Thread: what political party are you?

One thing that I don't understand about politicts is, in protets, if they realy want to get a point across, have hundreds sit in a main road and read books. It could bring a place to a total stand still. Far better than just standing there saying 'Down with Bush'. If you hate him, do somthing about it.

If you think about it, if everything belonged to private investors, then those people who owned everything would have no incentive to lower their prices (to an extent). Large corporations do occur and wipe out their competitors, then they're free to raise prices as high as they woud like because there's no one to compete with them. That's why we have anti-monopoly laws.

As for public services, many people would not volunteer to do them: police, fire department, EMS, etc. With it based on voluteering, it would be highly disorganized and inefficient. As for water and sewer, independent plumbers can fix simple repair jobs, but it takes mass coordination when it comes to major problems, such as if a pipe broke in the middle of down-town New York.

That's just my take.

-Amé

Originally posted by dream-scape
I am aware that most states are not like this, but I am from Pennsylvania and the utilities like telephone, electric, etc are privatized industries and we get along just fine. If a telephone line breaks, the government doesn't come and fix it; one of the private telephone companies does. The same with electricity. I think water may be government run at the city level, but I'm not sure because I live in the stix and we have a well. I'm not sure about sewage either because we have a septic tank (and if it breaks or needs maintenance, we call the damn plumber. We don't try to fix it ourselves).

I understand most of your argument, but the idea that if government run businesses and agencies were no longer run by the government it would lead to chaos because each individual would now be responsible for that task is a little far fetched. Does each person have to grow their own food?? Of coarse not. It isn't like, if it happened, the government would just toss its hands up in the air and say \"you're all on your own.\" They would be sold off to private investors. Those private investors would do a much better job than the government ever did; they'd have to efficient if they wanted to stay in business. Government run businesses have no incentive to be efficient... and why should they be when they've got a hand in the pocket of uncle sam?

Private corporations might run things more “efficiently,” but only efficient in their maximization of corporate profits. Corporations are money making machines. That’s their purpose and nothing else. They have no loyalties, no responsibilities, no social contract to maintain. Investors and major stock holders live in high-rises in Manhattan, in cushy houses in the Hamptons, or in summer mansions in Beverly Hills. They don’t give a blow about struggling Joe Workaholic down in the Boonies so long as profits for this quarter exceed expectations.

Would you really want to live in a world run by Wal-Mart where everyone works 2 or more part-time, less than 38 hr/wk each, low wage jobs with no benefits? When I say “no benefits,” I mean exactly that in the most extreme sense, because without government social services, there would be no safety net, no way to go to a hospital without insurance and get treatment, no way to get food stamps because your pathetic salary can’t pay both for rent and for groceries in the same month, no low-cost or free childcare programs to watch your kids because your shift doesn’t end until 11:00 at night.

Have you ever read the book Snow Crash by Neal Stephenson? (Scroll down the link to see a review/description of the novel.) If you haven’t, I highly recommend it. It’s set maybe 25-50 years in the future where every aspect of life is completely privatized and the government is little more than a paper-pushing bystander. It’s well written, engrossing, and fully envisioned. Stephenson's vision of the future makes me cringe, but a self-proclaimed anarchist classmate of mine says he'd time-travel there if he had the chance. Whether you agree or disagree, it's an excellent read. I think you'd enjoy it.

Originally posted by Kaniaz+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Kaniaz)</div>

Originally posted by Belisarius+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Belisarius)

Originally posted by Kaniaz
<!--QuoteBegin-Belisarius

@
<!--QuoteBegin-Kaniaz

Because somebody has to do it.

Might as well be yourself.

Not everybody is capable of politics and maintaning overseas relations so you don't blow yourself up, etc. Some people don't want to. Anyway, that requires some form of organization which anarchy dosen't have...

Why the hell would I need overseas relations?[/b]

Easy. You can dump America into anarchy mode, but you've still got treaties and stuff. And if say, Poland was thinking of bashing america, you've got to say to them \"no\". And who's gonna do that? Your next door neighbour who has no idea how to do such things? What if there is an need to go to war with another country? People aren't going to suddenly organize themselves and suddenly have an perfect army with all the communications officers, etc. You'd probably get a load of people with pointy sticks.[/b][/quote]

If there was really need to go to war with another country, I'm sure people would start to organize in order to do it, and if I felt that the cause was great enough I would join them. If we needed to defend ourselves, large companies with much to loose, individuals, and hired defence agencies would deal with it. It might not be as effective as forcing people to pay money to create a bigger army to force more people to pay for it, but it would probably work, furthermore, it would likely be unprofitable for another nation to attempt an invasion as it is expensive, and you already have absolute free trade with them. The only reason you would invade is for more tax revenues or personal power.

You'd probably end up with a bunch of people with guns with pointy sticks on the end of them with little organization or uniformity, but it sure worked for the Americans during the revolution, and would probably be sufficient to dissuade others from attacking.

i pity you.

Originally posted by Peregrinus+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Peregrinus)</div>

<!--QuoteBegin-dream&#045;scape

I am aware that most states are not like this, but I am from Pennsylvania and the utilities like telephone, electric, etc are privatized industries and we get along just fine. If a telephone line breaks, the government doesn't come and fix it; one of the private telephone companies does. The same with electricity. I think water may be government run at the city level, but I'm not sure because I live in the stix and we have a well. I'm not sure about sewage either because we have a septic tank (and if it breaks or needs maintenance, we call the damn plumber. We don't try to fix it ourselves).

