|
So on the subject of "The free market works!" how do you explain British Rail? British Rail was Nationalized but got Privatized in 1993. It's effects are .... well not great. With a slow end to government subsidies for tickets the price has shot up to keep them viable and it's priced a lot of the poorer people out. If they can't travel, they can't work and that's had a pretty miserable effect on towns that relied on their train links to keep going. Our train fares are around two to four times more expensive than Germany depending on where you live in the UK and Germany has the second highest costs in Europe. The service isn't better, in fact it's often harder to find a return journey in a lot of places because trains will happily take you to places between cities, but not to rural areas due to the low traffic. It was meant to encourage investment in the railways but awkwardly it hasn't because the cost of our infrastructure has shot up, much like how privatizing Healthcare causes Healthcare to become real loving expensive the same happens with Railways. Oh and if you want to address that feel free to explain why the NHS is so much better than American Healthcare! Thanks! Fans fucked around with this message at 15:51 on Nov 15, 2014 |
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 15:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 02:13 |
|
|
Hell I'd like to see just one example of privatization working, unless by "working" you mean "redistributing wealth upwards".
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 16:08
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:Alright jrod enough with you and band of loving retarded prophets, up against the wall with all of you Its kind of fascinating to me that this is basically where the thread has ended up after I arrived in the thread feeling this way.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 16:54
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:Its kind of fascinating to me that this is basically where the thread has ended up after I arrived in the thread feeling this way. What a lot of conservatives and libertarians don't seem to understand is that the free markets profit motive is the only thing that keeps government from producing infrastructure and services at significantly reduced cost, that and their philosophical maxim that becomes policy that "government can't create jobs" For example if I want to build a road as a government there are two ways I can get it done, I can contract it out, to private entities that don't have the cost controls and auditing that the government does (because people don't trust government, which is reasonable, it should never be just trust me with public funds) or build myself. Building it myself has costs of having staff on hand whom at least pretend to know what they're doing, which means paying market wages for that labor. This isnt really a bad thing when the alternative is a control economy. But that road is going to cost more because the private sector needs to make money on it, and we would find it kind of absurd for them to do it at cost, goverment is held to a contrary double standard however. The real point of my blathering here is that generally speaking people agree free market influence is a good thing. The critical error they make is that the governments primary role it can fill is facilitating and reducing the cost of business to negligible enough nubers to unleash the power of the free market! (It kind of hurt to type that). Thats why its in the states interest to make sure the population is well educated, that travel is basically costless and INTERNET AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS are cheap and easy. By advocating for less government you are generally advocating for less free market opportunities, killing jobs, embracing austerity which destroys economies. It occured to me while I was writing this that I may have finally realized why Japan ( and I have been puzzling over this for a while, so im just thinking "out loud" bare with me) as an economy has been struggling not to stagnate and it seems like the likely cause is their infrastructure spending is probably being burned on stuff it doesnt really need to be. Producing less economic growth than spending that restored systems from dysfunction or added capacity instead. There is a reason I keep saying the state is society, desipite how much libertarians protest it not to be true.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 17:37
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I have an actual substantive question to pose for you all. A while back we were talking about minimum wage laws. I was arguing that raising them would not translate to higher living standards but only higher prices for goods and/or more unemployment since it is marginal productivity of the worker that determines wage rates not some arbitrary edict from Washington. You took the opposite position and argued for higher minimum wage laws. ... Good Lord, you're serious, aren't you? Okay, listen, we've already tried this. In fact, we've gone further than this and allowed children of any age to work for wages. It was called the Industrial Revolution, and the working-conditions it spawned literally created Socialism and inspired people like jrodefeld posted:[...] one of my personal heroes and intellectual mentors. Lysander Spooner and others, including Karl Marx, to declare the Capitalist class irredeemably corrupt, venal, and evil. This may well come as a shock to you, but back in the 1750s and long into the 1800's, governments simply did not regulate much of anything at all in the market. This was known as laissez-faire economics, and the results were appalling. One of the first ever laws restricting child labor, the Health and Morals of Apprentices Act of 1802 specified that Apprentices could not work more than 12 hour shifts. It further required any textile mill or factory to be properly ventilated, that it had to have sufficient windows for illumination, and that it needed to be washed at least twice a year. A bill following the Health and Morals of Apprentices Act, the Cotton Mills and Factories Act of 1819 further specified that, and I quote; no children under 9 were to be employed and that children aged 9–16 years were limited to 12 hours' work per day. The funny thing about laws like these is that they are never passed before a problem occurs. They are only ever enacted once a problem has been discovered and the results are so obviously deleterious that something has to be done. In short, they tell us something very important about the working-conditions in those early factories, and that the situation had become so bad that the only option was for government to intervene in an attempt to curb the worst excesses. Further, here's a quote that I think you should take your time and read. It concerns the passage of another act, the Cotton Mills Regulation Act of 1825 where, noting that there has been only two prosecutions under the 1819 act, a Member of Parliament, himself a mill-owner, strikes up a very familiar refrain: Mr George Philips, MP Wooton posted:
