Why don't you take action and put pressure on the company who made your printer to provide proper drivers for it? Many of us did that to ATI, and they're starting to do so. They have a very long way to go, but they're getting started.
I missed that line in the Declaration of Independence and/or Constitution. I thought the role of Government was something more along these lines: âoeThat to secure these rights [life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness], Governments are instituted among Men.â The role of the government is not to âoeserve the peopleâ by coercively taking their money to pay for their internet and phone service.
Perhaps I should have said âoeexcept the Post Office.â It only grants the power âoeto establish post offices and post roads,â not âoeto use force to prevent private competition with the USPS,â as is currently the case.
You believe that the government should help build the infrastructure then turn it over to private industry with little oversight? Seriously?
The federal government should not help build the infrastructure, nor should it help fund it. Individual States can choose what they want to do, but I'd prefer as little government involvement as possible or as is necessary.
Since you like to quote examples of failed government interventions, perhaps you could list a few successful free markets? Ones with little or no government intervention.
No, I'm sick of listing things and then having you poke tiny linguistic holes in them, when the fact is that governmental failures overwhelmingly outnumber governmental successes in the area of running industries, especially in ones which could be handled by the market with few problems. Perhaps you could name some examples of fine tuned, efficient, fully-government-owned and operated monopoly industries that meet consumers' demands like a similar free-market company? It will be tough, since in order to operate, money has to coercively be taken from taxpayers in society, not all of which will use the government's product or service. So even if the exact same operation were run privately it would better meet people's demands since they would be able to choose whether to spend money on that product or service, let alone choose from multiple competitors. The 20th century was the century with the biggest governments in human history, and was also the century with by far the most death due to war. Coincidence? I think not.
Your challenge is difficult because the government sticks its hands into almost everything we do here in the United States. However, an obvious example is the United States itself during the past two hundred years, especially during the industrial revolution, the time when the Federal Government had the fewest regulations on industry. One could also examine any industry in the United States that has flourished despite crippling governmental regulations.
Show me a government that isn't corrupt, truly respects private property rights, and doesn't tax too much.
Of course, all governments are a little corrupt. However, if government is so efficient at running things, there should be many examples of countries with extremely high taxes that are growing and flourishing, and there simply are none. Western Europe is hobbling along with little to no growth and a shrinking population while countries with low taxes and low regulation are growing and flourishing like Hong Kong, to some extent the United States & China.
Applying meaningless labels to your opponent - is that standard debate tactics as well?
Actually, the word âoeliberalâ has much meaning. When this country was founded it meant that someone was an advocate of freedom, small, decentralized government, and a government who in large part leaves citizens alone. Unfortunately its meaning has been twisted to mean nearly the opposite today, which seems to fit your opinions quite well.
No, you haven't shown an example where the telecom infrastructure was nationalized in an otherwise q
That is blatantly false. The percentage increase in the United States economy is greater than inflation. The main time when this wasn't true was during the disastrous presidency of Jimmy Carter, during which time we had ~30% inflation and ~70% income taxes. No wonder gasoline went above $1 for the first time during his presidency. Our living standards are on average much higher than our parents'. This is a fact.
Nationalization would be another way to break up a monopoly.
Nationalization would be a way to replace a private monopoly with a government one. Hardly an improvement if eliminating monopolies is one's goal.
why is it so absurd to take it one step further and let the government manage the infrastructure?
For three reasons. First, as I said earlier it would be replacing one monopoly with another run by bureaucrats. Second, in the United States there is nothing about government-operated industries in the Constitution, which immediately makes illegitimate any federal ownership or operation of any industry. Third, as was aptly demonstrated by the 20th century and my above post, government-run industries are generally far worse than private industries in terms of efficiency and responding to/meeting consumers' demands. The extremely high fixed costs, barriers to entry, and general social benefits associated with industries like utilities justify/necessitate state/local government subsidization. However, once established, the government need not constantly interfere.
for someone promoting the so-called free market, you seem strangely okay with government meddling...
There are very, very few areas where government intervention in the private sector is legitimate.
