NSW and VIC were major ones. Not everyone moved to QLD, just the majority, and it was most likely for the climate and beaches, not for a free lunch from the state government (well.. except for the investors). Some families otherwise, moved to Tasmania, (a difficult move since you have to cross an ocean strait to get there so not many did this), and some moved to SA (probably way fewer and the reason for that is that SA has a very uncomfortable climate in most places).

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3139
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Thomathy wrote:Irrelevant. 

Thomathy wrote:

Irrelevant.  I've already told you that our realities are different and that I wouldn't argue with you about it.  A hired security company does not equal the police.

You haven't explained how. There are pleanty of municipalities not that have hired private security companies instead of unions. There are pleanty of places like cruise ships, malls, office parks that are cities unto themselves and use private security and little public policing. You're just ignoring reality.

Thomathy wrote:

That's a lie.  Everyone pays tax so that the level of service can be funded.  Everyone has access to the same level of service.  It's impossible to avoid paying tax.

What are you talking about? If you have no income you pay no income tax. You don't have money to buy anything, you pay no tax. There are huge disparities in the amount of tax people pay. Do you disagree with this statement?

Thomathy wrote:

I'm afraid that doesn't mean your proposed system is better.  The current system could be managed to help solve the crime problem.

There is no incentive to solve problems and there is no money in the budget to solve problems. Even though we had a better way through technology to reduce crime at lower costs than police unions, we were always told there was no more money in the budget after the police got theirs. This was true in good and bad economies. The only thing that can change the current system is governments going broke and being unable to raise taxes without driving taxpayers and jobs away.

But if we went to a private enterprise(i.e cruise ship, gated community) ,we could be evaluated based on a cost/benefit analysis. There we could compete with cops. Private enterprises don't even bother calling unionized companies with ridiculous pension plans.

Thomathy wrote:

So, people don't actually have a choice but to pay for the system, and they would end up paying a larger sum than the taxes they're currently charged which pays for a well-funded system that does what it is mandated to do?

Well-funded? Have you been to Detroit or California lately? Canada may be an exception for now because you still have a lot of natural resources to exploit compared to population. California used to be that way too.

Some would pay more, some would pay less. It would also change people's behaviors. For example, parks had been largely free. In California, we had a lot of illegal immigrants, drug dealers, drug user, alcoholics and homeless that would live in and spend a lot of time in are parks because they used to all be free. The people that paid high taxes didn't use them much because they became dangerous, overcrowded, kept requiring more security and maintenance. The taxpayers are forced to work more hours to pay for all the state's freebies and less time to enjoy our parks. So a lot have moved out, the state is broke and has no option but to charge people for park usage. Any other system is way too irrational to be sustained.

Thomathy wrote:

  Never mind how it is that the social worker gets paid or the myriad other problems I've discovered in this system.  I'm sure you could think of a contingency for every possibility, but your proposed system is essentially a pipe dream and well that it is.

The government should get it's funding from user fees, natural resource usage(i.e land, water usage tax, pollution tax) and fines on illegal activity. If the social workers do their job, they don't need to pay continuous benefits to people generation after generation as we do now. If we get rid of government unions and their pensions and benefits we'd have more money for this.

Also if a social worker and their employer does not produce results, they stop being hired. Under the current system, social workers, teachers, parole officers keep their jobs pretty much unconditionally, results don't seem to matter much.

Thomathy wrote:

I'm quite done with this.  You've once again proved that you don't want to enter into a conversation without being dishonest, misconstruing, factually inaccurate, ignorant or irrelevant.  Gosh, I've just had the strongest déjà vu.

We you can experience all over it again when Canada goes broke from entitlements as has California:

Accounting for California’s Suicide

Dittos to you to. I've tried to explain my position, answer any questions directly and clear up any misconceptions. I think you're like a lot of people and are brainwashed by propaganda and not used to calling things by what they really are. To you, things like the 'police' and 'fire departments' are something sacred and not to be messed with.  Why not judge things by what they actually do and the results they produce?

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3139
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:Put it this

Eloise wrote:

Put it this way, a private security guard which you might hire to protect your interests still must act at all times within the state law, enforced by the public police. There is your major difference illustrated EXC, the public police force is entrusted with the will of the entire state and it trumps the will of a private hirer.

