These people are our future

[IowaSkinsFan]

You do know that Atlas Shrugged is a fictional novel by Ayn Rand, a novelist known as "the most influential libertarian of the twentieth century to the public at large".

Yes I'm well aware. I also am aware that Ad Hominem does not mean a logical fallacy.

[IowaSkinsFan]

In a market economy, the larger an investment is, the higher its rate of return. This is due to both economies of scale and the increased range of investment opportunities.

Actually, this isn't true. An investment can only rarely have greater return without incurring more risk. Businesses who offer investment will try to offer the lowest rate of return on investment possible, because there are not a limited amount of investors. There are a ton of them, all who are constantly working to find the best investment. However, Economies of scale and increased range of investment opportunities can make investments have greater return.

Most of the time it has nothing to do with large or small. It has everything to do with how risky the investment is.


In addition to these economic forces, those who control greater amounts of capital within a society are able to participate more directly in shaping government policy, often in ways that further maximize their wealth. Due to both economic and political realities within a market economy, it is a natural process for the wealthiest individuals and firms in a society to become disproportionately wealthier over time. In order to prevent the political instability resulting from the natural stratification of the populace into an ever smaller and wealthier aristocracy or moneyed class, and an ever larger working class, all free market democracies engage in progressive taxation and programs to enhance economic opportunity for the lower and middle classes.

The rich guy's continuing work is getting less and less beneficial for the society, no one has anything he wants and even with slavery, sexual favors etc. only so much of the rich man's wealth ends up generating any common benefits. What is there to stop the rich buy from abusing and establishing tyranny over all the others? The armless persons who can't support themselves will have no chance but to either die or take the food from the others, the latter of which is probably not in the interests of neither the rich nor the middle class, which is why making sure he has enough might be in their self-interests.

If no one has anything the rich man wants, no one will buy it. No one is forcing you to buy anything he offers.

Bolded part: Yes, you are right, because of the government rich people can become wealthy without actually providing value. Although, the idea of economic forces doing so is not true whatsoever.

"What is there to stop the rich buy from abusing and establishing tyranny over all the others?"

What exactly are you referring to here? Rich people can't abuse and establish tyranny over other people.

[Ash256]

Under your system, if a child was born into a family without enough money to send the child to school would the child be sent to work?

[Duffryn]

Just a poker analogy that I'm sure most of you will say is stupid but I think applies perfectly.

Saying its unfair that the fact that some people get lucky and our born rich and some people get unlucky and our born poor is like saying its unfair in a poker game that some people get AA and some people get dealt 72o. Would it be more fair if everyone get dealt JTs? Well, it would certainly make all decision making easier, but it would make the game pointless.

I think that your analogy is apt if it is referring to a poker session. One child is "dealt the AA" of caring parents who encourage and stimulate it in the crucial early years. Another child has the 72o of an absent father and drug addict mother, who does not give a f**k. The AA child goes to the best schools available. The 72o goes to schools that have no resources, poor teachers and peer pressure to do no work.

A tiny proportion of people dealt 72o every hand might end the session by winning. They might pull off some excellent bluffs or get some lucky flops. Then the "AAs" can point at them and say - look anyone can succeed if they work hard enough. We do not need to alter the deal, so we AAs get dealt QTs and the "72o"s get 64s sometimes.

[IowaSkinsFan]

Under your system, if a child was born into a family without enough money to send the child to school would the child be sent to work?

We have a public school system, this wouldn't need to happen. If we didn't have public schools, and charity did not fufill this hole, it would be unfortunate. Not sure the answer to this, I'm not really against public schools. I would hate to say that it's "too bad" if that happened, but if I was that child I would not find it unfair that no one would help me.

As far as your question goes, I don't think it's wrong that we have safe guards protecting children from labor. But as far as asking me would the child be sent to work in some degree, that's not my choice. That's the choice of the family, my system would force no one to do anything.

[boost]

Government should be empowered to enforce laws prohibiting murder, theft, and enslavement, maintain courts of law, and maintain a military. That's it.

You can't be serious in proposing that all infrastructure be left to the private sector. Please explain how utility monopolies are kept in check? We already have this problem to an extent, but imagine if it wasn't just your phone company, but the roadways too. What stops the road owners from installing tolls wherever they please? You can argue this robotic drivel about "always having a choice", but even you wouldn't be able to say it with a straight face.

[Ash256]

I would hate to say that it's "too bad" if that happened, but if I was that child I would not find it unfair that no one would help me.

As far as your question goes, I don't think it's wrong that we have safe guards protecting children from labor. But as far as asking me would the child be sent to work in some degree, that's not my choice. That's the choice of the family, my system would force no one to do anything.

So, so weak. "Sucks to be them" doesn't really cut it in the 21st century, especially when you consider the wider societal impact of people committing crime out of desperation when they've got nothing else to turn to.

"But as far as asking me would the child be sent to work in some degree, that's not my choice. That's the choice of the family, my system would force no one to do anything."

That is absolutely the worst copout ever. You understand (at least I hope you do) that economically sometimes there are no choices. In the situation I have described, the choices are to send the child to work, commit crime or to starve. Hiding behind some abstract banner of "freedom" is pissweak.

So thanks to your system, a child that in our current society could have grown up to shine academically, do the world some good and raise his family a notch on the socioeconomic ladder is now condemned to a life of manual labour. And that's not to mention all the other miserable facets that will be inevitable in your society, like a massively multi-tiered healthcare system leading to disease and very premature death in the working classes, the slums, the stealing and the oppression.

But hey, who cares about inflicting widespread misery upon millions of people if you can reduce your tax bill by 30%?

[Numbr2intheWorld]

You can't be serious in proposing that all infrastructure be left to the private sector. Please explain how utility monopolies are kept in check? We already have this problem to an extent, but imagine if it wasn't just your phone company, but the roadways too. What stops the road owners from installing tolls wherever they please? You can argue this robotic drivel about "always having a choice", but even you wouldn't be able to say it with a straight face.

You think the government handles these things well? I'll give you a prime example. In San Francisco, the metro system is run by the gov. All the prices are super high, you can't go one stop without paying $4 (Talk about taxing the poor and middle class). The reason for this is the Bay area metro system is trying to raise the governments income, when on it's own it could easily pay for itself. In Washington DC, the metro system is privately owned. It's a) a fucking awesome metro system and b) Costs less than $2 to go to most places.

The private sector would probably handle many of these things better. We don't know this for a fact, but what I do know is for the most part, the government runs businesses terribly.

I'm not really sure it makes sense for roads to be privately owned. The same goes for utilities... I think we tried that years ago and there were a clusterfuck of powerlines because all the companies ran there own. But if someone showed me a logical argument for why they should be private I'd be open to it.

[Numbr2intheWorld]

So, so weak. "Sucks to be them" doesn't really cut it in the 21st century, especially when you consider the wider societal impact of people committing crime out of desperation when they've got nothing else to turn to.

"But as far as asking me would the child be sent to work in some degree, that's not my choice. That's the choice of the family, my system would force no one to do anything."

That is absolutely the worst copout ever. You understand (at least I hope you do) that economically sometimes there are no choices. In the situation I have described, the choices are to send the child to work, commit crime or to starve. Hiding behind some abstract banner of "freedom" is pissweak.

So thanks to your system, a child that in our current society could have grown up to shine academically, do the world some good and raise his family a notch on the socioeconomic ladder is now condemned to a life of manual labour. And that's not to mention all the other miserable facets that will be inevitable in your society, like a massively multi-tiered healthcare system leading to disease and very premature death in the working classes, the slums, the stealing and the oppression.

But hey, who cares about inflicting widespread misery upon millions of people if you can reduce your tax bill by 30%?

The clear difference in our opinions is that you think wealth is mostly determined by luck and circumstances. We think it's determined by hard work, the value of your work, efficiency (through learning), intelligence, and some randomness.

Because of this, your views and explanations seem just as outrageous to me as mine to you.

By the way, I think our founding fathers may have agreed with me.

