"I'm not going to waste any more time arguing with you, because your mind is obviously closed."
If you feel you cannot rebut my arguments, just say so. That's fine. But there's no reason to go ad hominem. If I am ignoring something, please point it out. Tell me what to respond to.
"Well, do you have a "natural right" to be on property you don't own?"
No, I don't, unless the owner grants access.
"If you're not paying your part to the public, I don't see why I should let you use even a public sidewalk that I helped pay."
You don't get a say. The government gets to say. Ideally there would be no public property.
"I didn't appeal to authority"
Yes, you did. You basically said "the Constitution says so", and assumed that you had somehow backed me into a corner. It is an appeal to authority just as it would be if one of the 10 Commandments was "Thou shalt tax thine citizenry" and you said, "guess what, one of the Commandments allows for taxation!"
"And you just skipped the hard part about whether rights should be upheld no matter hwat, or only for those that can afford taxes."
I did not skip that. I answered it further down. Rights should be upheld for everyone as they are universal and fundamental to all human beings.
"Perhaps you should check some of the reasons fire bridages have been replaced by public fire departments in pretty much all major cities?"
Care to fill me in? Do you know these reasons, or do you have a link to them? Or are you assuming there are good reasons and therefore my argument has been refuted? That would be an unfounded assumption.
"But fire fighters would pretty much have to protect some unit, making it another mini-monopoly."
The difference between the current monopoly and that one is that only the former is funded by force. Of course a fire service would want to put out the fire around adjacent structures, as a fire can easily spread back to the original property later on.
"Since you've navigated yourself into a ton of mini-monopolies..."
So now you're defining competition as "a ton of mini-monopolies"? I'm sure people can see how nonsensical that is, but even if we assume what you're claiming - only in your situation is anything being funded by force. So whatever you want to call competition, it is not being done by forcefully taking away someone's property, and therefore not violating the right to property.
"I simply won't have sewage then same as you."
And if there are enough people like you, that high demand will lead to another company providing the service more in line with your terms of agreement.
"I'd rather have one good alternative than ten bad ones"
Question begging.
"My evidence is observed reality"
Is this sentence supposed to be applied to any specific statement you previously made, or are you using it as a general catch-all to cover the possibility that some of your statements are actually sourceless?
"If many were like you, the normal people would wall off themselves and create a private community ("the public") where we'd pay a voluntary fee ("taxes") for access to private resources ("public goods") and if you didn't want to pay, we'd dump you outside..."
If I owned my lot of property in that community, you would have no right to deny me access to that property, or to force me out. Of course, for me to survive would require my interaction with the private community. I would have to either grow my own food and process my own waste, or trade my productivity for food grown by others, etc. If I am self-sustaining, I don't affect anyone else in the community. If I trade, I increase the overall productivity of the community.
"Smallpox was never a national emergency, but thanks to government-sponsored immunization programs, I don't have to worry about catching it."
You've traded your rights for protection against an emergency that may not have ever come about. Nice, convenient, but not justifiable.
"And you've assumed that everyone is capable of working."
No, I haven't. I am not trying to show that everyone will be safe and secure under a rights-upholding system, only that their rights will be upheld. You are the one trying to save everyone in every situation (at the expense of everyone's rights).
"No city in the entire history of humanity has ever had two sewer systems, two independent power grids or two independent road networks."
According to what sources? And how does the lack of a past example show that such a situation is wrong?
" It's not that the government has decided that there should be only one of these things"
It is exactly that. Public services like the ones you've mentioned run along property deemed public, and the government has decided what should and should not exist on that property. Otherwise, what is stopping a company from moving in and providing better internet access in a given Comcast-monopoly region? The demand is high, but nothing is filling that demand, because the government says where lines can and cannot be run, and they don't want additional cable lines running around the city. Government-backed monopoly.
"I stand by my original statement."
So you won't explain how your characterization is valid? Or do you just want me to assume it is?
"By the way, the phrase 'begging the question' means rephrasing a question without adding anything."
No, it doesn't. Read Begging the question. Essentially you're assuming something that you are meant to be showing. It's similar to a circular argument. In your one example above, you assumed that there can only be one choice for roads/electricity in order to show that government-backed services are justified, when those same services are the reason there is only one choice. Question begging.