You didn't address the point that people starve to death everywhere
Show me a country where people starve in large numbers, and I'll show you a government that is corrupt, doesn't enforce private property rights, or takes a large quantity of its citizens' income.
nor how nationalizing the telecom infrastructure would cause mass starvation
Again, I never claimed that people always starve to death when government controls industry. The point was to illustrate how awful governments are at running industry, using historical facts instead of idealistic liberal rhetoric. Usually in a debate it's a good idea to back up what one is claiming with facts and historical examples, and that's exactly what I did. The massive failures of Soviet Russia, Communist China, and post-WWII East Germany when compared to the successes of free post-WWII West Germany, post-WWII Japan, Hong Kong, and increasingly free China are hardly circumstantial evidence or anecdotes. The fact is, wherever government controls a significant amount of commerce, there is either a collapse or mass death (as is the case with the aforementioned Communist countries), or just low growth (see: Western Europe for the latter half of the 20th century).
I just remembered another couple government corporations which have recently failed: Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac. Maybe you've heard of them? If only the people running them were smarter, then maybe they wouldn't have failed. The solution to governmental failure certainly isn't privatization because government knows best how to handle people's mortgages. That's why governmental mortgage corporations don't fail. Oh waitâ¦
Do you not realize that individual states also are governments? And, you agree that the federal government controls significant infrastructure. I guess you would be okay with nationalized telecom if the state governments controlled most of the copper and fiber, and the federal government had a few interstate fiber runs? What are you even trying to say?
Yes, I realize State governments are also governments. However, they are not the Federal Government, the legislature of which is constrained by the Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. Powers not granted to the Federal Government are reserved for the States (10th Amendment). Industry is not mentioned in this section (or any section, for that matter) of the Constitution, and thus is not a proper role for the Federal Government. However, I suppose States could legally own corporations like the power company, water company, etc, alth
Maybe because people are willing to pay increased rates every year and they're profit maximizing corporations? The same way people are willing to pay increased food prices every year even though it's the fault of the government. For more reasons see: Inflation.
Yeah, because the government knows better than you and your doctor what drugs you should take. I won't grace your absurd second comment with a response except to say that it is obviously totally untrue, and anyone who has read any Friedman would know that.
It really is no more absurd that the government ordering the primary telecom company to break itself into pieces. Yet, the US did that.
Yes it is, because when the government breaks up a monopoly, competition is promoted. When industries are nationalized it virtually requires a government monopoly.
Your argument is built on a false premise - there is no way to know that free markets would have prevented people in China from starving to death. The fact that they did in something other than a free market in no way validates your system.
This is not true for a couple reasons. First, people were not starving to death in mass quantities before Mao abolished the private ownership of their farms. The private farms were producing enough food for everyone in the country. It is hard to believe that millions of people coincidentally began starving to death at the exact time when private ownership and free trade were abolished. Second, even though free markets were essentially abolished and the farms were entirely communal, underground black markets developed where people bought and sold food. If things were so great on the farm communes and they were producing enough food for everyone in the country, this would not have happened. Additionally, after Mao's death and the reestablishment of free markets in China, it has seen an unprecedented explosion in economic growth. I cannot believe that this pattern was all due to coincidence, and not to the presence or lack thereof of free markets.
I realize that a large reason why all those people starved to death is because they were (coercively) moved from farming to producing steel. Perhaps if the people were left to their (the State's) farms, fewer people would have starved to death. Regardless, this proves my point even more because it shows how awful the government is at planning & directing economic activity. I doubt all those people would have stopped farming had they been left alone to their private plots of land.
The US government controls/owns most roads in the country, yet that doesn't cause people to starve to death. Do you imagine that nationalized telecom service would somehow make people starve? Really?
This is not true. Individual States own and operate most of the roads in the United States. The Federal Government owns and operates major interstate highways, I believe.
Like I said, after privatization that company was no longer receiving checks from the government paid for with other people's money, so it's quite understandable that prices consumers see are higher. However, is it not better to have $60 more in your pocket every 3 months so you can voluntarily choose to spend it on telecom service, instead of having it coercively taken from you to pay for your telecom service?