This, by the way, is not from Wikipedia, but directly from the record of the debate on the bill! Does that seem familiar to you at all, JRode? You are representing and championing the cause of everything men like Lysander Spooner fought against. The arguments of your 'Libertarian thinkers' about the effect of the Free Market and on Labor are, almost verbatim, the same arguments used for the wage-slavery and brutal oppression of labor that Spooner and all early Socialist and Anarchist thinkers spent their lives fighting. Yes, I'm hung up on this, because you have missed the point of a man you claim to be, again, a "personal hero" so hard that you have aligned yourself squarely with everything he fought against. TLM3101 fucked around with this message at 18:33 on Nov 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 18:28
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:There is a reason I keep saying the state is society, desipite how much libertarians protest it not to be true. Jrod himself multiple times that he doesn't believe that the State is not made up of its people, and I've often wondered what exactly he thinks the State is made up of in that's the case. Is it made up of lizard-people? Illegal Immigrants or some other form of non-citizen? Does the distinction only apply to members of congress on up or do postal service workers also not count as citizens? Is it only the Federal Government or do State workers also not count? What about County Commissioners or city and town level government employees? You see, jrod, when you start making proclamations that certain groups of people aren't actually people at all it has some very troubling implications. Implications that, like many other things, I sincerely doubt you have fully considered.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 18:43
|
|
|
JRod, why did you think the nice middle ground you could find with a very left leaning forum is crippling the ability of low skill labor to get fairer wages by making them compete with workers who can work for well below a living wage? If anything I'd say abolishing all teenage employment (with exceptions for kids chipping in to help family run businesses like small stores and farms) would be more in line with what we'd want than sabotaging the workers who already are at a huge disadvantage when trying to get a living wage.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 18:56
|
|
|
Jrodefeld if government involvement in healthcare drives prices up, then why does government involvement in healthcare drive prices down?
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 19:09
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Jrod himself multiple times that he doesn't believe that the State is not made up of its people, and I've often wondered what exactly he thinks the State is made up of in that's the case. Is it made up of lizard-people? Illegal Immigrants or some other form of non-citizen? Does the distinction only apply to members of congress on up or do postal service workers also not count as citizens? Is it only the Federal Government or do State workers also not count? What about County Commissioners or city and town level government employees? This is why when Mitt Romney, (possible) leader of civilizing forces, said that goverment doesn't create jobs and the President of the united states didn't either jump up and immediately beat him dead or more preferably anyone on in the media anywhere in the united states didnt utter some form of the words "thats factually wrong" that I knew irreparably that there is no left party in this country. I'm sure a socialist somewhere shook their head disapprovingly but my government job is the best most uplifting job I've ever had. But it doesnt exist, it cant shouldn't won't exist!
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 19:10
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:This is why when Mitt Romney, (possible) leader of civilizing forces, said that goverment doesn't create jobs and the President of the united states didn't either jump up and immediately beat him dead or more preferably anyone on in the media anywhere in the united states didnt utter some form of the words "thats factually wrong" that I knew irreparably that there is no left party in this country. I'm sure a socialist somewhere shook their head disapprovingly but my government job is the best most uplifting job I've ever had. But it doesnt exist, it cant shouldn't won't exist! My wife also works for the government (State level, anyway) and she couldn't find a job half as rewarding or that pays half as good with her level of benefits in the private sector. The government not only creates jobs, it creates drat good ones.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 19:15
|
|
|
So we would keep minimum wage for all adults. Sounds rather statist. In fact it sounds like exactly the kind of compromise ancaps consider theft. As long as we're compromising, how about this compromise? Until coercion-free economic relationships prevail, how about we keep the minimum wage, keep the government and strengthen the welfare state? It's just a temporary measure until people stop exploiting one another.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 19:39
|
|
|
Why don't we have a minimum guaranteed income in order to eliminate economic coercion? This way, the free market is allowed to prosper, as everyone engages in trade from a more even bargaining position.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 19:53
|
|
|
Dr. Stab posted:Why don't we have a minimum guaranteed income in order to eliminate economic coercion? This way, the free market is allowed to prosper, as everyone engages in trade from a more even bargaining position. Weirdly, there are a ton of libertarians that are down with guaranteed minimum income. Although, if they think taxation is theft, I don't know where the hell the government would get the money. Maybe selling lemonade?