"I'm a great believer in luck. I find the harder I work, the more I have of it."

- Thomas Jefferson

[Ash256]

The clear difference in our opinions is that you think wealth is mostly determined by luck and circumstances.

We think it's determined by hard work, the value of your work, efficiency (through learning), intelligence, and some randomness.

No, I believe that wealth is determined by a number of factors which include all of the above. But, you cannot fail to admit, that a child born to wealthy intellectual parents has a much much better chance of success than a child working a manual labour job 60 hours a week trying to feed his family.

But you're still strawmanning.

Look man, your brother's utopia accepts uneducated child labourers as part and parcel of its society. That's fucking disgusting. If you agree with him, you guys seriously need to take a step back and think long and hard about how your individual pursuits of wealth are shaping you as human beings on this planet.

[WillburForce]

The clear difference in our opinions is that you think wealth is mostly determined by luck and circumstances. We think it's determined by hard work, the value of your work, efficiency (through learning), intelligence, and some randomness.

Those kids in the sweatshops in India - if they just worked a bit harder, valued their work more, then maybe used their spare time more efficiently they could make something of themselves...

[boost]

And can we please stop using the term Strawman? lol

As soon as we stop employing the logical fallacy, I'm sure we'll stop seeing the use of the phrase.

[a500lbgorilla]

Piss in the ocean. The whole fact that this is newsworthy, and how we still tell stories about some samaritan dude who wasn't a complete douche tells everything there is to know about the general charitableness of mankind.



Load of rubbish. We currently assume that time started with the big bang, but we have absolutely no clue what/where/when/why/how it happened and what, if anything, was before it. Likewise, we have no idea, just a bunch of theories, such as big crunch, big freeze, big rip, big bounce etc. on the end of time/universe. We don't know if there are one, several or an infinite number of universes, nor whether any of them are finite or infinite. We know 4.6% of the observable universe is "matter", and the rest of it is something we call dark matter and dark energy, even though we have no clue what they actually are or whether they even exist. So no, modern science does not think that time is infinite.


Another quick note on flat vs. progressive income tax. To demonstrate why progressive taxing is the more "fair" alternative consider this example:

Each person requires a certain amount of money for basic necessities, such as food and accommodation. Typically national minimum wages are set at or around the minimum income necessary to be self-sufficient, let's use an arbitrary figure of $25,000/yr to represent this.

We have that rich guy, middle class guy and an armless guy from the island, and all pay a flat taxrate of 20%. Rich guy makes $500,000/yr, leaving him $400,000 after taxes. He pays the basic necessities and is left with $375,000 (or 75% of his gross income) to spend on luxuries in life. Middle class guy makes $150,000/yr, ie. $120,000-25,000=$95,000, or 63.3%. The armless guy makes $36k/yr by sucking the other two at the island corner, leaving him $3800 a year or 10.5% of his incum after taxes and basic necessities. Progressive taxation was created to alleviate this clear discrepancy.

If this tax progression is removed, the poor suffer and the rich gain, both unproportionally. If income taxation or, in fact, taxation, government and social services in a larger sense are eradicated, only the poor (read: working class) suffer from it. The rich don't need affordable medical insurance, they can pay the bills just fine for any exotic procedures and pay without blinking. The rich don't need police or schools or fire department, no roads no libraries, nothing. They can just buy that shit if they happen to need it. All of these, however, are completely out of the reach of the general population, of the other 95%, who cannot afford them without socialized commie hippie governments.

The armless guy makes $36k/yr by sucking the other two at the island corner, leaving him $3800 a year or 10.5% of his incum

I choked on what I was trying to swallow.

[a500lbgorilla]

Sure, but I think it has little do with the fact that they are given money, and almost everything to do with the fact that they are learning, directly and indirectly, from parents that earn lots of money how to earn lots of money for themselves.

I think it has a lot to do with the fact that they have access to money, and also that they'll carry a lot of the genetic traits that allowed their parents to be wealthy (either intelligence, talents, or that hard-workers spirit); a dash of being exposed to how to actually make it.

I think Max had the better opinion, it rather makes a lot of sense to me that a parent of wealth should be able to use that money to cement himself a strong link in the long chain of life. But it's pretty idealistic to think that it happens for the right reasons.

[Lyric]

We have a public school system, this wouldn't need to happen. If we didn't have public schools, and charity did not fufill this hole, it would be unfortunate. Not sure the answer to this, I'm not really against public schools. I would hate to say that it's "too bad" if that happened, but if I was that child I would not find it unfair that no one would help me.

As far as your question goes, I don't think it's wrong that we have safe guards protecting children from labor. But as far as asking me would the child be sent to work in some degree, that's not my choice. That's the choice of the family, my system would force no one to do anything.

We don't need public schools any more than we need public restaurants. Everyone needs to eat -- everyone needs an education. If the government were not involved in running horrible prison schools that can't even teach anyone to read, and were not involved in creating a huge college education price bubble and protecting the monopoly on higher education (via the accreditation board), schooling would be higher quality, more readily available, and cheaper than we can imagine.

Why does anyone think that schooling wouldn't be in as ready supply as microwaves, Budweiser, cell phones and laptops? Give people an opportunity to teach (and teach well for a change) and prices go down and quality goes up. It's a classic non-issue; the Gov't creates a problem and then offers to help solve it with higher taxes.

[Lyric]

You can't be serious in proposing that all infrastructure be left to the private sector. Please explain how utility monopolies are kept in check? We already have this problem to an extent, but imagine if it wasn't just your phone company, but the roadways too. What stops the road owners from installing tolls wherever they please? You can argue this robotic drivel about "always having a choice", but even you wouldn't be able to say it with a straight face.

Utilities are monopolies from the start because of government intervention. Before running the phone lines or power cables they get an agreement from government to protect their monopoly on power generation via regulation. It's a contract agreed upon beforehand with the express purpose of keeping competition away and monopoly level pricing.

We can see what would have happened without the government's support with the current fiber optic, cable, and dsl internet expansion. My small town currently has three high speed fiber companies, all running their own fiber to private homes redundantly. Without the gov't we get lower prices, competition, and redundant networks should any of them fail.

Without gov't propping up the auto and oil industries when they created the national highway system post WW2, we would have more varied transport systems all competing to provide faster and more convenient transportation at lower prices, like Europe and Japan. The reason we don't have cheaper short air travel and high speed trains is precicely because the free gov't roads made auto travel so much cheaper because the road cost was socialized. Now we have cheap auto travel and high priced air and trains.

You would not be forced to travel by car in a free market. You could fly, take a train, or drive, and the roads would be tolled to encourage more even traffic flow. The only reason we have traffic jams today is that road use is the same price at all times. With a pricing system traffic can be spread out and diverted to the readily available trains and planes.

All of this is not as simple as it seems. Think a little deeper and imagine a world before gov't on our island, work your way up, and see if you don't like the end result better than the muck pile we have today.

[Lyric]

No, I believe that wealth is determined by a number of factors which include all of the above. But, you cannot fail to admit, that a child born to wealthy intellectual parents has a much much better chance of success than a child working a manual labour job 60 hours a week trying to feed his family.

But you're still strawmanning.

Look man, your brother's utopia accepts uneducated child labourers as part and parcel of its society. That's fucking disgusting. If you agree with him, you guys seriously need to take a step back and think long and hard about how your individual pursuits of wealth are shaping you as human beings on this planet.

1. What is the alternative to allowing some to be born rich, others to be born with high IQs, and others to be born big and tall and athletic? I would argue that there is no good alternative. Having the same rules for all people is fair, but attempting to make us all equally wealthy, intelligent and athletic is ridiculous.

2. Child labor is an evil born of political rhetoric. Is the Amish way of life disgusting?

[Lyric]

I think it has a lot to do with the fact that they have access to money, and also that they'll carry a lot of the genetic traits that allowed their parents to be wealthy (either intelligence, talents, or that hard-workers spirit); a dash of being exposed to how to actually make it.