Right, and that's why I have no problem with semiprivate or subsidized utility companies. However, the idea of nationalizing telecoms is absurd. Regarding your comment about free markets, I'm sure all the people who starved to death in Mao's China during the Great Leap Forward wouldn't agree that free markets are "bullshit" as you say. They'd probably be more inclined to say that of government control of otherwise free markets. I mean come on, everyone knows that the government is more efficient at providing goods and services than the private sector. Just look at all the historical examples of successful government controlled/owned industries where millions of people didn't starve to death. Oh wait...
No, libertarians believe coercion/force/the threat of force by the government should be kept to a minimum and coercion/the use of force in the private sector should be prevented. The reason it's ok for companies to drug test (IMO) is because employers should be free to hire who they want. Government does not know better than the employer. Telling employers who they can and cannot hire is coercion. The reason it's not ok for the government to put people into prison for using/possessing drugs is because the act of taking/possessing drugs does not directly violate the rights of others. The only reason people should be put into prison is when they directly violate the rights of others (stealing, fraud, murder, etc). Preventing people from hurting themselves or "protecting society from falling apart" (two common arguments against decriminalization) are not valid reasons to put people in prison. Also, voluntary transactions do not violate people's rights simply because they are voluntary.
To answer your other question, the relationship between freedom and economics is very important. If you're really interested, read Milton Friedman's Free to Choose or Capitalism and Freedom. Otherwise, here's my summary: Taxing is coercion. Since taxation is always coupled with government expenditure, the combination can only have the effect of diverting resources from where consumers wanted them used to some other use chosen by political officials. (this last sentence is directly from a David Boaz book). Also, when governments tax one group of people and give that money to another group of people (as is the case with any subsidy), it is treating people differently, undermining the 14th Amendment (equality under the law). This also occurs with other economic protections like minimum wages, tariffs, and quotas, zoning regulations, welfare, medicare, etc. They all treat people differently. Also, redistribution programs do not make sense logically. The point of redistribution programs is to make people more equal, but in the process they treat people unequally. IM me if you have any other questions, or just read the aforementioned books.
In reality, liberals are just arrogant people who think they know how to spend your money better than you do. That's not to say that they aren't well-meaning, they're just hopelessly misguided.
Man, you hit the nail on the head. Every government advocate suffers from the same problem. They all believe that if only we could get really smart people in control (liberals), everything would be great. Some people never learn from history, which is why it is, as they say, destined to repeat itself.
First, some goods are public (nonrivalrous, nonexcludable) and thus government involvement is (questionably) legitimate, to prevent the tragedy of the commons.
Second, the prices consumers see will obviously be lower if an industry is subsidized/owned by the government because money is coercively taken from one group of people (taxpayers) and given to another group (the providers of the service/utility). That's the thing about government-provided services. They're great at concealing costs because everyone pays taxes which go directly to the beneficiary of the tax, who then (surprise) charges lower prices. How do you think ethanol is "economically viable" in the United States? It wouldn't be so cheap if its producers didn't receive billions of taxpayer dollars.
Third, even if the service is "better" under a government-owned system, the advocate of the government monopoly must still justify why it is ok to coercively take money from one group of people, filter it through the government bureaucrats, and give it to another, especially when the transaction would otherwise take place voluntarily without any coercion. Note that I don't have too large of a problem with subsidized energy/water/utilities since competition doesn't exactly work well in those markets. However, my argument still stands for the telecoms especially.
Fourth, it is understandable that the service is worse (and that prices are unreasonably higher) if the government monopoly was privatized into a private monopoly.
I said nothing of the sort. I merely mentioned historical examples of failures of governments to control economies and nationalize industries, of which there are many.