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 20:05
|
|
|
Dr. Stab posted:Why don't we have a minimum guaranteed income in order to eliminate economic coercion? This way, the free market is allowed to prosper, as everyone engages in trade from a more even bargaining position. People jrodefeld admires who advocated for this: -Spooner -Hayek -Adam Smith Who else?
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 20:07
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:My wife also works for the government (State level, anyway) and she couldn't find a job half as rewarding or that pays half as good with her level of benefits in the private sector. The government not only creates jobs, it creates drat good ones. I work for the government doing deep sea research drilling. And the jobs created by our program aren't just our own. We do the science, with our own staff and partner institutions and consortium members around the world, but we contract with a private sector entity to run the drilling operations, and another to operate our drill ship, we buy specialized software and instruments, fuel and supplies, we require port services and climate controlled shipping for cores, a ridiculous amount of air travel, hotels, and local transportation. And then on top of all that, all of our research is available to private industry who use it to supplement their own exploration. Yeah, don't tell me we don't create jobs.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 20:10
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:People jrodefeld admires who advocated for this: Does he actually admire Hayek or Smith? I've seen him write dismissively about Hayek before as just piggybacking on von Mises. Smith I really doubt.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 20:13
|
|
|
Jack of Hearts posted:Does he actually admire Hayek or Smith? I've seen him write dismissively about Hayek before as just piggybacking on von Mises. Smith I really doubt. He admires whomever is most convenient to admire for the duration of whatever point he thinks he's making, after which they cease to matter at all and it's really intellectually dishonest for the rest of us to constantly bring up the crippling character flaws of those individuals you guys.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 20:16
|
|
|
Jack of Hearts posted:Does he actually admire Hayek or Smith? I've seen him write dismissively about Hayek before as just piggybacking on von Mises. Smith I really doubt. Considering he's advocated for multiple racist/misogynists/neo-Confederates...
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 20:18
|
|
|
Jack of Hearts posted:Does he actually admire Hayek or Smith? I've seen him write dismissively about Hayek before as just piggybacking on von Mises. Smith I really doubt.  I presume he includes Smith with the "great classical economists"
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 20:22
|
|
|
Jack of Hearts posted:Does he actually admire Hayek or Smith? I've seen him write dismissively about Hayek before as just piggybacking on von Mises. Smith I really doubt. Yeah, If I'm remembering right, there's a big Hayek-vs-Rothbard split among libertarians, and it kind of goes without saying which side of it our JRod sits on.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 20:23
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:You're doing an awful lot of nitpicking about the format of my reply and hardly any effort to respond to the points I made. I've been gone for awhile, but that actually was the point of my post: your arguments are weak. They lack conciseness, but they also lack substance, much like all of libertarianism. Your track to make up for that lack of substance with fluff, which makes it very hard for you to be concise. QuarkJets fucked around with this message at 00:55 on Nov 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 21:57
|
|
|
OH NO MY DICK posted:Weirdly, there are a ton of libertarians that are down with guaranteed minimum income. Although, if they think taxation is theft, I don't know where the hell the government would get the money. Maybe selling lemonade? They'll support it right until it becomes possible, then it'll become the most vile statist plot to destroy the free market.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 00:18
|
|
|
Babylon Astronaut posted:They'll support it right until it becomes possible, then it'll become the most vile statist plot to destroy the free market. There aren't powers-that-be within the libertarian movement which support minimum income. The guys who support it aren't disingenuous, they're just suckers. Because if the movement they supported gained power, the idea of minimum income (supported by no less than Milton Friedman!) would become an expression of socialist thought. Mind you, a lot of them would go along at that point, because, again, they're suckers.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 00:43
|
|
|
I don't think there's any point trying to get jrod to address the healthcare issue (or the issues of justice or pollution) because he's pretty much explicitly says that it doesn't matter how terrible a libertarian society would be, it's still the only moral kind. So even if we convince him that everyone in libertopia would be diseased starving choking paupers constantly being mugged, he'll still support it because deontology. Ultimately, I think it's more productive to try to dissect the NAP. The two most devastating counters against jrod's ethical argument (neither of which he has answered), are:
Jrod, if you want to get this discussion back on track I recommend tackling one of these two points.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 02:17
|
|
|
OH NO MY DICK posted:Weirdly, there are a ton of libertarians that are down with guaranteed minimum income. Although, if they think taxation is theft, I don't know where the hell the government would get the money. Maybe selling lemonade? Estate taxes. You can't aggress against the dead! And without evil state regulations there'd be no artificial persons like corporations or trusts. Libertopia is a full liability society.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 02:33
|
|
|
100% estate tax on all people. Meritocratic society = you don't deserve your daddy's money.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 02:41
|
|
|
Dr. Stab posted:100% estate tax on all people. Meritocratic society = you don't deserve your daddy's money. I tried to argue this to some libertarian idiot on another forum (he was on about how he shouldn't have to pay for anything he doesn't like with his taxes and WELFARE QUEENS) and he just called it theft by another name. It seems like the only way to give such a lassiez-faire system any remote shot at fairness, though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 02:43
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Estate taxes. You can't aggress against the dead! This is a good answer. Don't put it in a thread of ridiculous answers.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 02:47
|
|
|
Dr. Stab posted:100% estate tax on all people. Meritocratic society = you don't deserve your daddy's money. Trust funds already work around this.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 02:48
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Trust funds already work around this. Trusts are a creation of the perfidious State though. Without the State creating artificial persons to hold your assets, this won't be an issue. StandardVC10 posted:I tried to argue this to some libertarian idiot on another forum (he was on about how he shouldn't have to pay for anything he doesn't like with his taxes and WELFARE QUEENS) and he just called it theft by another name. Uh what. How can you steal from the dead? Does Libertopia make Egyptian paganism its official religion and you have to be buried with all your phat l00t so you can have your ferrari and Wand of Wonder in the next world?
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 04:59
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Uh what. How can you steal from the dead? Does Libertopia make Egyptian paganism its official religion and you have to be buried with all your phat l00t so you can have your ferrari and Wand of Wonder in the next world? Taxes are theft. They just are. (But then, this same person straight up told me that he had to get a lot of money because he wanted to buy a lot of cars, and taxes were preventing him from keeping it all, so maybe he does want to be able to hang onto that Ferrari for eternity.)
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 05:04
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Trust funds already work around this. Ban trust funds.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 05:05
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:Ban trust funds. Then the parents can just give the money to the kids straight up before dying.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 05:16
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Then the parents can just give the money to the kids straight up before dying. Ban the exchange of goods and currency. Everyone must be self-sufficient.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 05:38
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Then the parents can just give the money to the kids straight up before dying. Gifts aren't ownership: 100% gift tax. Remember, in Libertopia, property ownership comes about through earth magic ritual whereby you mix what white people define as labor with the land to create what white people define as wealth, thus converting the land and its products into your property. Falling out of a certain vagina doesn't entitle you to claim property rights over anything the person attached to it owns.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 05:44
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Gifts aren't ownership: 100% gift tax. Family jobs.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 05:45
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Family jobs. 100% dependency tax if you take money from family in any way upon turning 18. Nothing wrong with that because it only taxes nonproductive mooching.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 05:47
|
|
|
Gosh, this is starting to sound pretty statist!
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 05:51
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:Gosh, this is starting to sound pretty statist! It's not Statist. It's in everyone's rational self-interest to discourage mooching babies of privilege and encourage creating wealth through labor, so to buy land in the Covenant Community you have to agree to a 100% estate, gift, and family-employment tax in addition to the usual Libertarian HOA agreement to not sell or rent to blacks, homosexuals, democrats, Mussulmen, loose women, etc etc.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 05:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 02:13 |
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:Gosh, this is starting to sound pretty statist! Nah it's just what you agree to when you sign up for your DRO (note, all DROs currently have this policy and immediately set out to destroy any upstarts that don't under fabricated pretenses).
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 05:54
|
|