I think Max had the better opinion, it rather makes a lot of sense to me that a parent of wealth should be able to use that money to cement himself a strong link in the long chain of life. But it's pretty idealistic to think that it happens for the right reasons.

Watch the movie "Born Rich" available on google video, and tell me what kind of shot these kids have at holding onto that money. They're basically giving it all away to small business owners, artists, etc. Taking it from them to give to banks and bomb makers doesn't make any sense to me.

[boost]

Utilities are monopolies from the start because of government intervention. Before running the phone lines or power cables they get an agreement from government to protect their monopoly on power generation via regulation. It's a contract agreed upon beforehand with the express purpose of keeping competition away and monopoly level pricing.

We can see what would have happened without the government's support with the current fiber optic, cable, and dsl internet expansion. My small town currently has three high speed fiber companies, all running their own fiber to private homes redundantly. Without the gov't we get lower prices, competition, and redundant networks should any of them fail.

Without gov't propping up the auto and oil industries when they created the national highway system post WW2, we would have more varied transport systems all competing to provide faster and more convenient transportation at lower prices, like Europe and Japan. The reason we don't have cheaper short air travel and high speed trains is precicely because the free gov't roads made auto travel so much cheaper because the road cost was socialized. Now we have cheap auto travel and high priced air and trains.

You would not be forced to travel by car in a free market. You could fly, take a train, or drive, and the roads would be tolled to encourage more even traffic flow. The only reason we have traffic jams today is that road use is the same price at all times. With a pricing system traffic can be spread out and diverted to the readily available trains and planes.

All of this is not as simple as it seems. Think a little deeper and imagine a world before gov't on our island, work your way up, and see if you don't like the end result better than the muck pile we have today.

On utilities: In some cases it is necessary to have a monopoly, such as the waterworks, sewage, gas, etc. In other cases I certainly agree with you.. there is no reason to have state sanctioned monopolies in the telecommunications industry.. at least no reason that I can fathom.


On roads specifically: How do you imagine tolls would be paid? I know we have the tech to allow you to just drive by.. but would there be a nationally accepted standard? Would I be able to drive cross country?

What would stop someone from buying up a small enclosure of roadway and hiking the tolls to insane levels? What choice would the people living or working within the enclosure have but to pay up? Its things like this that are such obvious abuses of a true unregulated free market that I would think would raise red flags for any rational person.

Also the idea of heavily discouraging travel is a very bad idea overall. It would serve to create closed off stagnant micro economies/societies. Furthermore the availability of relatively cheap travel allows the down and out to uproot and head out for greener pastures. When an industry dries up, people can move on to find work elsewhere. With all roads being toll roads, the price of cross country travel would be unimaginably high. That is, if a universal system was even settled on to allow for cross country toll-way travel. Furthermore, under your system, the idea of any decent amount of competition (read: choice) on cross continental roads can not be expected or even hoped for.

Lastly, who would police these roads? You are in support of having a police and military force, but what roll do they play in this highly privatized world? Whose rules do they follow? Does the government still set the speed limit? Or are you against all road safety laws and regulations as well?

edit: As I was thinking about private roads and the possibility of having competing private cost to cost highways, a big problem that I realize you run into is national parks. That got me to thinking... without government intervention (admittedly this was sparked, financially, by charitable donations by the Rockefeller family) industry would have run over the last remnants of pristine natural expanses long long ago. And while The Rockefeller family was integral in the start of the national parks service, it would be silly to think that, without the aid of government, the parks would have lasted to this day. If the land were privately owned and protected, it would only take so long for it to fall into the hands of someone who only saw dollar signs in the landscape.

Please, please, please take the time to explain either why it doesn't matter or how a National Park system fits into your libertarian world view. This is really important to me because I cannot see how this fits into your ideals, nor can I imagine that you think it doesn't matter.

[Ash256]

1. What is the alternative to allowing some to be born rich, others to be born with high IQs, and others to be born big and tall and athletic? I would argue that there is no good alternative. Having the same rules for all people is fair, but attempting to make us all equally wealthy, intelligent and athletic is ridiculous.

This is why everyone's pointing their finger and shouting STRAWMAN! You guys seem to be under the impression that I (and possibly others) that everyone should be equally wealthy, intelligent and athletic, which is such an obvious misrepresentation of your opponent's points. Considering your skills as poker players I'd be really surprised if you were so retarded you couldn't see how fallacious this line of rhetoric is.

2. Child labor is an evil born of political rhetoric. Is the Amish way of life disgusting?

I'm not saying that children working is disgusting. I'm saying that in ISF's ideal society, potentially academically successful children may be taken out of school in order to work to feed the family, and he's cool with that. That's disgusting.

Feel free to gloss over this if you feel it's too personal, but have any of you guys had any experience of working class life, even if it's just being friends with someone in the working class? And I'm not talking hard work here, I'm talking living hand to mouth, struggling to cover the rent, etc

[Lyric]

This is why everyone's pointing their finger and shouting STRAWMAN! You guys seem to be under the impression that I (and possibly others) that everyone should be equally wealthy, intelligent and athletic, which is such an obvious misrepresentation of your opponent's points. Considering your skills as poker players I'd be really surprised if you were so retarded you couldn't see how fallacious this line of rhetoric is.



I'm not saying that children working is disgusting. I'm saying that in ISF's ideal society, potentially academically successful children may be taken out of school in order to work to feed the family, and he's cool with that. That's disgusting.

Feel free to gloss over this if you feel it's too personal, but have any of you guys had any experience of working class life, even if it's just being friends with someone in the working class? And I'm not talking hard work here, I'm talking living hand to mouth, struggling to cover the rent, etc

I was born into a poor family in a small town and we routinely moved/were evicted because we couldn't pay the rent. We had no car and then a $600 car that worked sometimes. Utilities were routinely cut off including power and water in winter. I worked construction as a laborer and cleaned gas station bathrooms, mopped floors, stocked coolers, did office building trash removal/cleaning after hours, picked up golf driving range balls by hand, and collected cans from trash bins at golf courses. I handed over most to the money to my family. We often had to literally steal food for the six person family from all you can eat cafeterias.

I'm not kidding.

[a500lbgorilla]

And on that note, I was thinking today that money and wealth are totally disconnected ideas.

That wealth is the judged value on the organization of resources; those resources themselves usually having their own wealth.

Money seems to be - a trade unit that follows demand.

That you can be wealthy and rich, or rich but not wealthy, or wealthy but not rich, or neither.

Paris Hilton is rich, but she is not wealthy.

I think Grigori Perelman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia is wealthy, but not rich. (By his own designs, it would seem. Even though he *could* be rich, he isn't and he definitely is wealthy.)

Also, something amusing that I thought I could tie into my point while I was thinking, but I'd rather just tack it onto the end.

Huxley vrs Orwell

[a500lbgorilla]

To further expand, money follows demand in that if the people demand that there exist pills to make you rock-hard, there will eventually be pills to make you rock-hard. If people demand that someone create a VR video-game simulator, such a simulator will eventually become. And above all, whomever fills these demands will be rewarded with money in the trade.

But people's demands do not always align with all wealthy ventures, so money does not always flow to all the wealth creators; though, I'd bet money flows to the good majority of them. Money also flows to people who create little wealth.

That's probably what I was going with when I thought of that comic. I'm not sure, I'm usually out of thinking juices after work.

[Lyric]

I'm not saying that children working is disgusting. I'm saying that in ISF's ideal society, potentially academically successful children may be taken out of school in order to work to feed the family, and he's cool with that. That's disgusting.

Feel free to gloss over this if you feel it's too personal, but have any of you guys had any experience of working class life, even if it's just being friends with someone in the working class? And I'm not talking hard work here, I'm talking living hand to mouth, struggling to cover the rent, etc

I also worked in three factories packing boxes, stuffing envelopes, and on a manufacturing assembly line. I babysat and cleaned other people's cars. I cleaned schools after hours. I worked as an auto mechanic and in an auto body shop. I worked weekends tending a stand at the flea market, getting up at 3 am to wait in line for a good spot at the market. I managed a university cafe. I worked as a painter.