If none of those options exist in your area, you should donate to help create them, and persuade friends/family/neighbors to do the same. Or come up with a fifth option that does not violate rights but is also viable. I'm all for that as well.
That is a national emergency situation and has no bearing on how normal, non-emergency situations should function. It's like arguing that the slight possibility of an alien invasion means we should always live as we would during such an emergency.
"Utilities are either government owned or heavily regulated because there is only room for one sewer, one power grid and one road network; these are called natural monopolies."
Begging the question. You haven't shown that "there is only room for one" of any of those items you've claimed are "natural monopolies". That the government has deemed some property public, and decided that only one sewer/road/power line should be run on that property, doesn't make your statement true. It is simply what the government has decided to do with property it has taken by force. Ideally no property would be government-owned.
"If you try to let people starve, they will steal instead.... [snip]..."
More question begging. You've assumed their only choices are to starve or steal. They could also work.
"If more politicians thought like you do, our society would collapse."
A pithy, frightening statement backed up by no evidence whatsoever should be disregarded no matter how pithy or frightening.
"confused armchair economists"
You've characterized me and my statements, but have not shown why your characterizations are valid. Care to actually rebut my statements, or is that beyond your interest or capacity?
"Oh wait what's that? I hope you're not going to point so some silly paper like the constitution now, because it's the same silly paper that imposes taxes on you."
Appeal to authority. You're either making that fallacy, or you're assuming both that the government grants natural rights, and that property rights never existed before the Constitution. Both assumptions are incorrect.
"Tell the IRS that next time you see them."
My purpose in this discussion is not to get everyone to picket some government agency - that would be pointless and temporary - but to help move people toward once again wanting their rights to be upheld, with the eventual goal of bringing about candidates who support those rights and overturn laws and pass legislation accordingly.
"Ok, fire insurance is individual but tell me how a fire department is supposed to work... [snip]"
That one's easy, as there is a long history of private fire services (fire brigades). Modeling after those would be a good start. Certain individuals in communities at some point thought that it could be done better or cheaper with public funds, and the idea caught on. That doesn't make it true or justified.
"Are they going to check which tenants in my building have paid their fire department subscription, and save only those apartments?
You live in an apartment. Your landlord would decide what company to go with, and allocate part of your rent toward paying for that service. So your whole apartment would be covered. If you don't like your landlord's terms, you can find another apartment complex or move into a house and get your own insurance. If you don't want insurance, that is once again your choice, but it is a choice that will put you at some amount of risk depending on your specific circumstances.
Notice how all of these are freely-made choices, and how none of that freedom exists in a public service where comparable private services are prohibited from existing.
"So far, the track record is that you have zero control unless backed by law."
According to what evidence? Unless forced, you need not give up any of your information. Only a government can provide force, correct? If an insurer refuses to tell you what they will do with your information, do not sign the contract. If someone spreads your information without your consent, sue them for restitution. That is entirely different from a law requiring companies to do for you what you should be doing yourself.
"Is there any color except black and white in your world?"
A rights violation is a rights violation, no matter how you sugar-coat it. You can choose to ignore violations you believe are minor, but it is to your own detriment in the long run.
"It's the exact opposite, government has to intervene to save the system from going down. That's the whole problem of the banking system, if a large enough institution fails, the whole system will fail and the "good" players will be hit as hard as the bad ones."
What evidence do you have to back this up?
"If economics were really as easy as you're trying to picture it, believe me, there wouldn't be so many problems with it."
So I should just take your word for it? Well, is your word based on evidence, or just a general feeling of unease?
"The Market is not a perfect ecosystem"
Agreed. The current market is nowhere near perfect.
"so there needs to be intervention or the whole system would go down in chaos."
You've assumed this to be an inevitable result. What is your evidence to back this up? If you can't cite any, why assume the worst? Even if people stop trading with eachother completely at some point, they will have to continue to survive, either by sustaining themselves or by once again resuming to trade with others. Information reduces risk, so people can help avoid risk by properly investigating the companies and individuals they deal with.
"The blatant misrepresentations aren't in writing - they're told in person while convincing the borrower to sign the paperwork."