The problem with your view is that someone has to decide what "too far" means. Who should decide? You? A bureaucrat or politician in Washington? Who are you to tell these people that they should spend their hard-earned money on something other than receiving text messages? It obviously doesn't bother them enough to cause them to switch. Who are you to tell telecoms how they can better run their companies? If the price of receiving SMS messages is too high, people (or teenage girls' parents) won't pay for it. If enough people hate getting charged $.10 for receiving SMS messages they will start their own company which avoids this problem. An example is Cricket wireless which offers unlimited voice, text, etc plans for $45 per month. Another problem with regulating these types of insignificant "problems" (not real problems) is that this power has not been granted to the Federal Government in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. However, I suppose that in the past unconstitutionality hasn't stopped big government, high tax, regulatory nanny state liberals like yourself from controlling and regulating everything you disagree with or don't like. Unfortunately you posted as AC so I am unable to verify this claim with your past comments. Karma is oh so hard to come by for liberals these days. +5 insightful is pretty easy to get; all you have to do is say (and agree) that government doesn't know what's best for people and provide a few examples of the government not knowing what's best for people, which is pretty easy to do given the enormous amount of examples from which to choose.
I won't disagree with you on that one, but keep in mind that all the Nordic countries are really loosening up economic controls. Also keep in mind that since taxation is always coupled with government expenditure, the combination can only have the effect of diverting resources from where consumers wanted them used to some other use chosen by political official. So, 40% of people's income is forcibly taken from them and put to some other use than they would have otherwise chosen. (I ripped the sentence before last straight out of a David Boaz book, by the way.)
There's a problem with these companies trying to fund lobbyists to politically further their agenda, and you want to get the government more involved? The root of the problem is government involvement in the first place. If the federal government wouldn't grant favors to certain industries (cough, farms, cough corn-based ethanol, cough), there would be a lower incentive to spend money on lobbying instead of on serving the customer. A great example that proves my point is the current situation in Peru. The government taxes everything so heavily and then redistributes so much unearned income that a huge percentage of companies' budgets are spent competing for that unearned income from the government instead of developing new products for consumers. The heavy taxes keep consumers from building wealth & savings, which means there is less money available for companies to borrow, so interest rates go up. It is therefore more difficult for companies to borrow to fund their investments in new capital, which means in the end the consumer suffers.
Increased regulation and nationalization will (like always) only make problems worse, not better. For more examples of failed nationalized industries and government economic plans leading to mass death and starvation, see the Soviet Union from 1928-1958 (Stalin's reign). For examples of what happens as a result of government control of capitalist economies, see the "Great Depression." No, the GD was not caused by the failure of the free market but by the failure of government. (Surprise! - that's never happened before...) If you don't agree, take an introductory macroeconomics/finance class at your local university that isn't taught by a Marxist, or just read Free to Choose by Milton Friedman.
just can't understand how they can uphold the Constitution (as required by them being elected to office by the people) when they vote for a law that goes against it.
Because it's easier to get elected when you promise to give handouts, take action, tax the rich, etc, instead of trying to get elected on the position that you're going to eliminate the special interest benefits, shrink government, and lower taxes. People always want the Government to serve their special interests, but no one else's. This is one of the reasons why our Government has grown so large. Another reason is that we have forgotten the tyranny and oppression that in inevitable when the government controls close to 40% of the nation's income and when our rights are slowly being eliminated and put into the hands of a few powerful people at the top. "It's for your own good" they tell us. "We need to take away your rights to protect you from the terrorists." I must ask why is it not possible to both protect us from the terrorists (a proper role of government) and grant us our rights? The reason is that big government precedents have already been set which allow the government to get away with these kinds of shenanigans.
I agree with the first two paragraphs of your post but come on, don't be so cynical. To me, the price is really justified because of the 8/16GB of memory. One will spend >$100-150 to get an mp3 player (not even an iPod) with similar storage capacity anyway. A phone with equivalent features will be at least $200. I'm not sure how Apple is making any money on these new devices.
Slashdot Mirror
Why don't you take action and put pressure on the company who made your printer to provide proper drivers for it? Many of us did that to ATI, and they're starting to do so. They have a very long way to go, but they're getting started.
government exists to serve the people
I missed that line in the Declaration of Independence and/or Constitution. I thought the role of Government was something more along these lines: âoeThat to secure these rights [life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness], Governments are instituted among Men.â The role of the government is not to âoeserve the peopleâ by coercively taking their money to pay for their internet and phone service.