Additionally I cleaned the family house and did all the dishes every day 2-3 times per day. I walked to school every day. I wore used clothes. I was the oldest and took care of my siblings.

Eventually I started bidding on drywalling and painting jobs with the skills I learned working as a construction laborer. I began fixing my friend's cars with the skills I leaned working as a mechanic. I started buying things in bulk from a co-op and mailed ads/placed ads on cars to re-sell them at a profit. I collected golf balls from lakes and sold them.

I was determined to work hard and find ways to make money. I began looking for ways to buy and sell and be more and more productive with my time and learned skills. I had drive and focus and seriously considered med school and law school because I was so viciously determined to pull myself out of poverty.

If I had enough charity to live comfortably but not well, had enough food and a decent car etc, I may have stayed that way for life, never having any desire to learn or work or do anything but watch TV and sit on the couch. I don't mind all the work I did and I don't see any benefit to giving me money as a child. My father was constantly borrowing money and our neighbors helped u out just enough to keep us alive and get the power back on etc. The government doesn't need to be giving people like me free money or making my life easier. It needs to stay the fuck out of my way instead of encouraging complacency and existing as a huge drag on the productive members of society by "helping" the poor an "spreading the wealth around.".

[Numbr2intheWorld]

How about you answer questions now...

On utilities: In some cases it is necessary to have a monopoly, such as the waterworks, sewage, gas, etc.

Why?

On roads specifically: How do you imagine tolls would be paid? I know we have the tech to allow you to just drive by.. but would there be a nationally accepted standard? Would I be able to drive cross country?

Are there more efficient and "cleaner" ways to get across the country?

What would stop someone from buying up a small enclosure of roadway and hiking the tolls to insane levels? What choice would the people living or working within the enclosure have but to pay up? Its things like this that are such obvious abuses of a true unregulated free market that I would think would raise red flags for any rational person.

Couldn't someone just build another road? Why are they forced to use this road or use a car at all?

Also the idea of heavily discouraging travel is a very bad idea overall. It would serve to create closed off stagnant micro economies/societies. Furthermore the availability of relatively cheap travel allows the down and out to uproot and head out for greener pastures. When an industry dries up, people can move on to find work elsewhere. With all roads being toll roads, the price of cross country travel would be unimaginably high. That is, if a universal system was even settled on to allow for cross country toll-way travel. Furthermore, under your system, the idea of any decent amount of competition (read: choice) on cross continental roads can not be expected or even hoped for.

How much does it cost to build a road and then maintain it? Where are you getting these numbers, how do you figure the prices would be unimaginably high?

Regarding the last sentence, do you think trains are competition for cross continental roads? Are planes? Do you think if people complained about a bad cross continental road that someone may build another one because of the opportunity to make good money?

Lastly, who would police these roads? You are in support of having a police and military force, but what roll do they play in this highly privatized world? Whose rules do they follow? Does the government still set the speed limit? Or are you against all road safety laws and regulations as well?

Let's pretend you own a privatized road company with a road from Chicago to Columbus. There are two other highways that travel from Chicago to similar locations, so you do not have a monopoly. Now, with that being said, is there incentive for your road to have private highway patrol? Is there incentive for you to set a certain speed limit?

edit: As I was thinking about private roads and the possibility of having competing private cost to cost highways, a big problem that I realize you run into is national parks. That got me to thinking... without government intervention (admittedly this was sparked, financially, by charitable donations by the Rockefeller family) industry would have run over the last remnants of pristine natural expanses long long ago. And while The Rockefeller family was integral in the start of the national parks service, it would be silly to think that, without the aid of government, the parks would have lasted to this day. If the land were privately owned and protected, it would only take so long for it to fall into the hands of someone who only saw dollar signs in the landscape.

Please, please, please take the time to explain either why it doesn't matter or how a National Park system fits into your libertarian world view. This is really important to me because I cannot see how this fits into your ideals, nor can I imagine that you think it doesn't matter.

Is it the absolute truth that keeping parks and nature preserves as they are is the "right" thing? Does everyone want this? If they do as you imply, would they then be preserved in a free market?

[Lyric]

And on that note, I was thinking today that money and wealth are totally disconnected ideas.

That wealth is the judged value on the organization of resources; those resources themselves usually having their own wealth.

Money seems to be - a trade unit that follows demand.

That you can be wealthy and rich, or rich but not wealthy, or wealthy but not rich, or neither.

Paris Hilton is rich, but she is not wealthy.

I think Grigori Perelman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia is wealthy, but not rich. (By his own designs, it would seem. Even though he *could* be rich, he isn't and he definitely is wealthy.)

Also, something amusing that I thought I could tie into my point while I was thinking, but I'd rather just tack it onto the end.

Huxley vrs Orwell

No, money is a store of wealth. Having a lot of money = having wealth. The money is a synthetic commodity that can be exchanged for any good or service. Having a huge box of money is the same as a huge box of diamonds or gold or anything of value.

What you're trying to get at is wealth generator vs wealth owner. Some people are productive, some people are not; both types of people can be rich or poor.

[a500lbgorilla]

Having a huge box of money, gold, or diamonds is not having a huge box of wealth though.

And two people can start with nothing but the sweat producers of their brows, one can generate less wealth but have a bigger box of money in time.

It may be that I'm just talking about wealth holders and wealth generators, but it seems like a more clear understanding when I think of money and wealth as separate and uncoupled.

[a500lbgorilla]

And two people can start with nothing but the sweat producers of their brows, one can generate less wealth but have a bigger box of money in time.

All other things equal, one man could work his entire life on a theorem for physics and die before it comes to fruition, but his works directly influenced someone to shortly after wrap up the entire problem in a nice set of equations; the understanding that falls from these equations leads to untold wealth for the world over.

The other wins the lottery; ship it.

[Lyric]

This is why everyone's pointing their finger and shouting STRAWMAN! You guys seem to be under the impression that I (and possibly others) that everyone should be equally wealthy, intelligent and athletic..

When you want to take money from the rich and give it to the poor it is the same as trying to take intelligence from geniuses and give it to the mentally handicapped. If technology allowed this would you not support it?

There is no difference between supporting Robin Hood activities and supporting brain surgery to make intelligent people dumber and dumb people smarter.

What you don't understand is that taking money from the rich makes them less productive and less able to produce things we value in the same way as IQ reducing surgery lowers a genius's ability to help society.

You seem to see the wealthy as Paris Hilton; someone who has wealth but does not generate it. I see the wealthy as Bill Gates, who generates wealth and value for society, and I am unwilling to give them both IQ reducing brain surgery; I think it is best to leave them both alone and allow Bill to be productive and allow Paris to fuck strangers in public. The brain surgery for the rich does more harm than good, and does not help the mentally handicapped poor even if it intends to do so.

Most government programs have backfired and or caused collateral damage. Building a network of roads is only one example that wreaked havoc on our transport systems. Public education is another disaster. All government "help" programs designed to aid the low IQ members of society end up making the mentally handicapped dumber (poorer), less able to contribute to society, and lower their quality of life in the long run.

Everything that is publicly run now would be cheaper and higher quality if it were released from gov't monopoly. Fedex and UPS are great examples of this, and were only allowed to exist after the laws banning competing with the post office were lifted. Before them the gov't said overnight was "impossible."

Imagine what is possible with schooling and transport if they were released from gov't control. Even private schools are under gov't control via accreditation board approval (controlled by existing private schools).

[Lyric]

Having a huge box of money, gold or diamonds is not having a huge box of wealth though.

And two people can start with nothing but the sweat producers of their brows, one can generate less wealth but have a bigger box of money in time.

It may be that I'm just talking about wealth holders and wealth generators, but it seems like a more clear understanding when I think of money and wealth as separate and uncoupled.

A huge box of gold and diamonds is wealth. Gold and diamonds hold value to other people -- the definition of wealth. Wealth = something valued by other people. It includes literally anything we are willing to work or trade to get, including food, housing, medicine, gold, money, diamonds, computers... anything.