Such individuals should require any clarifications to be in writing or recorded on tape if they are not going to have a lawyer examine the text. If they do not care, then they are putting themselves at higher risk.
"The claim is (and it has been documented) that there was widespread abuse and outright fraud from top to bottom in the mortgage markets. The lenders extended loans that they shouldn't have with terms that were inappropriate. The mortgage brokers had inappropriate relationships with the lenders. The investment groups that bundled and sold the mortgages as investments were not honest about the level of risk involved."
All of this is true. However none of it requires government intervention. If people were knowingly lied to and were harmed as a result, then those people can sue for restitution. As for those willing to embrace risky endeavors, they will learn from their mistakes and move on.
"We already have enormous state and federal bureaucracies that would handle something like this."
You're using the phrase "federal bureaucracies" to hide the fact that funding would be necessary. For those bureaucracies to be maintained requires continued funding - tax money. Saying that tax money is not going towards a specific government service of some kind would mean that that service is not getting funding, so how could it exist?
"And, if you wanted to be real honest about it, the funding is more likely from deficit spending financed by the Chinese."
That does not change the fact that property rights are being violated en masse.
This assumes that you believe that government violation of one right will not lead to government violation of another right. From my experience that would be a bad assumption to make.
"Frankly, I don't give a damn about your bank account, but I do care about my right to be free from government spying and confiscation of physical property."
You do realize that government services that violate your privacy have to be funded, correct? And as long as you give the government a blank check, they can take as much of your income as they like to fund these rights violations. If you curtail the funding by demanding that your property rights be upheld, then they won't be able to maintain those services that violate your privacy. They will have to rollback their functions to the most fundamental: courts and law enforcement to uphold rights.
As for your distinction between a "bank account" and "physical property" - there is no difference. A bank account is simply a representation of your productivity. You spend hours of your day working, in exchange for currency that represents your physical labor. You can then trade that currency for other people's physical labor. Forced taxation is taking away a percentage of your physical labor; rather than working to your own ends, you are working for the government. Check out this article on "Tax Freedom Day" - if starting on January 1st you worked exclusively for the government to pay off your taxes, then "Tax Freedom Day" would be the day of the year when you no longer have to work for the government and will start earning 100% of your income for your labor. Last year, Tax Freedom Day fell on July 11th...
"So once again, regulation is the problem. Where have we heard that before?"
Is that statement a rebuttal/refutation of any part of my post? If so, which parts. If not, why include it?
"Nobody wants to insure these people"
What is the source for this conclusion? And if you think certain people are not getting emergency protection because no company wants to provide it, why not donate to companies (or help start your own) that will provide it for these people? If that is the cause you want to support, then feel free to support it, but don't force everyone else to.
"At the end of the day, if you can't pay for your treatment, you are left to die."
No, there are plenty of other options that I have already covered and you have yet to reply to. You may have characterized them as non-solutions, but you have not shown why such a characterization is valid.
You said: "if such a treatment does not exist..."
I said: "If the government is preventing less expensive treatments from being available to the public..."
What I am saying is that this is the case and laws need to be overturned to permit private organizations to provide services currently being provided by government-backed monopolies, just as is the case with ISPs.
"It seems to me to be some nonsensical scheme whereby the government can just will cheaper healthcare in to existance."
No, it is not by government will, but by the removal of government will that competition leads to cheaper healthcare. Read up on the history of Blue Cross / Blue Shield for an example of a government-funded healthcare monopoly destroying and remolding competition.
"That part of your argument is just so nonsensical..."
A pithy statement backed by no rationale whatsoever. Which part(s) is nonsensical and why? Is all of it nonsensical? If so, then where does the breakdown in logic occur? Between certain sentences? Which sentences?
"If an emergency happens to somebody who lacks the money to buy insurance, what do you think ought to happen?"
One of a few things could/should happen:
1. An organization backed through donations provides the service.
2. An unfunded organization provides the service (could not last).
3. The service provider permits the individual to pay back through a loan (and if the provider does not offer that, the individual finds one that does).
4. A friend/family member covers the cost (permanently or temporarily).
"Unless you have a degree in economics (obviously you don't) please STFU."
Sorry I should have clarified. All of my friends in college were econ majors and I just base my statements on what they've told me. I personally did not go down that road.
"Or, if such a treatment does not exist they can just let the illness kill them. Why do you tip-toe around that?"
I didn't. I covered that in the very next sentence, which you conveniently disregarded.......
"I'm not even going to get in to the tortured logic that somehow equates economy stimulating rebate checks for people to printing money, but sees printing money to pay for a war we can not afford as "putting money in the system"."
OK, so say it with me: "I am purposely ignoring part of your argument."
"I would rather watch someone die of a treatable illness than to chip in for their treatment. "
If you want to chip in, feel free to. Don't force everyone else to because of your personal opinion on the matter.
"And if none exists they should just roll over and die, right?"
I addressed that in the very next sentence that you conveniently disregarded... yeeesh...
"Our Government has been doing this for the greater good ever since the invention of the railroad and the subsequent use of eminent domain and/or right-of-ways to ensure that railroads could connect the entire country. Ditto for roads, telecommunications lines, airports, blah, blah, blah, blah."
What is this "greater good" and how does it justify rights violations? All of the services you've mentioned have been and (in some regions) are still being provided through private organizations. The only differences between the two situations (private, public) are:
1. The public services are funded through an unjustifiable rights violation.
2. Competition among private services gives private companies an incentive to provide the best possible service at the lowest price. Because there is only one provider for a public service (and no competing providers are permitted to exist), there is no incentive for public services to provide the best service or the cheapest service.
"Government backed securities are sold to individuals/investment firms/other Governments to finance deficit spending."
This is all on the presumption that that money will eventually be paid back. So you are getting a loan, but it is being passed off as real money. I understand what you're saying about the distinction though, I just don't think most people have any idea how bogus the whole plan is.
"If Conservatives really believe that then why are most of them in favor of the War on Drugs?"
Because anyone can label themselves a "Liberal" or a "Conservative", including entire parties. On a slight tangent, the Libertarian Party, for example, says it supports such rights as I have mentioned, but they just nominated for a presidential candidate the individual who introduced the Defense of Marriage Act to Congress in 1996, and who has a long history of anti-drug policy (including personally blocking a bill legalizing medical marijuana usage in DC, and prohibiting the final vote tally for that bill from being made public).
1) Get donations from friends/family/community to pay for expensive treatments.
2) Petition friends/family/community and your representatives to overturn the laws preventing less expensive treatments from existence (laws created by corrupt politicians backed by corrupt companies).
"Unfortunately, they usually trust the lender or real estate agent to act in their best interest. And, in many cases, the agent will just lie or say that its just there for the lawyers."
If their lender/agent lies to them, and they have proof of the lies, they can take those individuals to court and get restitution.
"The lending companies are the ones that should be targeted. They can either be forced to remove all predatory practices (like increasing your interest rate by several hundred percent due to one late payment), or simply forced to erase the mortgage completely and give total ownership to the individuals."
There is no difference between a rights violation through taxation and the rights violation you have just described. Both involve the government telling a private party what to do with property they freely acquired from other freely-acting individuals.
And, if you don't think taxation would be involved, from where is the funding coming for the federal investigations and implementations of the regulations being applied to these companies.
"By that definition, America has been a socialist nation since its inception."
I can almost agree with that. While the US has always permitted forced taxation, it is not a rights violation until that forced taxation actually occurs. People could have freely chosen not to buy into that bogus permission (which incidentally is as bogus as permitting someone to enslave another), but they did not.
"After all, we're depriving private military, judicial, and police..."
That makes no sense. The government is charged with upholding the rights of the citizenry, and that can only be done through the courts and by force. Private implementations of force are rights violations.
As for the definition of socialism, which one are you using? I'm using the most common one ("a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.")
"So socialized medicine, which has been proven to work far better than privatized medicine in the entire rest of the developed world, somehow equates to 100% of Americans losing their property rights?"
Yes. Everyone has a right to property they freely acquired from other freely-acting individual. When the government (or anyone else) starts forcefully taking away that property, that right is being violated. Whether or not some service "works" (according to its own definitions, mind you) for some period of time does not justify a rights violation of any kind.