And that's why the current system is unsustainable, one's "will" counts just as much if you pay tons of tax or no tax. The only thing that can fix this is a social system that gets people out of poverty and mandates birth control and forces the rich to pay for what they use as well.

Eloise wrote:

No, it's designed with the intent of enforcing the collective will of the citizens uniformly across the area. Paying more if you have more is not a matter of supplementing for the sake of others who can't pay, it's a matter of supplementing for the sake of yourself because a uniformly enforced laws across your state give you comfort and make you more secure.

But in practice, people just don't go to places that don't have good security. A lot of people then just want to stay in their gated communities and secured homes. This kill the economy where it's needed most. If you charged visitors to an area a security fee, like we do a parking fee, we could see previously dangerous areas with little legal business begin to flourish economically.

Eloise wrote:

Oh, I see. I'm not saying state funded policing is necessarily the best idea and I never did say that, and I've said there are problems with it.

You're not stating a standard for when a security matter should be handled by the public police and when it should be paid for by the business or individual receiving the benefit. Banks with cash on hand attract criminals, so lets just have lots of public cops protecting them. Why not just make the need for private security unnecessary altogether? Should a poor neighborhood that is ravaged by drive-by shootings hire private patrols or should the public police make this unnecessary.

I don't understand your standard for when a security matter should be private or public. Is it just if they're a rich corporation or poor and can't pay?

Eloise wrote:

But you're straying from the point again, EXC. You posed your original question as what in principle is different between private and public policing. We are talking about differences in principle, not practice.

Please explain the difference, when should a security matter be paid for with private money vs. public money.

Eloise wrote:

EXC wrote:

I'm not hung up on money.

Wow, well you really could've fooled me.

By making health-care, police, welfare and other entitlements a right, you make money the most important thing since all these "rights" cost money. I'm for letting people decide not to live a high stress life that requires a lot of money to have good health-care, police, etc... I'm for letting people be poor and happy as long as the don't bother other people. You on the other hand want to work everyone like slaves to pay off the police unions and health-care industry.

Eloise wrote:

EXC, I live in a country with socialised health, workers unions and quite a substantial welfare system, it doesn't bother us like that.

But now you're going broke and people are wondering what happened to their birthright to live in paradise.

Eloise wrote:

You make it sound so.... cheap! LOL. Social work is generally only effective if it is ongoing for quite a substantial length of time. You seem to be entertaining the ludicrous idea that one social worker, one visit and one referral will solve a poor persons problems, I just can't laugh loud enough at that, honestly.

I didn't claim it was easy. But the problem is now social workers have no stick. They can't mandate birth control, they can't threaten to cut off benefits, they can't tell people they'll go to a work camp or jail if they don't start paying for what they use. I'd only have social workers work with people that want to cooperate. Otherwise they are on their own and if they break laws it's work camp and jail. No compassion, just cold hard facts of life for people.

If you want to be compassionate, give to a charity.

Eloise wrote:

Some people are poor because of short lived personal issues, but most of the poor are poor because of long entrenched and difficult to change cultural, race and gender issues. If your system is not willing to commit to generations of supporting gradual adaptation then it's not equipped to deal with poverty.

I agree in many cases, that's why you give them an evaluation of the problem and a solution to follow. Just handing out food stamps and free electricity is just treating the symptoms, they may need rehab, counseling or education.

Eloise wrote:

I don't see how. Australia's population is quite small and was in decline at the time that this migration began.

So the population grows rapidly until resources and infrastructure limitations cause harsh misery. So the specter of Malthus is at work here. People increase in population until hardships are the only limiting factor on further growth.

Eloise wrote:

Er, no. Actually it was more a result of a massive rush on property investment in the southern states pricing people out of them.

Ah, yes. The competition for limited natural resources(i.e. land), and the system was set up to allow the rich to take advantage of a monopoly and get richer without work or risky investment. This is where I'm a leftist, don't let people get rich by taking advantage of our limited natural resources.

But how did they respond, probably with higher business and income taxes to discourage investment, innovation and work, right? Not with a tax on natural resource usage. And QL responds with free electricity, healthcare and other benefits to encourage more migration.

So, the problem is both greedy rich and greedy poor and few people willing to pay for what they actually use. The rich are entitled to land, the poor to welfare while the ship begins to sink more and more.

Eloise wrote:

Huh? No the electricity wasn't free.