Yes, two people can generate the same amount of wealth and be differently compensated. The only reason this exists is because of forced restrictions on free exchange. With no restrictions wealth generated can be traded for its exact value to society, but with each trade quality of life goes up exponentially.

We can see this with Bill Gates, who created much more value than the 30 billion he now holds. The world would not give up what he created in exchange for 30 billion dollars; it is worth much more to us now.

[a500lbgorilla]

A huge box of gold and diamonds is wealth. Gold and diamonds hold value to other people -- the definition of wealth. Wealth = something valued by other people. It includes literally anything we are willing to work or trade to get, including food, housing, medicine, gold, money, diamonds, computers... anything.

Yes, two people can generate the same amount of wealth and be differently compensated. The only reason this exists is because of forced restrictions on free exchange. With no restrictions wealth generated can be traded for its exact value to society, but with each trade quality of life goes up exponentially.

We can see this with Bill Gates, who created much more value than the 30 billion he now holds. The world would not give up what he created in exchange for 30 billion dollars; it is worth much more to us now.

I would much prefer a huge box of gold or diamonds be considered riches. That they hold monetary value to other people, but they do not hold the same value of wealth.

It doesn't make sense to me that one diamond can represent 1000 units of wealth, is a part of what I'm getting at. Though you could trade it for 1000 houses, which we've demonstrated are the wealthy organization of resources, that doesn't necessitate that the holding of a diamond in you hand means you're as wealthy as 1000 houses, but that you're as rich as 1000 houses.

edit, that by holding a diamond, you haven't created/hold the wealth of 1000 houses, but you have enough money to purchase 1000 houses.

[Lyric]

All other things equal, one man could work his entire life on a theorem for physics and die before it comes to fruition, but his works directly influenced someone to shortly after wrap up the entire problem in a nice set of equations; the understanding that falls from these equations leads to untold wealth for the world over.

The other wins the lottery; ship it.

This is similar to drilling an oil well and dying before you reach oil -- which may not be at that location. If someone buys your hole and keeps going -- he is gambling that he will strike oil there as you have been doing all your life. Both of you are gambling that it will come to fruition, and the well does not necessarily hold more value the deeper the hole gets... it could by dry forever. It only holds potential; same as research on physics theorems.

[a500lbgorilla]

This is similar to drilling an oil well and dying before you reach oil -- which may not be at that location. If someone buys your hole and keeps going -- he is gambling that he will strike oil there as you have been doing all your life. Both of you are gambling that it will come to fruition, and the well does not necessarily hold more value the deeper the hole gets... it could by dry forever. It only holds potential; same as research on physics theorems.

Go on?

It sounds like we're on the same page of this one, but the lotto winner is still winning a bunch of cash and the dead driller is SOL. And the fact that the lotto winner made a -EV bet, but yielded hot, hot cash while the driller made a likely +EV bet and came up empty handed, further reinforces my framing.

That the lotto winner was not making a wealthy move, but disconnected to the wealth of his actions, yielded great riches. While the driller made the much better and more wealthy action and had no rich reward.

[a500lbgorilla]

Go on?

It sounds like we're on the same page of this one, but the lotto winner is still winning a bunch of cash and the dead driller is SOL. And the fact that the lotto winner made a -EV bet, but yielded hot, hot cash while the driller made a likely +EV bet and came up empty handed, further reinforces my framing.

That the lotto winner was not making a wealthy move, but disconnected to the wealth of his actions, yielded great riches. While the driller made the much better and more wealthy action and had no rich reward.

That to say that money and wealth are directly connected and coupled is to say that the driller did rich things but got no riches, which just seems to me like a huge WTF wall.

[Lyric]

I would much prefer a huge box of gold or diamonds be considered riches. That they hold monetary value to other people, but they do not hold the same value of wealth.

It doesn't make sense to me that one diamond can represent 1000 units of wealth, is a part of what I'm getting at. Though you could trade it for 1000 houses, which we've demonstrated are the wealthy organization of resources, that doesn't necessitate that the holding of a diamond in you hand means you're as wealthy as 1000 houses, but that you're as rich as 1000 houses.

edit, that by holding a diamond, you haven't created/hold the wealth of 1000 houses, but you have enough money to purchase 1000 houses.

Owning a diamond = owning 1,000 houses if they are exchangeable. Owning a diamond does not equal creating a diamond, just as owning 1,000 homes is not the same as building those homes. It is not relevant how the diamond or homes were created; they are still both equally valued and if one man owns 1,000 homes and another owns a diamond worth 1,000 homes the two are equally wealthy.

You seem to be arbitrarily counting houses as wealth but money, diamonds, and gold as something else because they are not "useful." If they can be traded diamonds are as useful as 1,000 houses to the person who trades 1,000 of his houses for your diamond.

Your judgment of value and usefulness is only your judgment. Others have their own determinants of usefulness that won't match with yours, and this is one reason that trading can make you both better off; you both think you got a better deal.

Paper money has no value per se, but holds value to the man who trades his home for paper because there is as much demand (from other people) for the paper as there exists for his home.

The value (price) of wealth (diamonds, gold, houses, money, food, art) is determined by its usefulness to human beings, and each person has his own judgments.

[boost]

-I could be wrong, but I would imagine that the logistics of competing sewage pipelines is not just impractical but likely far more expensive, esp when to fix their pipelines they have to first get approval then pay the owner of the road to dig.

-If by "cleaner" you mean better for the environment, then I do believe travel by car is better, esp when you have multiple people in the car, but even with just one it wins. Financially efficient? When you're talking about uprooting and moving across the country to seek better work opportunities, then no I do not believe that there are more efficient options when talking about money. In terms of time there are more efficient ways, but I think money is the deciding factor here since we are talking about people who are out of work moving to find better employment opportunities. When you take this "hand out" of relatively cheap transportation away from these down and out people, you will be left with some of the worst ghettos to have ever existed.

-I am not sure what you don't understand about the scenario I presented. ABC Holdings Inc. has bought up Illinois Blvd. and Main St. between High St. and County Line Rd., and High St. and County Line Rd. between Illinois Blvd. and Main St. ABC decides to jack up the tolls on these four lengths of road. How does building another road ever solve the problem of insanely high tolls for the businesses and residents that HAVE to use these four lengths of road? And yes, they do have to drive. Or they can walk, and ABC Holdings Inc. can put into effect a pedestrian toll as well. Or maybe they should use their flying cars and jetpacks?

-I honestly do not wish to do the research to price out cross continental roadways, I don't think the point is crucial enough to the discussion, so I'll concede it. However I would like to point out that government has the power to appropriate land to build roads. Private interests would not have this power. Without this power it should be clear to anyone that building a cross continental road would be near impossibly and certainly far more expensive than it should be.

Trains and plains are not direct competition to road travel, no. Someone may attempt to build a competing road, but it would not neccessarily be direct competition as it cannot possibly share the same route. Also as the owner of the first road it would likely be in your interest to buy up perpendicular lengths of land forcing any future competition to zig zag around since you have no interest in selling to them at any price. This is really easy to show with roads, but these sort of anti-competitive practices can be found in any industry and are the reason we need regulating bodies.

-There is incentive, but I thought we had a police force. What power does the private patrol have? What are they going to do? Arrest me?

And I can throw this one back at you.. what incentive does a private roadway have to thwart illegal activity that does not impede its operation? What keeps highways from being free passage for all sorts of black market activity?

-No, there is no such thing as an absolute truth. And no, everyone doesn't want this, nor does everyone want Obama to be president, but this is why we have a democracy (or some semblance of one.) That's really the problem with your little utopia. It assumes that there are absolute truths, and even if we accept that there are, we'd have to assume that people would respect these absolute truths. However neither is the case.

[Lyric]

That to say that money and wealth are directly connected and coupled is to say that the driller did rich things but got no riches, which just seems to me like a huge WTF wall.