Perhaps I should have said âoeexcept the Post Office.â It only grants the power âoeto establish post offices and post roads,â not âoeto use force to prevent private competition with the USPS,â as is currently the case.
You believe that the government should help build the infrastructure then turn it over to private industry with little oversight? Seriously?
The federal government should not help build the infrastructure, nor should it help fund it. Individual States can choose what they want to do, but I'd prefer as little government involvement as possible or as is necessary.
Since you like to quote examples of failed government interventions, perhaps you could list a few successful free markets? Ones with little or no government intervention.
No, I'm sick of listing things and then having you poke tiny linguistic holes in them, when the fact is that governmental failures overwhelmingly outnumber governmental successes in the area of running industries, especially in ones which could be handled by the market with few problems. Perhaps you could name some examples of fine tuned, efficient, fully-government-owned and operated monopoly industries that meet consumers' demands like a similar free-market company? It will be tough, since in order to operate, money has to coercively be taken from taxpayers in society, not all of which will use the government's product or service. So even if the exact same operation were run privately it would better meet people's demands since they would be able to choose whether to spend money on that product or service, let alone choose from multiple competitors. The 20th century was the century with the biggest governments in human history, and was also the century with by far the most death due to war. Coincidence? I think not.
Your challenge is difficult because the government sticks its hands into almost everything we do here in the United States. However, an obvious example is the United States itself during the past two hundred years, especially during the industrial revolution, the time when the Federal Government had the fewest regulations on industry. One could also examine any industry in the United States that has flourished despite crippling governmental regulations.
Show me a government that isn't corrupt, truly respects private property rights, and doesn't tax too much.
Of course, all governments are a little corrupt. However, if government is so efficient at running things, there should be many examples of countries with extremely high taxes that are growing and flourishing, and there simply are none. Western Europe is hobbling along with little to no growth and a shrinking population while countries with low taxes and low regulation are growing and flourishing like Hong Kong, to some extent the United States & China.
Applying meaningless labels to your opponent - is that standard debate tactics as well?
Actually, the word âoeliberalâ has much meaning. When this country was founded it meant that someone was an advocate of freedom, small, decentralized government, and a government who in large part leaves citizens alone. Unfortunately its meaning has been twisted to mean nearly the opposite today, which seems to fit your opinions quite well.
No, you haven't shown an example where the telecom infrastructure was nationalized in an otherwise q
Perhaps. Maybe if Obama gets elected and takes more of our money then it will feel like wages are higher.
Wow, some real humility on slashdot. You are very unique. Your intellectual honesty is a valuable characteristic.
That is blatantly false. The percentage increase in the United States economy is greater than inflation. The main time when this wasn't true was during the disastrous presidency of Jimmy Carter, during which time we had ~30% inflation and ~70% income taxes. No wonder gasoline went above $1 for the first time during his presidency. Our living standards are on average much higher than our parents'. This is a fact.
Nationalization would be another way to break up a monopoly.
Nationalization would be a way to replace a private monopoly with a government one. Hardly an improvement if eliminating monopolies is one's goal.
why is it so absurd to take it one step further and let the government manage the infrastructure?
For three reasons. First, as I said earlier it would be replacing one monopoly with another run by bureaucrats. Second, in the United States there is nothing about government-operated industries in the Constitution, which immediately makes illegitimate any federal ownership or operation of any industry. Third, as was aptly demonstrated by the 20th century and my above post, government-run industries are generally far worse than private industries in terms of efficiency and responding to/meeting consumers' demands. The extremely high fixed costs, barriers to entry, and general social benefits associated with industries like utilities justify/necessitate state/local government subsidization. However, once established, the government need not constantly interfere.
for someone promoting the so-called free market, you seem strangely okay with government meddling...
There are very, very few areas where government intervention in the private sector is legitimate.