I understand most of your argument, but the idea that if government run businesses and agencies were no longer run by the government it would lead to chaos because each individual would now be responsible for that task is a little far fetched. Does each person have to grow their own food?? Of coarse not. It isn't like, if it happened, the government would just toss its hands up in the air and say \"you're all on your own.\" They would be sold off to private investors. Those private investors would do a much better job than the government ever did; they'd have to efficient if they wanted to stay in business. Government run businesses have no incentive to be efficient... and why should they be when they've got a hand in the pocket of uncle sam?

Private corporations might run things more “efficiently,” but only efficient in their maximization of corporate profits. Corporations are money making machines. That’s their purpose and nothing else. They have no loyalties, no responsibilities, no social contract to maintain. Investors and major stock holders live in high-rises in Manhattan, in cushy houses in the Hamptons, or in summer mansions in Beverly Hills. They don’t give a blow about struggling Joe Workaholic down in the Boonies so long as profits for this quarter exceed expectations.

Would you really want to live in a world run by Wal-Mart where everyone works 2 or more part-time, less than 38 hr/wk each, low wage jobs with no benefits? When I say “no benefits,” I mean exactly that in the most extreme sense, because without government social services, there would be no safety net, no way to go to a hospital without insurance and get treatment, no way to get food stamps because your pathetic salary can’t pay both for rent and for groceries in the same month, no low-cost or free childcare programs to watch your kids because your shift doesn’t end until 11:00 at night.

Have you ever read the book Snow Crash by Neal Stephenson? (Scroll down the link to see a review/description of the novel.) If you haven’t, I highly recommend it. It’s set maybe 25-50 years in the future where every aspect of life is completely privatized and the government is little more than a paper-pushing bystander. It’s well written, engrossing, and fully envisioned. Stephenson's vision of the future makes me cringe, but a self-proclaimed anarchist classmate of mine says he'd time-travel there if he had the chance. Whether you agree or disagree, it's an excellent read. I think you'd enjoy it.[/b]

Corporations require a state-made legal structure in which to work. You would get something similar to them in a truly free market though. Monopolies are also nearly impossible without government intervention as the less competition a buisness has, the more opportunity there is for competition to arise.

No government does not mean no union, I know sometimes the two get confused, but unions have power without using froce against management and scabs. If enough people are willing to work for less, then they will get the jobs, if they aren't they will be paid more. Employment contracts go both ways, the employee will work if he values the benefits(wages) of the job more than the costs of the job(labor), if this isn't the case then he won't work. An employer will hire an employee if he values the benefits(labor) of the arrangement more than the costs(wages). Both sides win, noone is forced into anything. The equilibrium that is reached between management and labor will give both sides what is deserved, not necessarily what both sides want, but what they deserve.

I think your outlook is pessimistic on the power of unions in securing decent living wages and working conditions.

I should take a look at that book.

Originally posted by Belisarius
Corporations require a state-made legal structure in which to work. You would get something similar to them in a truly free market though. Monopolies are also nearly impossible without government intervention as the less competition a buisness has, the more opportunity there is for competition to arise.

Microsoft and Bell Telephone did pretty well forming monopolies without gov't intervention. In fact, it was gov't intervention that disbanded Bell Corp. into the Baby Bells scattered throughout the US today. The less competition you have, the more power you have to grow large enough to squash any competition. Act fast and get while the gettin's good.

No government does not mean no union, I know sometimes the two get confused, but unions have power without using froce against management and scabs. If enough people are willing to work for less, then they will get the jobs, if they aren't they will be paid more. Employment contracts go both ways, the employee will work if he values the benefits(wages) of the job more than the costs of the job(labor), if this isn't the case then he won't work. An employer will hire an employee if he values the benefits(labor) of the arrangement more than the costs(wages). Both sides win, noone is forced into anything. The equilibrium that is reached between management and labor will give both sides what is deserved, not necessarily what both sides want, but what they deserve.

I think your outlook is pessimistic on the power of unions in securing decent living wages and working conditions.[/b]

Three words. "Right to Work". Unions are dead. They've been in their death throws for better part of a half century. There are only a few large, powerful unions left, and even those are significantly weakened. Macro-economics 101 is labeled a "101" class for a reason. If I'm pessimistic (which is something I've been accused of before and am not denying here), then I think your outlook is naive. Individuals do not coordinate their activities well without some sort of organization. This was previously provided by unions, but not anymore. Why do illegal Mexican immigrants work for $2/hr in a country where the minimum wage is (a pathetic) $5.15/hr? Why are citizens willing to work for less than $6/hr in part-time jobs with no benefits? Because they're desperate. They don't think they can get anything better. Labor is not a seller's market. People take what they can get. "Desperate times call for desperate measures," as the saying goes, and there are a lot of desperate people out there. The employers set the wage rate and benefit packages (or lack thereof). Workers don't revolt or go on strike or turn down offers of poor-paying jobs because they're barraged with negative economic forecasts, falling stock prices, and assurances that "these are hard times". They don't ask for something better because they doubt that they can get it and know that if they hesitate, even for an instant, that person behind them in the unemployment line will snatch the opportunity from them. Piss poor as it may be, it's still an opportunity. I don't disagree with you that if all workers in a given industry refused to work for low wages, those wages would go up. However, without unions, without some sort of organization, it won't happen. People will keep on looking out for #1, and for #1, stumbling around in dark economic times, even the dimmest light is welcome.

The world just doesn't work the way the intro-economics textbook authors and CFO's of the world would want us to believe. In theory, theory and practice are the same thing. But in practice, they aren't.

And yeah, definitely check out Snow Crash. It's one of my favorite novels. Don't read it while going to bed, though, or you'll start missing sleep.