The first driller made no contribution to society. All he did was gamble and lose. There are a million empty holes all over the world. You can continue drilling in any one of them but you are gambling that your time and effort will generate wealth. It is your choice to take that risk and you may be rewarded for it or you may drill for your entire life (just like the first driller) and be SOL too. This is the concept of a sunk cost. Investments in drilling a non-productive hole end where they started -- zero value. Because you spent a million dollars on the hole does not make it worth a million dollars. The hole is still worthless. The time and money is destroyed, and is not considered in calculating the current value of the hole.

In the same way work on a theorem is a sunk cost unless it produces value. Wealth generation in both activities is a digital process -- it is either valued or it is not, and no one knows if it will ever become valued or if time will endlessly be wasted digging the hole or working on the theorem. Having men gamble like this is good for us because if they do find oil wealth has been generated and any new wealth entering the world makes things we value cheaper and easier to get, but just because you dig a worthless hole does not mean you helped the man who kept digging the same hole.

The first man gets no credit because he didn't improve the value of the hole by making it deeper; he only gambled by continuing to dig. It's like playing a slot machine and leaving right before it hits the jackpot. Does the jackpot winner owe you or any of the previous players a debt for pulling the arm 1,200 times before you hit the jack pot? No!

[Lyric]

-I could be wrong, but I would imagine that the logistics of competing sewage pipelines is not just impractical but likely far more expensive, esp when to fix their pipelines they have to first get approval then pay the owner of the road to dig.

Cities and towns would be privately owned from the beginning, and you would take a look at the utilities provided before deciding to live there. City owners would compete to attract "customers" to live in their cities. Take a look at Disney Land and imagine what private cities would be like.

-If by "cleaner" you mean better for the environment, then I do believe travel by car is better, esp when you have multiple people in the car, but even with just one it wins. Financially efficient? When you're talking about uprooting and moving across the country to seek better work opportunities, then no I do not believe that there are more efficient options when talking about money. In terms of time there are more efficient ways, but I think money is the deciding factor here since we are talking about people who are out of work moving to find better employment opportunities. When you take this "hand out" of relatively cheap transportation away from these down and out people, you will be left with some of the worst ghettos to have ever existed.

Without the free roads airplanes would be as developed as cars. With equal footing for roads and air travel plane flights would be as cheap and easy as auto travel today, because people like Henry Ford would be putting time into developing planes as much as cars. If the tolls are too high, people move to planes. If tickets there are too high, they take a train, and if all are too high people don't travel in that direction and the prices go down because transport owners want to make as much money as possible and will change prices to maximize profit which does not mean the price has to be high. Thinking this is like declaring that it is dangerous for McDonald's to have control of its French fry prices -- they could make them $100 a box and since they are the best fries people will be screwed!

Imagine.

[a500lbgorilla]

It's like playing a slot machine and leaving right before it hits the jackpot. Does the jackpot winner owe you or any of the previous players a debt for pulling the arm 1,200 times before you hit the jack pot? No!

But it's not like playing a slot machine. The results of a slot machine are independent of previous results, developing that theorem or finally striking oil are not.

I'd like to say more, but I'm going to sleep on it. I just couldn't pass up this point.

[Lyric]

But it's not like playing a slot machine. The results of a slot machine are independent of previous results, developing that theorem or finally striking oil are not.

I'd like to say more, but I'm going to sleep on it. I just couldn't pass up this point.

They are exactly the same because the hole in the ground does not offer better odds to the next driller. If it offered better odds the hole would be more valuable the deeper it gets, which is not the case.

[a500lbgorilla]

They are exactly the same because the hole in the ground does not offer better odds to the next driller. If it offered better odds the hole would be more valuable the deeper it gets, which is not the case.

Well then the oil driller and the theoretical physicist aren't analogous. Because all of the latter's work did offer better odds for 'striking oil'.

[Lyric]

Well then the oil driller and the theoretical physicist aren't analogous. Because all of the latter's work did offer better odds for 'striking oil'.

Bullshit. Theorems can end as dead as an empty hole and are worthless until they work.

[Numbr2intheWorld]

-There is incentive, but I thought we had a police force. What power does the private patrol have? What are they going to do? Arrest me?

They can legally prohibit you from using their road...

And I can throw this one back at you.. what incentive does a private roadway have to thwart illegal activity that does not impede its operation? What keeps highways from being free passage for all sorts of black market activity?

What are examples of illegal activities that can be done on this road?

-No, there is no such thing as an absolute truth. And no, everyone doesn't want this, nor does everyone want Obama to be president, but this is why we have a democracy (or some semblance of one.) That's really the problem with your little utopia. It assumes that there are absolute truths, and even if we accept that there are, we'd have to assume that people would respect these absolute truths. However neither is the case.

Saying that we should preserve national parks is assuming an absolute truth, you assume that it is right and true to keep the parks in tact. This is your opinion, which doesn't mean it's true. Please give me an example of where I argued that there is an absolute truth.

[IowaSkinsFan]

Yayyyyy!!! Now that I'm out of the WSOPE ME I can go to this thread and continue.

"I'm not saying that children working is disgusting. I'm saying that in ISF's ideal society, potentially academically successful children may be taken out of school in order to work to feed the family, and he's cool with that. That's disgusting."

Let me give an example where a society that gives equal opportunity to everyone would provide a bad outcome. Here it is: The government taxes the rich 70% and gives that wealth to a poor families. The parents of one of those poor families take that money and buys a car and nice expensive clothes. The family has no money now, and the child is still forced to go to work. However, the child gets straight A's.

Is this situation impossible? And if not, is this societal setup disgusting because of the bad outcome?

[IowaSkinsFan]

"And I can throw this one back at you.. what incentive does a private roadway have to thwart illegal activity that does not impede its operation? What keeps highways from being free passage for all sorts of black market activity?"

I'm not trying to be petty but there is no such thing as a black market in a totally free market. If your referring, to weapons, drugs, and sex trades, I'll give you one reason: Who wants to drive on that road? Is there anyone who'd prefer a scary road to a nice one? Unless these people are driven by something else besides profit, they would certainly keep the road "clean."

[Lyric]

"And I can throw this one back at you.. what incentive does a private roadway have to thwart illegal activity that does not impede its operation? What keeps highways from being free passage for all sorts of black market activity?"

I'm not trying to be petty but there is no such thing as a black market in a totally free market. If your referring, to weapons, drugs, and sex trades, I'll give you one reason: Who wants to drive on that road? Is there anyone who'd prefer a scary road to a nice one? Unless these people are driven by something else besides profit, they would certainly keep the road "clean."

Correct. Drugs, weapons, and hookers are legal in a free society. There is no black market. The only illegal actions are murder, theft, pollution, and enslavement.

Asking how they would police their roads is like asking how Disneyland keeps people from murdering each other inside its gates. Irvine CA is a private city and has the lowest crime rate for cities over 100k population in the US. Private police and security forces are effective.

German roads have no speed limits on many parts and they have the same fatality rates per mile driven as the United States.

[Lyric]

Please, please, please take the time to explain either why it doesn't matter or how a National Park system fits into your libertarian world view. This is really important to me because I cannot see how this fits into your ideals, nor can I imagine that you think it doesn't matter.

The National Parks would be protected by private owners more effectively than they are managed today by the government, which has made a string of errors by trying to actively "manage" the park, preventing natural fires and removing wolves from the park, etc.

Yellowstone was recognized for its value as a tourist attraction in the late 1800's, and the Northern Pacific Railroad wanted to protect it and promote it as an attraction for their railroad which ran next to it. They convinced government to foot the bill and a National Park was born, we pay for it and the railroad gets the benefit -- gov't at its best.

National park - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[boost]

German roads have no speed limits on many parts and they have the same fatality rates per mile driven as the United States.

-German roads have very harsh penalties for violating their traffic laws. In the absence of speed limits, changing lanes is highly restricted.

-I don't want to live in disney land.

-Are you now advocating a privatized police force? Why not a privatized military as well?

[boost]

What I'm really getting at is that if commercial interest are inherently good (the market will bend to the collective morals of the consumer... this pretty much sums up your stance, correct?) then why have government at all? If the market values a military to protect the market's borders from outside forces, wont the market fund one?

It seems that you all are really either not sure what you want your society to look like (besides lyric who wants it to look like disneyland :P ) or you are actually anarchist and don't even know it.

edit: I'm not trying to side step the rebuttals, but I easily get lost in all of these analogies and intricate off-shoots of the main discussion. So I am just backing up and trying to regain my bearings on the big picture.

[Lyric]

-German roads have very harsh penalties for violating their traffic laws. In the absence of speed limits, changing lanes is highly restricted.

-I don't want to live in disney land.

-Are you now advocating a privatized police force? Why not a privatized military as well?

I don't want to live in Disney Land either, but I appreciate its clean and safe environment.

Toll roads can have public police on them as well, but the traffic rules would be generated and enforced by the road owner, not the national government or its police force. Their only job would be preventing theft murder and slavery.

Offenders would be banned from driving on a road if they break the rules. Road owners would set speed limits and lane change rules and licensing and so forth.

[Lyric]

What I'm really getting at is that if commercial interest are inherently good (the market will bend to the collective morals of the consumer... this pretty much sums up your stance, correct?) then why have government at all? If the market values a military to protect the market's borders from outside forces, wont the market fund one?

It seems that you all are really either not sure what you want your society to look like (besides lyric who wants it to look like disneyland :P ) or you are actually anarchist and don't even know it.

edit: I'm not trying to side step the rebuttals, but I easily get lost in all of these analogies and intricate off-shoots of the main discussion. So I am just backing up and trying to regain my bearings on the big picture.

There would have to be a military first to avoid neighboring country invasions. Even in the last two hundred years we have been involved in attempting to take land from Canada and Mexico. Military is the first requirement to avoid having them return the favor.

Every libertarian country that tries to start up, usually off the coast of a country or on an island, is relatively quickly absorbed or confiscated by the closest country.

We are too young to remember when the only thing keeping a country from taking a neighbor's land was military force. In the middle east this still happens. Not long ago Iraq took over Kuwait because its military was stronger.

[boost]

There would have to be a military first to avoid neighboring country invasions. Even in the last two hundred years we have been involved in attempting to take land from Canada and Mexico. Military is the first requirement to avoid having them return the favor.

Every libertarian country that tries to start up, usually off the coast of a country or on an island, is relatively quickly absorbed or confiscated by the closest country.

We are too young to remember when the only thing keeping a country from taking a neighbor's land was military force. In the middle east this still happens. Not long ago Iraq took over Kuwait because its military was stronger.

I'm pretty sure you did not even respond to my question. I did not question the role, usefulness, or need for a military. Instead I was simply asking why the private sector can't take care of the military.

Back to the ground zero mosque. You are essentially telling me that it would be okay to build one outside of 2 miles from the site. In turn I am asking "why not 50 miles? Or how about no mosque at all?" Essentially I am pointing out that your acceptance of a tax funded military yet rejection of a tax funded school is baseless.

[Lyric]

I'm pretty sure you did not even respond to my question. I did not question the role, usefulness, or need for a military. Instead I was simply asking why the private sector can't take care of the military.

Back to the ground zero mosque. You are essentially telling me that it would be okay to build one outside of 2 miles from the site. In turn I am asking "why not 50 miles? Or how about no mosque at all?" Essentially I am pointing out that your acceptance of a tax funded military yet rejection of a tax funded school is baseless.

Military can't be privatized because you can't sell military protection to me but not my neighbor -- if you protect my house from attack you are accidentally protecting my neighbor. Something that cannot be sold to individuals has to be socialized.

[IowaSkinsFan]

"What I'm really getting at is that if commercial interest are inherently good (the market will bend to the collective morals of the consumer... this pretty much sums up your stance, correct?) then why have government at all?"

Well this is basically my stance but there is certainly some uses for government. For example, protecting your rights and protecting you from harm from others.

[Numbr2intheWorld]

What I'm really getting at is that if commercial interest are inherently good (the market will bend to the collective morals of the consumer... this pretty much sums up your stance, correct?)

If you remove the "commercial interests are inherently good" part, then yes.

Do you disagree that this is true? What evidence is there that this is not true?

then why have government at all? If the market values a military to protect the market's borders from outside forces, wont the market fund one?

It seems that you all are really either not sure what you want your society to look like (besides lyric who wants it to look like disneyland :P ) or you are actually anarchist and don't even know it.

edit: I'm not trying to side step the rebuttals, but I easily get lost in all of these analogies and intricate off-shoots of the main discussion. So I am just backing up and trying to regain my bearings on the big picture.

If we're anarchist's, then you're socialists. The truth is both are extreme stances and we are both just towards one or the other.

[Ash256]

I was determined to work hard and find ways to make money. I began looking for ways to buy and sell and be more and more productive with my time and learned skills. I had drive and focus and seriously considered med school and law school because I was so viciously determined to pull myself out of poverty.

Wow. Massive respect for your background Lyric. Do you think that removing the societal safety net would give a majority of currently poor people the same drive, focus and genius that you have?

[Ash256]

Yayyyyy!!! Now that I'm out of the WSOPE ME I can go to this thread and continue.

"I'm not saying that children working is disgusting. I'm saying that in ISF's ideal society, potentially academically successful children may be taken out of school in order to work to feed the family, and he's cool with that. That's disgusting."

Let me give an example where a society that gives equal opportunity to everyone would provide a bad outcome. Here it is: The government taxes the rich 70% and gives that wealth to a poor families. The parents of one of those poor families take that money and buys a car and nice expensive clothes. The family has no money now, and the child is still forced to go to work. However, the child gets straight A's.

Is this situation impossible? And if not, is this societal setup disgusting because of the bad outcome?

Your situation is unlikely because the poor family still need to eat and would share food with the kid. However it's certainly not impossible.

However you've just pointed out what I've been trying to convey to you all along. In your example of the current system the kid gets straight As, and is therefore likely to be able to move up in society through his academic ability.

In my example of your system, the kid is denied that opportunity.

[Ash256]

Correct. Drugs, weapons, and hookers are legal in a free society. There is no black market. The only illegal actions are murder, theft, pollution, and enslavement.

Would having sex with children be illegal?

How about if I bought a dog, took it to the park, and fucked it in front of everyone. Would that be illegal in your utopia?

[bode]

Wow. Massive respect for your background Lyric. Do you think that removing the societal safety net would give a majority of currently poor people the same drive, focus and genius that you have?

i really don't want to get in this debate, but enjoy reading it. Lyric's past and his rise above it is obviously an outlier. He seems to have an incredible work ethic that not everyone will have given the same situation. There will be hard workers that are born poor and rich, and lazy people who accept what they have been dealt and continue to be lazy whether they are born to bill gates or someone on welfare. It would be nice to think that everyone who is born to a lower class family would want to work hard and make a more comfortable life for themselves and their family, but thats just not the case.

[Numbr2intheWorld]

I think it has a lot to do with the fact that they have access to money, and also that they'll carry a lot of the genetic traits that allowed their parents to be wealthy (either intelligence, talents, or that hard-workers spirit); a dash of being exposed to how to actually make it.

I think Max had the better opinion, it rather makes a lot of sense to me that a parent of wealth should be able to use that money to cement himself a strong link in the long chain of life. But it's pretty idealistic to think that it happens for the right reasons.

What are the right reasons?

[Numbr2intheWorld]

This is Danny

It's arguable that part of the reason Paris Hilton makes a lot of money because people like to take her character and how rich she is and talk about how its unfair.

[CoccoBill]

When you want to take money from the rich and give it to the poor it is the same as trying to take intelligence from geniuses and give it to the mentally handicapped. If technology allowed this would you not support it?

There is no difference between supporting Robin Hood activities and supporting brain surgery to make intelligent people dumber and dumb people smarter.

What you don't understand is that taking money from the rich makes them less productive and less able to produce things we value in the same way as IQ reducing surgery lowers a genius's ability to help society.