You wrote it was subsidized, in my book that means part of it was free.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


The Doomed Soul
atheist
The Doomed Soul's picture
Posts: 2148
Joined: 2007-08-31
User is offlineOffline
I think that if this topic

I think that if this topic has proven anything, its that EXC should never been in charge of a country... or for that matter, any group of people... ever...

What Would Kharn Do?


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

The Doomed Soul wrote:

I think that if this topic has proven anything, its that EXC should never been in charge of a country... or for that matter, any group of people... ever...

 

I don't know..I'd like to see him in charge of a daycare..

 

 

 

 

 

:3

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


The Doomed Soul
atheist
The Doomed Soul's picture
Posts: 2148
Joined: 2007-08-31
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat wrote:I don't

ClockCat wrote:

I don't know..I'd like to see him in charge of a daycare..

 

:3

 

Sometimes you amaze me Clock...

 

 

and since i do not regard the spawn of inferior beings as people, i shall agreed with your statement aswell

What Would Kharn Do?


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:D

The Doomed Soul wrote:

ClockCat wrote:

I don't know..I'd like to see him in charge of a daycare..

 

:3

 

Sometimes you amaze me Clock...

 

 

and since i do not regard the spawn of inferior beings as people, i shall agreed with your statement aswell

 

I predict high entertainment value. That is enough for me. 

 

 

:3

 

 

Equipping them all with guns would be a logical first step. Hiring toddlers as a security force then to keep the infants in line, and guarantee naptime for the more influential crawlers seems to follow.

 

Also, food availability should be rationed through free market overinflation of prices after monopolization created by the free market guarantees no competition. The impoverished babies deserve not to eat snacks, or have diapers replaced. They have to pull themselves up by their diaperstraps and stop being so lazy to not be born into prosperity.

 

Toys will only be usable by those that can afford to get to them first, which the toddler security force (TSF) will enforce to make sure the correct group aquires all toys before and after all available naptimes. Attempt to use toys without correct authorization will result in heavy fines from the TSF, since they only represent the influential crawlers.

 

Then the babies all shoot eachother because they are babies with guns.

 

What is the lesson to be learned here?

 

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

I don't even see lines to cross most of the time.

 

Oh yeah, by the way. Xavier is coming back with new shows in December. Since we are on topic and all.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:But in practice,

EXC wrote:

But in practice, people just don't go to places that don't have good security. A lot of people then just want to stay in their gated communities and secured homes. This kill the economy where it's needed most. If you charged visitors to an area a security fee, like we do a parking fee, we could see previously dangerous areas with little legal business begin to flourish economically.

True, many people who want security don't go to areas that have greater crime incidence. It's also true that many people who want security and are law-abiding hard-working and respectable citizens don't have this option*, and furthermore it's true that you can't just ignore a problem such as criminal behaviour in the hope that it will go away, if crime is unchecked in the unsecured neighbourhoods it will grow and eventually spill over borders anyway.

 

 

*your model appears to be assuming that this group are all 'small business owners' - that is unlikely. What about employees? How do they figure in your equation?

 

EXC wrote:

You're not stating a standard for when a security matter should be handled by the public police and when it should be paid for by the business or individual receiving the benefit. Banks with cash on hand attract criminals, so lets just have lots of public cops protecting them. Why not just make the need for private security unnecessary altogether? Should a poor neighborhood that is ravaged by drive-by shootings hire private patrols or should the public police make this unnecessary.

I believe the distinction has traditionally been made between protecting the public and protecting private interests. The difference between people and property. Our private property such as banked money is primarily our own responsibility in the absence of an immediate threat thus it is not a matter for the public security force to guard it.

So the line is drawn between public and private security as to the immediacy of the threat. An immediate, ongoing threat to any persons security is a matter for the police*, pre-emptive security is a matter for the private interest.

The drive-by shooting example is a poor one, by the time there has been multiple shootings targeting a single area it would be remiss to call the threat anything but immediate/ongoing. Police patrols are called for.

*If a bank is in the process of being robbed public police will provide their services.

 

EXC wrote:

By making health-care, police, welfare and other entitlements a right, you make money the most important thing since all these "rights" cost money.

I strongly object EXC, you couldn't possibly have that more backward. If a politic stands to put rights above money isn't it by design the very antithesis of making money important?