"If socialism is so evil, I'm sure you'd like to do away with socialized armed forces, police"
The government is charged with upholding rights. That is done through the courts and by force through through the executive branch. So of course we need armed forced and police to uphold our rights. I'm just saying that such taxation is only justified if it is voluntary. Just as you freely choose to pay some amount for insurance against emergencies, you would also freely choose to pay toward upholding your rights (and the rights of everyone else).
"fire departments, roads, sewers, electric companies and all the other evil socialist practices America currently has"
Yes, there is no reason why these services could not be provided by private organizations, and in fact all of these services are and have been provided by private organizations. The only differences between the two situations (private, public) are:
1. The public services are funded through an unjustifiable rights violation.
2. Competition among private services gives private companies an incentive to provide the best possible service at the lowest price. Because there is only one provider for a public service (and no competing providers are permitted to exist), there is no incentive for public services to provide the best service or the cheapest service.
"Where is Obama against privacy?"
Do you think you will have any control over your personal records (medical, financial, etc) under a system where an entity backed by force is controlling the service that is utilizing those records? You would be incorrect to assume that.
"Where is he against personal, as opposed to corporate property rights?"
Both he and his wife have spoken very openly about altruism, which by definition must require the curbing (read: abolition) of property rights.
"You are simply scare mongering, not presenting a rational position."
A pithy characterization backed up by no rationale whatsoever.
"Unless not saving them would mean all our productivity would go down the drain... which is exactly the problem that we are facing today."
According to what source? A free market doesn't just collapse and die. The only portions that collapse are the corrupt portions (where information is purposely being distorted, withheld, or otherwise not properly being dispersed). The rest will function fine, and the portions that collapse will immediately start being rebuilt.
"A tax rebate check is only printed money if you are running deficits like we are under Republican rule, not if you have a surplusses like we had by the time Bill Clinton left office."
What does this discussion have to do with being Republican/Democrat? Both parties are bad for the system. Given that we currently have a deficit, does it make sense to say we should put out more "rebate" checks, as Obama is doing (and probably McCain too)?
Not only that, but consider the difference between a one time stimulous check, and an occupation of a foreign country that costs us $341 Million per day and has left us less safe. That is $341 Million of printed money per day. Convenient you would forget about that
I did not forget it - it simply does not have anything to do with the current subject. Spending money on a bogus war is still putting money into the system. And if we lose that money (as apparently billions have been lost), the value of the dollars that are left in the system will go up. What does devalue the dollar, though, is printing more money out of thin air (read: the deficit), so if you truly are against devaluing the dollar then you should be against Obama on that issue.
"It is immoral to bankrupt people for getting sick and any society that has the ability to prevent this has a moral duty to."
Who is "bankrupting" who? If people opt for expensive treatments, then they should pay for that treatment. Or, if they can't afford it, they should choose a less expensive treatment. If the government is preventing less expensive treatments from being available to the public (which is at the root of your concern), then such laws should be overturned, allowing less expensive treatments to exist.
As for morality: it is immoral to take by force from another individual any of their property. Agreed? It is likewise immoral for a government backed by force to do the same, with the threatened alternatives of jail or emigration. People have a right to everything that they have freely acquired through trade with other freely-acting individuals.
"All other industrialized nations provide a health care system to their citizens that actually treats their conditions rather than just extracting as much money while providing as little healthcare as possible."
And likewise those nations, industrialized or not, are violating the rights of their citizens. The government does not grant natural rights - rather, it is charged with upholding them.
"However, many people (not the crowd that reads this) don't have even a slight understanding of what any of it means, let alone know how to realistically budget for years in advance or how to prepare for less than status quo times."
So why do they sign the contract? Why do they not ask any questions about what is meant by the text they don't understand?
"As uninformed as they may be, most/many of them are productive members of society."
It's fine that they are still productive. But members of the public should not be forced to give up some of their own productivity (in the form of money) to support such individuals when they become unproductive.
"Socialism? Bought into the right wing bullet points, huh?
What "bullet points" are these. I'm going simply on the definition of socialism. Take a service, prevent private organizations from providing it, and have the government provide it instead, funded through forced taxation. That is what Obama wants to do with healthcare, and I'm sure McCain will support it when it's politically profitable too.
"Just a matter of values, oh, and McCain is devoid of them."
Agreed. Obama's only value is altruism, which he puts higher than all of our rights - to property, to privacy, and so on.
Slashdot Mirror
"I'm not going to waste any more time arguing with you, because your mind is obviously closed."
If you feel you cannot rebut my arguments, just say so. That's fine. But there's no reason to go ad hominem. If I am ignoring something, please point it out. Tell me what to respond to.
Or walk away. Your choice.
"Well, do you have a "natural right" to be on property you don't own?"
No, I don't, unless the owner grants access.
"If you're not paying your part to the public, I don't see why I should let you use even a public sidewalk that I helped pay."
You don't get a say. The government gets to say. Ideally there would be no public property.
"I didn't appeal to authority"
Yes, you did. You basically said "the Constitution says so", and assumed that you had somehow backed me into a corner. It is an appeal to authority just as it would be if one of the 10 Commandments was "Thou shalt tax thine citizenry" and you said, "guess what, one of the Commandments allows for taxation!"
"And you just skipped the hard part about whether rights should be upheld no matter hwat, or only for those that can afford taxes."
I did not skip that. I answered it further down. Rights should be upheld for everyone as they are universal and fundamental to all human beings.
"Perhaps you should check some of the reasons fire bridages have been replaced by public fire departments in pretty much all major cities?"
Care to fill me in? Do you know these reasons, or do you have a link to them? Or are you assuming there are good reasons and therefore my argument has been refuted? That would be an unfounded assumption.
"But fire fighters would pretty much have to protect some unit, making it another mini-monopoly."
The difference between the current monopoly and that one is that only the former is funded by force. Of course a fire service would want to put out the fire around adjacent structures, as a fire can easily spread back to the original property later on.
"Since you've navigated yourself into a ton of mini-monopolies..."
So now you're defining competition as "a ton of mini-monopolies"? I'm sure people can see how nonsensical that is, but even if we assume what you're claiming - only in your situation is anything being funded by force. So whatever you want to call competition, it is not being done by forcefully taking away someone's property, and therefore not violating the right to property.
"I simply won't have sewage then same as you."
And if there are enough people like you, that high demand will lead to another company providing the service more in line with your terms of agreement.
"I'd rather have one good alternative than ten bad ones"
Question begging.
"My evidence is observed reality"
Is this sentence supposed to be applied to any specific statement you previously made, or are you using it as a general catch-all to cover the possibility that some of your statements are actually sourceless?
"If many were like you, the normal people would wall off themselves and create a private community ("the public") where we'd pay a voluntary fee ("taxes") for access to private resources ("public goods") and if you didn't want to pay, we'd dump you outside..."
If I owned my lot of property in that community, you would have no right to deny me access to that property, or to force me out. Of course, for me to survive would require my interaction with the private community. I would have to either grow my own food and process my own waste, or trade my productivity for food grown by others, etc. If I am self-sustaining, I don't affect anyone else in the community. If I trade, I increase the overall productivity of the community.
"Smallpox was never a national emergency, but thanks to government-sponsored immunization programs, I don't have to worry about catching it."
You've traded your rights for protection against an emergency that may not have ever come about. Nice, convenient, but not justifiable.
"And you've assumed that everyone is capable of working."
No, I haven't. I am not trying to show that everyone will be safe and secure under a rights-upholding system, only that their rights will be upheld. You are the one trying to save everyone in every situation (at the expense of everyone's rights).
"No city in the entire history of humanity has ever had two sewer systems, two independent power grids or two independent road networks."
According to what sources? And how does the lack of a past example show that such a situation is wrong?
" It's not that the government has decided that there should be only one of these things"
It is exactly that. Public services like the ones you've mentioned run along property deemed public, and the government has decided what should and should not exist on that property. Otherwise, what is stopping a company from moving in and providing better internet access in a given Comcast-monopoly region? The demand is high, but nothing is filling that demand, because the government says where lines can and cannot be run, and they don't want additional cable lines running around the city. Government-backed monopoly.
"I stand by my original statement."
So you won't explain how your characterization is valid? Or do you just want me to assume it is?
"By the way, the phrase 'begging the question' means rephrasing a question without adding anything."
No, it doesn't. Read Begging the question. Essentially you're assuming something that you are meant to be showing. It's similar to a circular argument. In your one example above, you assumed that there can only be one choice for roads/electricity in order to show that government-backed services are justified, when those same services are the reason there is only one choice. Question begging.
If none of those options exist in your area, you should donate to help create them, and persuade friends/family/neighbors to do the same. Or come up with a fifth option that does not violate rights but is also viable. I'm all for that as well.
"a plague would come..."
That is a national emergency situation and has no bearing on how normal, non-emergency situations should function. It's like arguing that the slight possibility of an alien invasion means we should always live as we would during such an emergency.
"Utilities are either government owned or heavily regulated because there is only room for one sewer, one power grid and one road network; these are called natural monopolies."
Begging the question. You haven't shown that "there is only room for one" of any of those items you've claimed are "natural monopolies". That the government has deemed some property public, and decided that only one sewer/road/power line should be run on that property, doesn't make your statement true. It is simply what the government has decided to do with property it has taken by force. Ideally no property would be government-owned.
"If you try to let people starve, they will steal instead.... [snip]..."
More question begging. You've assumed their only choices are to starve or steal. They could also work.
"If more politicians thought like you do, our society would collapse."
A pithy, frightening statement backed up by no evidence whatsoever should be disregarded no matter how pithy or frightening.
"confused armchair economists"
You've characterized me and my statements, but have not shown why your characterizations are valid. Care to actually rebut my statements, or is that beyond your interest or capacity?
"Oh wait what's that? I hope you're not going to point so some silly paper like the constitution now, because it's the same silly paper that imposes taxes on you."
Appeal to authority. You're either making that fallacy, or you're assuming both that the government grants natural rights, and that property rights never existed before the Constitution. Both assumptions are incorrect.
"Tell the IRS that next time you see them."
My purpose in this discussion is not to get everyone to picket some government agency - that would be pointless and temporary - but to help move people toward once again wanting their rights to be upheld, with the eventual goal of bringing about candidates who support those rights and overturn laws and pass legislation accordingly.
"Ok, fire insurance is individual but tell me how a fire department is supposed to work... [snip]"
That one's easy, as there is a long history of private fire services (fire brigades). Modeling after those would be a good start. Certain individuals in communities at some point thought that it could be done better or cheaper with public funds, and the idea caught on. That doesn't make it true or justified.
"Are they going to check which tenants in my building have paid their fire department subscription, and save only those apartments?
You live in an apartment. Your landlord would decide what company to go with, and allocate part of your rent toward paying for that service. So your whole apartment would be covered. If you don't like your landlord's terms, you can find another apartment complex or move into a house and get your own insurance. If you don't want insurance, that is once again your choice, but it is a choice that will put you at some amount of risk depending on your specific circumstances.
Notice how all of these are freely-made choices, and how none of that freedom exists in a public service where comparable private services are prohibited from existing.
"So far, the track record is that you have zero control unless backed by law."
According to what evidence? Unless forced, you need not give up any of your information. Only a government can provide force, correct? If an insurer refuses to tell you what they will do with your information, do not sign the contract. If someone spreads your information without your consent, sue them for restitution. That is entirely different from a law requiring companies to do for you what you should be doing yourself.
"Is there any color except black and white in your world?"
A rights violation is a rights violation, no matter how you sugar-coat it. You can choose to ignore violations you believe are minor, but it is to your own detriment in the long run.
"It's the exact opposite, government has to intervene to save the system from going down. That's the whole problem of the banking system, if a large enough institution fails, the whole system will fail and the "good" players will be hit as hard as the bad ones."
What evidence do you have to back this up?
"If economics were really as easy as you're trying to picture it, believe me, there wouldn't be so many problems with it."
So I should just take your word for it? Well, is your word based on evidence, or just a general feeling of unease?
"The Market is not a perfect ecosystem"
Agreed. The current market is nowhere near perfect.
"so there needs to be intervention or the whole system would go down in chaos."
You've assumed this to be an inevitable result. What is your evidence to back this up? If you can't cite any, why assume the worst? Even if people stop trading with eachother completely at some point, they will have to continue to survive, either by sustaining themselves or by once again resuming to trade with others. Information reduces risk, so people can help avoid risk by properly investigating the companies and individuals they deal with.
"The blatant misrepresentations aren't in writing - they're told in person while convincing the borrower to sign the paperwork."