You didn't address the point that people starve to death everywhere
Show me a country where people starve in large numbers, and I'll show you a government that is corrupt, doesn't enforce private property rights, or takes a large quantity of its citizens' income.
nor how nationalizing the telecom infrastructure would cause mass starvation
Again, I never claimed that people always starve to death when government controls industry. The point was to illustrate how awful governments are at running industry, using historical facts instead of idealistic liberal rhetoric. Usually in a debate it's a good idea to back up what one is claiming with facts and historical examples, and that's exactly what I did. The massive failures of Soviet Russia, Communist China, and post-WWII East Germany when compared to the successes of free post-WWII West Germany, post-WWII Japan, Hong Kong, and increasingly free China are hardly circumstantial evidence or anecdotes. The fact is, wherever government controls a significant amount of commerce, there is either a collapse or mass death (as is the case with the aforementioned Communist countries), or just low growth (see: Western Europe for the latter half of the 20th century).
I just remembered another couple government corporations which have recently failed: Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac. Maybe you've heard of them? If only the people running them were smarter, then maybe they wouldn't have failed. The solution to governmental failure certainly isn't privatization because government knows best how to handle people's mortgages. That's why governmental mortgage corporations don't fail. Oh waitâ¦
Do you not realize that individual states also are governments? And, you agree that the federal government controls significant infrastructure. I guess you would be okay with nationalized telecom if the state governments controlled most of the copper and fiber, and the federal government had a few interstate fiber runs? What are you even trying to say?
Yes, I realize State governments are also governments. However, they are not the Federal Government, the legislature of which is constrained by the Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. Powers not granted to the Federal Government are reserved for the States (10th Amendment). Industry is not mentioned in this section (or any section, for that matter) of the Constitution, and thus is not a proper role for the Federal Government. However, I suppose States could legally own corporations like the power company, water company, etc, alth
Maybe because people are willing to pay increased rates every year and they're profit maximizing corporations? The same way people are willing to pay increased food prices every year even though it's the fault of the government. For more reasons see: Inflation.
Yeah, because the government knows better than you and your doctor what drugs you should take. I won't grace your absurd second comment with a response except to say that it is obviously totally untrue, and anyone who has read any Friedman would know that.
It really is no more absurd that the government ordering the primary telecom company to break itself into pieces. Yet, the US did that.
Yes it is, because when the government breaks up a monopoly, competition is promoted. When industries are nationalized it virtually requires a government monopoly.
Your argument is built on a false premise - there is no way to know that free markets would have prevented people in China from starving to death. The fact that they did in something other than a free market in no way validates your system.
This is not true for a couple reasons. First, people were not starving to death in mass quantities before Mao abolished the private ownership of their farms. The private farms were producing enough food for everyone in the country. It is hard to believe that millions of people coincidentally began starving to death at the exact time when private ownership and free trade were abolished. Second, even though free markets were essentially abolished and the farms were entirely communal, underground black markets developed where people bought and sold food. If things were so great on the farm communes and they were producing enough food for everyone in the country, this would not have happened. Additionally, after Mao's death and the reestablishment of free markets in China, it has seen an unprecedented explosion in economic growth. I cannot believe that this pattern was all due to coincidence, and not to the presence or lack thereof of free markets.
I realize that a large reason why all those people starved to death is because they were (coercively) moved from farming to producing steel. Perhaps if the people were left to their (the State's) farms, fewer people would have starved to death. Regardless, this proves my point even more because it shows how awful the government is at planning & directing economic activity. I doubt all those people would have stopped farming had they been left alone to their private plots of land.
The US government controls/owns most roads in the country, yet that doesn't cause people to starve to death. Do you imagine that nationalized telecom service would somehow make people starve? Really?
This is not true. Individual States own and operate most of the roads in the United States. The Federal Government owns and operates major interstate highways, I believe.
Like I said, after privatization that company was no longer receiving checks from the government paid for with other people's money, so it's quite understandable that prices consumers see are higher. However, is it not better to have $60 more in your pocket every 3 months so you can voluntarily choose to spend it on telecom service, instead of having it coercively taken from you to pay for your telecom service?