And how, pray tell, do rights "cost money" if not for those who hold money dear and want it in return for services and provision? Rights don't cost money, they cost resources and labour we've had this discussion already in this thread. Money only enters the equation because we want to use it as a great big societal abacus for distribution, it's supposed to be a counting tool, not a means unto itself (the main, central and most pervading problem I have with capitalism is that it institutes otherwise).

 

EXC wrote:

I'm for letting people decide not to live a high stress life that requires a lot of money to have good health-care, police, etc...

Then why FFS! are you calling yourself a capitalist. What do you think increased profit is if it's not requiring a lot of money to have things? You don't honestly believe capitalism will stop being driven by the pursuit of greater and greater amounts of money from the consumer at some point do you? You have to be joking, right?

EXC wrote:

I'm for letting people be poor and happy as long as the don't bother other people.

I'm just gonna pretend you didn't just make a statement that contends strongly for the title of most bigoted arrogance I have ever read.

EXC wrote:

You on the other hand want to work everyone like slaves to pay off the police unions and health-care industry.

No, I want essential services and resources held in trust by the community. I want that when you work and get paid, even in essential services, your paycheque is for you. For your reward and for your personal pursuits. You really need to think harder about the model I am describing to you.

EXC wrote:

Eloise wrote:

EXC, I live in a country with socialised health, workers unions and quite a substantial welfare system, it doesn't bother us like that.

But now you're going broke and people are wondering what happened to their birthright to live in paradise.

Que?

Australia is doing rather well actually, we're not broke, we've actually recorded our first quarter of growth since the GFC already. And yes thanks does go to some socialist policies which helped the country stave of the worst.

 

EXC wrote:

I didn't claim it was easy. But the problem is now social workers have no stick. They can't mandate birth control,

A little draconian don't you think? How do you propose they enforce it?

EXC wrote:

they can't threaten to cut off benefits,

Who says they can't? And what good does it do to starve people anyway?

EXC wrote:

they can't tell people they'll go to a work camp or jail if they don't start paying for what they use.

There are good reasons why doing that would be nothing short of a seamless return to imperialism and race oppression, EXC. We are both settled in countries with spotty histories that haven't properly made amends yet, now's not the time to resurrect the old crimes of history's religious supremacists.

Besides, gaols are just another type of expensive welfare.... unless.... hmmm..... I don't know whether to put it past you, frankly.

 

Eloise wrote:

I agree in many cases, that's why you give them an evaluation of the problem and a solution to follow. Just handing out food stamps and free electricity is just treating the symptoms, they may need rehab, counseling or education.

Now lets get this straight EXC, OK.  Hunger is not a symptom of being poor. Why oh why do you believe all this outrageous propaganda? Please, pick up a book of biology, discover the cause of hunger from a real objective source. Feeding a hungry person is not treating a symptom of poverty issues.

Having to hand out tickets in order that people to be able to access the most basic and essential needs of life OTOH, that's symptomatic of something sick, I'll give you that.  

 

EXC wrote:

So the population grows rapidly until resources and infrastructure limitations cause harsh misery. So the specter of Malthus is at work here. People increase in population until hardships are the only limiting factor on further growth.

EXC, western populations have been declining because of a cultural shift, for decades. Where do you get this lack of infrastructure problem from?

And moreover, capitalism does not provide universal infrastructure, so if you think it's important then I think you are starting to sway left with me.

EXC wrote:

And QL responds with free electricity, healthcare and other benefits to encourage more migration.

......


You wrote it was subsidized, in my book that means part of it was free.

You must be mistaken EXC. I never wrote anything about electricity being subsidised or free in Queensland. Show me where.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3139
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
The Doomed Soul wrote:I

The Doomed Soul wrote:

I think that if this topic has proven anything, its that EXC should never been in charge of a country... or for that matter, any group of people... ever...

I don't want to be in charge of anything. This was supposed to be 'rational responders' but it seems more like fantasy island where all the problems can magically go away if we just keep jacking up taxes on anyone that has money and passing out unlimited entitelments, give all athority to socialist. Oh da plane, da plane.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3139
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat wrote:What is the

ClockCat wrote:

What is the lesson to be learned here?

  We learn in day that the kid that whines the loudest get the most attention and toys. We know the most violent kid hordes all the toy to themselves. The rational kid gets nothing, eveything it take by the vioent and the loud. So he either reforms or get a gun and take them down.

CC, Doomy and the other socialist want government to treat them like they're a helpless bunch of babies.

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca