Thread: The Balance between Conservatives and Progressives - Why Consensus is the Next Stage

Dude, I'm just relating the way things are. You can pretend they work differently, but yeah, actually there were dozens of different lightbulb sockets before government intervention. They did it because it's profitable to require people with their sockets to buy only one type of lightbulb. Why do you think before USB ports, every cell phone company had it's own type of charger?

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

I got the impression that he was straw manning me because I never insinuating the fire department should be free, just that it should be a tax levy. Maybe I should have been more clear. But I don't care, that libertarian argument is simply ignorant. No one thinks there's such thing as free lunch. It's purely a misconception. The point is protection from fire should be the bottom line of a fire department, not profit. Same with health, education, law-enforcement, incarceration, etc. etc.

You said you don't want to pay the fire department to put out a fire. You gave no indication that it "should be a tax levy." Thus, I said there's no such thing as a free lunch. Someone has to pay for it. If not you, somebody else.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

You said you don't want to pay the fire department to put out a fire. You gave no indication that it "should be a tax levy." Thus, I said there's no such thing as a free lunch. Someone has to pay for it. If not you, somebody else.

Sorry for not being clear, but what I mean is I didn't want to pay per fire, I didn't want to bribe a private fire department to save my baby. I don't want to have to go through paperwork to prove I paid my fire insurance or whatever they would use.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

Sorry for not being clear, but what I mean is I didn't want to pay per fire, I didn't want to bribe a private fire department to save my baby. I don't want to have to go through paperwork to prove I paid my fire insurance or whatever they would use.

Why assume these are the only ways a private fire department would operate? Privatizing a service doesn't mean the people operating it suddenly become unresponsive or emotionless.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Why assume these are the only ways a private fire department would operate? Privatizing a service doesn't mean the people operating it suddenly become unresponsive or emotionless.

Yeah cause health care is an indication of that >.>

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

Yeah cause health care is an indication of that >.>

If you're comparing the U.S.'s healthcare system with a free market in fire protection then I can surely say you don't know what you're talking about.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

If you're comparing the U.S.'s healthcare system with a free market in fire protection then I can surely say you don't know what you're talking about.

My bad, my bad, because human beings are such perfect people they'll obviously put out fires for no reason meanwhile dying people get kicked out of their hospital beds every day because some loophole says they're not covered..

Will you stop with the straw men for once in your life? Every response has been a straw man. If you don't understand the argument, don't twist it into something else. For fuck's sake, man, lern2debate

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

My bad, my bad, because human beings are such perfect people they'll obviously put out fires for no reason meanwhile dying people get kicked out of their hospital beds every day because some loophole says they're not covered..

Even Ron Paul supports public utilities, just not on the federal level.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

Even Ron Paul supports public utilities, just not on the federal level.

I don't think this applicable to me. I don't agree with RP on everything. If anything I see him as a means to an end, not as an end itself.

Then you should make a claim of your own. What would be good about a world with no tax levies, no public utilities, where everything is for profit? Because so far all you've done is troll.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

Then you should make a claim of your own. What would be good about a world with no tax levies, no public utilities, where everything is for profit? Because so far all you've done is troll.

Not quite sure how I've trolled except for the strawman pic, but okay.

To answer the question: better services and greater freedom overall without the caveat of coercion and illegitimate aggression.

But where are you getting the coercion and illegitimate aggression from? Except where private companies are being regulated by the government in such a way that benefits the giants. But I'm not talking about that, I'm talking about a complete public utility, not a private company granted favors by the government.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

Dude, I'm just relating the way things are. You can pretend they work differently, but yeah, actually there were dozens of different lightbulb sockets before government intervention. They did it because it's profitable to require people with their sockets to buy only one type of lightbulb. Why do you think before USB ports, every cell phone company had it's own type of charger?

Because phones were made by different manufacturers so obviously their specs are going to be different. And guess what the market did, it make universal adapters. Surprise! Don't give me this crap of "this is how things are." You have no attention toward causation.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

But where are you getting the coercion and illegitimate aggression from? Except where private companies are being regulated by the government in such a way that benefits the giants. But I'm not talking about that, I'm talking about a complete public utility, not a private company granted favors by the government.

Taxation is the coercion/aggression. It's also the inability of not being able to choose. Or even the inability to start up your own service because it may compete with a government monopoly in the area.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

But where are you getting the coercion and illegitimate aggression from? Except where private companies are being regulated by the government in such a way that benefits the giants. But I'm not talking about that, I'm talking about a complete public utility, not a private company granted favors by the government.

Taxes are not voluntary. They are based on coercion. You either pay them or go to jail even if you do not desire the services the government is providing.

Taxes aren't collected door to door, they're collected through the participation in the economic system which requires (most of) the things we pay taxes for in order to function properly. I'm not saying the government is perfect, that's why I made this thread. If everyone in the society participates, then there's no need to figure out who is participating and who isn't, and services can be administered to everyone without prejudice.

Meanwhile in our private healthcare system, some people have the sole job of figuring out how to screw people out of the insurance they paid for. This does not happen in places with universal health care.

And LM, maybe if we waited someone would have invented a light socket adapter, but I prefer regulating their size and cutting out that step.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

Yeah cause health care is an indication of that >.>

Research the effects of the HMO Act of 1973 as passed by Congress. It effectively chartered a monopoly on healthcare, shared by HMO's and hospitals, who simultaneously raised prices... why? Because they could get away with it. Creating an HMO was easier than ever, and healthcare prices rose as profit became the primary function of healthcare.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

Taxes aren't collected door to door,

Stop paying your income or property taxes and you'll see just how "door to door" tax collection can be...

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

And LM, maybe if we waited someone would have invented a light socket adapter, but I prefer regulating their size and cutting out that step.

Business regulation only serves the mammoth corporations. I thought you were against mammoth corporations...now you are saying that government should work with corporations to dictate the products they make.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Business regulation only serves the mammoth corporations. I thought you were against mammoth corporations...now you are saying that government should work with corporations to dictate the products they make.

Because that's a fucking lie, that's why. The government should regulate the private sector to prevent corruption, exploitation, environmental destruction, etc... The government should NEVER subsidize the private sector (assuming education, health and other aspects of life where the bottom line should not be profit are separate from the private sector) nor include regulation that enables corporations to bypass competition.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

Because that's a fucking lie, that's why. The government should regulate the private sector to prevent corruption, exploitation, environmental destruction, etc... The government should NEVER subsidize the private sector (assuming education, health and other aspects of life where the bottom line should not be profit are separate from the private sector) nor include regulation that enables corporations to bypass competition.

You're missing a big part of the picture here. It's the big business favoring regulations that are used as bribes to big business to get them to buy US bonds and PAY for your social programs. The entire system runs on debt, and debt means paying off your creditors in one way or another.

Originally Posted by cmind

You're missing a big part of the picture here. It's the big business favoring regulations that are used as bribes to big business to get them to buy US bonds and PAY for your social programs. The entire system runs on debt, and debt means paying off your creditors in one way or another.

So obviously the solution is to only use the social programs we can support with annual tax revenue.

My two cents is that, in a completely laissez faire capitalist free market, even if consumers would only buy the better of the services provided by any business, there is nothing stopping the businesses from, over time, diminishing their quality of service or price gouging. After only so long a successful business acquires enough wealth to either buy the rights to a competitors product or buy the competing company itself. After that, then what? Nothing is stopping this company from either buying the sole right to produce whatever product they are capitalizing and then raising the price of the service or good substantially or lowering their quality of service. If there were no government or copyrights, patents, or trademarks, or if another company were simply to emerge, they would just buy the new company out as well or significantly lower the price of their product temporarily. Because of the larger company's success and wealth, the price cut and lower income would be an acceptable loss compared to losing business to a competitor or even worse the chance that a competitor could become as successful or more so than even them.

Unrestrained capitalism answers to nobody but whoever makes the most money. At least with the government regulating the economy there is someone that businesses and corporations have to answer to, whether or not the government is also taking part in the monopolizing or thinks only in money signs. At least then I have the opportunity to have a say in the matter, along with guaranteed protections or legal compensation for the negligence or utter disregard of some corporation and against inhumane working conditions. When you need a job, you don't quit and look for another with better working conditions--especially if there are no better jobs around. Corporations know you need jobs and could potentially kind of work together by doing little to ensure these conditions to maintain the status quo (which is, making more money). With the head of a corporation being the guy who makes decisions, even if they previously had good working conditions, after becoming a dominant player in the market they could change that any time they wanted. It'd be too late for another business with better conditions to step up because the corporation could simply buy them out. This knowledge could very well prevent any new businesses from even trying to improve work conditions. Hell, a group of the biggest share holders in any given country could team up if they wanted and buy out all the competitors they wanted just so they all stay rich. You scratch my back, I scratch yours. Government officials are at least somewhat accountable for their actions and at least with government regulation so are major share holders and company heads. It's really the lesser of two evils here and government regulation is definitely the lesser evil.

I realize that my arguments hinge on the worst qualities humans have to offer, little to no ethics, and people taking advantage of others, but honestly it's not a huge concern for me because history has already provided all the examples we need. I mean look at what happened in America. The robber barons became so wealthy that honestly without the government stepping in, they could have done whatever they wanted. Unless America's monetary system fails or the government itself fails, the descendants of said robber barons will never have to worry about money, ever. I don't know about you, Blueline or Laughing Man, but I would rather trust the government (wow, can't believe I'm saying that) than share holders. Go ahead and trust the share holders and let me know how it turns out and if it's any better or worse after a century or two. Faith in the human race to do good and to do right by one another on its own is nice to dream about, but is terribly misguided and naive I am rather sorry to say.