Do you think one person with $1bn is more productive than 1000 people with $1M? Please explain why.

You seem to see the wealthy as Paris Hilton; someone who has wealth but does not generate it. I see the wealthy as Bill Gates, who generates wealth and value for society, and I am unwilling to give them both IQ reducing brain surgery; I think it is best to leave them both alone and allow Bill to be productive and allow Paris to fuck strangers in public. The brain surgery for the rich does more harm than good, and does not help the mentally handicapped poor even if it intends to do so.

Most government programs have backfired and or caused collateral damage. Building a network of roads is only one example that wreaked havoc on our transport systems. Public education is another disaster. All government "help" programs designed to aid the low IQ members of society end up making the mentally handicapped dumber (poorer), less able to contribute to society, and lower their quality of life in the long run.

You're getting awfully close to eugenics in your comments, are you suggesting that people are poor because they are dumb? Either way, could you give some examples of these problems and why they are the government's fault?

Everything that is publicly run now would be cheaper and higher quality if it were released from gov't monopoly. Fedex and UPS are great examples of this, and were only allowed to exist after the laws banning competing with the post office were lifted. Before them the gov't said overnight was "impossible."

Imagine what is possible with schooling and transport if they were released from gov't control. Even private schools are under gov't control via accreditation board approval (controlled by existing private schools).

Finland has topped the lists of best educational systems in the world for years, and all of the schools are public. How is that possible?

[WillburForce]

we're not talking about taking from the rich and giving to the poor.

We're talking about taxing richer people more than poor people to help society as a whole.

With regards Paris Hilton/celebs etc they are just a small % of what is really going on in terms of how unfair money is.

And handing over control of countries to the people with the most money WTF???????? Are you seriously suggesting this??????

[Lyric]

Wow. Massive respect for your background Lyric. Do you think that removing the societal safety net would give a majority of currently poor people the same drive, focus and genius that you have?

No, I realize that I am not a normal person, but at the same time I don't think it is helpful to people like me or to people like my brother, whom I supported for years in adulthood because he lacked any drive whatsoever. When I finally stopped supporting him he got a job and supported himself. It was a relief because for years I was thinking that he would need me for life. Turns out he only needed to be removed from my charity.

Government doesn't seem much different than me. I don't want people dying in the streets but encouraging complacency is not a good plan in my view.

[CoccoBill]

"What I'm really getting at is that if commercial interest are inherently good (the market will bend to the collective morals of the consumer... this pretty much sums up your stance, correct?) then why have government at all?"

Well this is basically my stance but there is certainly some uses for government. For example, protecting your rights and protecting you from harm from others.

Why can't that be privatized, in your opinion?

If you remove the "commercial interests are inherently good" part, then yes.

Do you disagree that this is true? What evidence is there that this is not true?

Are commercial interests to e.g. protect the environment, ensure safety of products, maximize welfare and human progression, combat injustice or to maximize profits? I think the burden of proof is on you to show that commercial interests do in practice equate those goals. The fact that they "can" is not proof in the least.

[Lyric]

Would having sex with children be illegal?

How about if I bought a dog, took it to the park, and fucked it in front of everyone. Would that be illegal in your utopia?

Lol! Kids are a weird gray area because they are half way between property and humans. Parents feel they "own" them and our morals are not clear regarding when a person becomes an adult.

Fucking dogs in public would be legal, but public property is very limited; cities are owned and managed like Disney Land, and most cities would probably ban fucking dogs in public.

It's like asking me if fucking dogs in my house is okay. Nope. Ask my neighbor... nope. Fucking dogs would be restricted to your own home if we all owned our own shit.

[Lyric]

Do you think one person with $1bn is more productive than 1000 people with $1M? Please explain why.

No, ownership doesn't equal productivity; I want to encourage wealth (wealth=something valued by humans) creation as much as possible. I don't purport to be able to control how people produce shit any better than the next guy, and I think anyone who does is a charlatan.

Forcing the billionaire to move his wealth to people with less has been talked about 50 times in this thread already, please read the history.

[Lyric]

You're getting awfully close to eugenics in your comments, are you suggesting that people are poor because they are dumb? Either way, could you give some examples of these problems and why they are the government's fault?

Eugenics is a terrible idea, but was very popular, even in the US, when Hilter gained power.

Dumb people can easily become wealthy via hard work.

Most problems that exist today are because of gov't intervention. Pick one and I'll elaborate.

[WillburForce]

Your above statement makes no sense - anything is allowed by the people that own said area...?

What if I was born in a city and was born with toes missing. People in said city don't like MOFO's with no toes, so sling me out - this is fair because they own city?

What about the dogs rights in a city that allows dogs to be fucked???

What about gays etc etc etc etc why bother with rights at all? Why not let the biggest majority decide how shit goes down? You don't like it? What you gonna do about it?

Fk me sounds some of the most repressed countries in the world at the moment.

[AvatarKava]

Finland has topped the lists of best educational systems in the world for years, and all of the schools are public. How is that possible?

Small, homogeneous society. Finland's entire population is smaller than that of NY City alone. Further, Finland (like a bunch of other highly-ranked European countries) funnels students into vocational/technical schools around the point that most of our students are hitting middle school.

They take education seriously - it's not bogged down by the football team or by coddling every student into believing that performance doesn't matter, as long as they try hard. If students aren't performing well, they learn trade skills instead of waiting until their 20s to find out they might not be cut out to be a lawyer. From what I've read, teachers are both well compensated and accountable.

Which is not to say that public schools themselves are the problem here in the US - the problem in my opinion is the mismanagement of public schools and the "one size fits all" approach that is currently promoted.

[Lyric]

Finland has topped the lists of best educational systems in the world for years, and all of the schools are public. How is that possible?

Finlanders (my immediate ancestors) are doing well both in their home country and abroad. There are no poor people in Finland or in the US, in general. You decide why this is the case; we don't know.

Asking me why their public education system works is like asking me why homeopathy works. We just don't know, and it certainly isn't because the schools are public or the homeopathic pills have active ingredients.

[Lyric]

Why can't that be privatized, in your opinion?




Are commercial interests to e.g. protect the environment, ensure safety of products, maximize welfare and human progression, combat injustice or to maximize profits? I think the burden of proof is on you to show that commercial interests do in practice equate those goals. The fact that they "can" is not proof in the least.

The burden lies on both sides. A lot of evidence has been provided in this thread regarding free exchange, none has been offered regarding directed investment benefiting society.

[Ash256]

Lol! Kids are a weird gray area because they are half way between property and humans. Parents feel they "own" them and our morals are not clear regarding when a person becomes an adult.

Fucking dogs in public would be legal, but public property is very limited; cities are owned and managed like Disney Land, and most cities would probably ban fucking dogs in public.

It's like asking me if fucking dogs in my house is okay. Nope. Ask my neighbor... nope. Fucking dogs would be restricted to your own home if we all owned our own shit.

So you wouldn't have an age of consent?

What about rape? Is that ok?

While I'm there, if I want to add a really ugly obnoxious extension to my house that blocks all my neighbours views and spoils how the street looks, am I ok to do that?

[Lyric]

Your above statement makes no sense - anything is allowed by the people that own said area...?

What if I was born in a city and was born with toes missing. People in said city don't like MOFO's with no toes, so sling me out - this is fair because they own city?

What about the dogs rights in a city that allows dogs to be fucked???

What about gays etc etc etc etc why bother with rights at all? Why not let the biggest majority decide how shit goes down? You don't like it? What you gonna do about it?

Fk me sounds some of the most repressed countries in the world at the moment.

Personally I don't think dogs should be fucked, but I don't think having police in your home to make sure you are not fucking your dog is a good alternative.

Some cities would support gay rights, others might be retarded and would not support it until we all realize that gay people are not something to be afraid of.

I think you should be able to do anything you want on your own property excluding murder, slavery (including rape), and theft. If we choose to include animals in this equation that's fine with me -- don't rape or murder them.

[WillburForce]

what about my toeless feet?