Right, and that's why I have no problem with semiprivate or subsidized utility companies. However, the idea of nationalizing telecoms is absurd. Regarding your comment about free markets, I'm sure all the people who starved to death in Mao's China during the Great Leap Forward wouldn't agree that free markets are "bullshit" as you say. They'd probably be more inclined to say that of government control of otherwise free markets. I mean come on, everyone knows that the government is more efficient at providing goods and services than the private sector. Just look at all the historical examples of successful government controlled/owned industries where millions of people didn't starve to death. Oh wait...
Yeah, everyone knows that continents don't actually move. In reality, the earth is expanding.
No, libertarians believe coercion/force/the threat of force by the government should be kept to a minimum and coercion/the use of force in the private sector should be prevented. The reason it's ok for companies to drug test (IMO) is because employers should be free to hire who they want. Government does not know better than the employer. Telling employers who they can and cannot hire is coercion. The reason it's not ok for the government to put people into prison for using/possessing drugs is because the act of taking/possessing drugs does not directly violate the rights of others. The only reason people should be put into prison is when they directly violate the rights of others (stealing, fraud, murder, etc). Preventing people from hurting themselves or "protecting society from falling apart" (two common arguments against decriminalization) are not valid reasons to put people in prison. Also, voluntary transactions do not violate people's rights simply because they are voluntary.
To answer your other question, the relationship between freedom and economics is very important. If you're really interested, read Milton Friedman's Free to Choose or Capitalism and Freedom. Otherwise, here's my summary: Taxing is coercion. Since taxation is always coupled with government expenditure, the combination can only have the effect of diverting resources from where consumers wanted them used to some other use chosen by political officials. (this last sentence is directly from a David Boaz book). Also, when governments tax one group of people and give that money to another group of people (as is the case with any subsidy), it is treating people differently, undermining the 14th Amendment (equality under the law). This also occurs with other economic protections like minimum wages, tariffs, and quotas, zoning regulations, welfare, medicare, etc. They all treat people differently. Also, redistribution programs do not make sense logically. The point of redistribution programs is to make people more equal, but in the process they treat people unequally. IM me if you have any other questions, or just read the aforementioned books.
In reality, liberals are just arrogant people who think they know how to spend your money better than you do. That's not to say that they aren't well-meaning, they're just hopelessly misguided.
Man, you hit the nail on the head. Every government advocate suffers from the same problem. They all believe that if only we could get really smart people in control (liberals), everything would be great. Some people never learn from history, which is why it is, as they say, destined to repeat itself.
First, some goods are public (nonrivalrous, nonexcludable) and thus government involvement is (questionably) legitimate, to prevent the tragedy of the commons.
Second, the prices consumers see will obviously be lower if an industry is subsidized/owned by the government because money is coercively taken from one group of people (taxpayers) and given to another group (the providers of the service/utility). That's the thing about government-provided services. They're great at concealing costs because everyone pays taxes which go directly to the beneficiary of the tax, who then (surprise) charges lower prices. How do you think ethanol is "economically viable" in the United States? It wouldn't be so cheap if its producers didn't receive billions of taxpayer dollars.
Third, even if the service is "better" under a government-owned system, the advocate of the government monopoly must still justify why it is ok to coercively take money from one group of people, filter it through the government bureaucrats, and give it to another, especially when the transaction would otherwise take place voluntarily without any coercion. Note that I don't have too large of a problem with subsidized energy/water/utilities since competition doesn't exactly work well in those markets. However, my argument still stands for the telecoms especially.
Fourth, it is understandable that the service is worse (and that prices are unreasonably higher) if the government monopoly was privatized into a private monopoly.
Well said, my friend. Well said.
I said nothing of the sort. I merely mentioned historical examples of failures of governments to control economies and nationalize industries, of which there are many.
The problem with your view is that someone has to decide what "too far" means. Who should decide? You? A bureaucrat or politician in Washington? Who are you to tell these people that they should spend their hard-earned money on something other than receiving text messages? It obviously doesn't bother them enough to cause them to switch. Who are you to tell telecoms how they can better run their companies? If the price of receiving SMS messages is too high, people (or teenage girls' parents) won't pay for it. If enough people hate getting charged $.10 for receiving SMS messages they will start their own company which avoids this problem. An example is Cricket wireless which offers unlimited voice, text, etc plans for $45 per month. Another problem with regulating these types of insignificant "problems" (not real problems) is that this power has not been granted to the Federal Government in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. However, I suppose that in the past unconstitutionality hasn't stopped big government, high tax, regulatory nanny state liberals like yourself from controlling and regulating everything you disagree with or don't like. Unfortunately you posted as AC so I am unable to verify this claim with your past comments. Karma is oh so hard to come by for liberals these days. +5 insightful is pretty easy to get; all you have to do is say (and agree) that government doesn't know what's best for people and provide a few examples of the government not knowing what's best for people, which is pretty easy to do given the enormous amount of examples from which to choose.
I won't disagree with you on that one, but keep in mind that all the Nordic countries are really loosening up economic controls. Also keep in mind that since taxation is always coupled with government expenditure, the combination can only have the effect of diverting resources from where consumers wanted them used to some other use chosen by political official. So, 40% of people's income is forcibly taken from them and put to some other use than they would have otherwise chosen. (I ripped the sentence before last straight out of a David Boaz book, by the way.)
There's a problem with these companies trying to fund lobbyists to politically further their agenda, and you want to get the government more involved? The root of the problem is government involvement in the first place. If the federal government wouldn't grant favors to certain industries (cough, farms, cough corn-based ethanol, cough), there would be a lower incentive to spend money on lobbying instead of on serving the customer. A great example that proves my point is the current situation in Peru. The government taxes everything so heavily and then redistributes so much unearned income that a huge percentage of companies' budgets are spent competing for that unearned income from the government instead of developing new products for consumers. The heavy taxes keep consumers from building wealth & savings, which means there is less money available for companies to borrow, so interest rates go up. It is therefore more difficult for companies to borrow to fund their investments in new capital, which means in the end the consumer suffers.
Increased regulation and nationalization will (like always) only make problems worse, not better. For more examples of failed nationalized industries and government economic plans leading to mass death and starvation, see the Soviet Union from 1928-1958 (Stalin's reign). For examples of what happens as a result of government control of capitalist economies, see the "Great Depression." No, the GD was not caused by the failure of the free market but by the failure of government. (Surprise! - that's never happened before...) If you don't agree, take an introductory macroeconomics/finance class at your local university that isn't taught by a Marxist, or just read Free to Choose by Milton Friedman.
I did the same thing at CES in Las Vegas this year (because I live there). $10 cash for filling out a 50 question survey in 5 minutes.
Good catch. I forgot that rights are not a gift from government, selectively given out like pieces of candy to children.
At least they don't actually support it, like both of my parents do. "The Government needs to do this to protect us from the TERRORISTS!!!!!"
just can't understand how they can uphold the Constitution (as required by them being elected to office by the people) when they vote for a law that goes against it.
Because it's easier to get elected when you promise to give handouts, take action, tax the rich, etc, instead of trying to get elected on the position that you're going to eliminate the special interest benefits, shrink government, and lower taxes. People always want the Government to serve their special interests, but no one else's. This is one of the reasons why our Government has grown so large. Another reason is that we have forgotten the tyranny and oppression that in inevitable when the government controls close to 40% of the nation's income and when our rights are slowly being eliminated and put into the hands of a few powerful people at the top. "It's for your own good" they tell us. "We need to take away your rights to protect you from the terrorists." I must ask why is it not possible to both protect us from the terrorists (a proper role of government) and grant us our rights? The reason is that big government precedents have already been set which allow the government to get away with these kinds of shenanigans.
Perhaps it should have read "the law is more frequently deciding in favor of rights holders."
I agree with the first two paragraphs of your post but come on, don't be so cynical. To me, the price is really justified because of the 8/16GB of memory. One will spend >$100-150 to get an mp3 player (not even an iPod) with similar storage capacity anyway. A phone with equivalent features will be at least $200. I'm not sure how Apple is making any money on these new devices.