Such individuals should require any clarifications to be in writing or recorded on tape if they are not going to have a lawyer examine the text. If they do not care, then they are putting themselves at higher risk.
"The claim is (and it has been documented) that there was widespread abuse and outright fraud from top to bottom in the mortgage markets. The lenders extended loans that they shouldn't have with terms that were inappropriate. The mortgage brokers had inappropriate relationships with the lenders. The investment groups that bundled and sold the mortgages as investments were not honest about the level of risk involved."
All of this is true. However none of it requires government intervention. If people were knowingly lied to and were harmed as a result, then those people can sue for restitution. As for those willing to embrace risky endeavors, they will learn from their mistakes and move on.
"We already have enormous state and federal bureaucracies that would handle something like this."
You're using the phrase "federal bureaucracies" to hide the fact that funding would be necessary. For those bureaucracies to be maintained requires continued funding - tax money. Saying that tax money is not going towards a specific government service of some kind would mean that that service is not getting funding, so how could it exist?
"And, if you wanted to be real honest about it, the funding is more likely from deficit spending financed by the Chinese."
That does not change the fact that property rights are being violated en masse.
"then you have to choose which you would prefer."
This assumes that you believe that government violation of one right will not lead to government violation of another right. From my experience that would be a bad assumption to make.
"Frankly, I don't give a damn about your bank account, but I do care about my right to be free from government spying and confiscation of physical property."
You do realize that government services that violate your privacy have to be funded, correct? And as long as you give the government a blank check, they can take as much of your income as they like to fund these rights violations. If you curtail the funding by demanding that your property rights be upheld, then they won't be able to maintain those services that violate your privacy. They will have to rollback their functions to the most fundamental: courts and law enforcement to uphold rights.
As for your distinction between a "bank account" and "physical property" - there is no difference. A bank account is simply a representation of your productivity. You spend hours of your day working, in exchange for currency that represents your physical labor. You can then trade that currency for other people's physical labor. Forced taxation is taking away a percentage of your physical labor; rather than working to your own ends, you are working for the government. Check out this article on "Tax Freedom Day" - if starting on January 1st you worked exclusively for the government to pay off your taxes, then "Tax Freedom Day" would be the day of the year when you no longer have to work for the government and will start earning 100% of your income for your labor. Last year, Tax Freedom Day fell on July 11th...
"So once again, regulation is the problem. Where have we heard that before?"
Is that statement a rebuttal/refutation of any part of my post? If so, which parts. If not, why include it?
"Nobody wants to insure these people"
What is the source for this conclusion? And if you think certain people are not getting emergency protection because no company wants to provide it, why not donate to companies (or help start your own) that will provide it for these people? If that is the cause you want to support, then feel free to support it, but don't force everyone else to.
"At the end of the day, if you can't pay for your treatment, you are left to die."
No, there are plenty of other options that I have already covered and you have yet to reply to. You may have characterized them as non-solutions, but you have not shown why such a characterization is valid.
Excellent post! I especially liked the completeness of the last sentence.
You said: "if such a treatment does not exist..."
I said: "If the government is preventing less expensive treatments from being available to the public..."
What I am saying is that this is the case and laws need to be overturned to permit private organizations to provide services currently being provided by government-backed monopolies, just as is the case with ISPs.
"It seems to me to be some nonsensical scheme whereby the government can just will cheaper healthcare in to existance."
No, it is not by government will, but by the removal of government will that competition leads to cheaper healthcare. Read up on the history of Blue Cross / Blue Shield for an example of a government-funded healthcare monopoly destroying and remolding competition.
"That part of your argument is just so nonsensical..."
A pithy statement backed by no rationale whatsoever. Which part(s) is nonsensical and why? Is all of it nonsensical? If so, then where does the breakdown in logic occur? Between certain sentences? Which sentences?
"If an emergency happens to somebody who lacks the money to buy insurance, what do you think ought to happen?"
One of a few things could/should happen:
1. An organization backed through donations provides the service.
2. An unfunded organization provides the service (could not last).
3. The service provider permits the individual to pay back through a loan (and if the provider does not offer that, the individual finds one that does).
4. A friend/family member covers the cost (permanently or temporarily).
"Unless you have a degree in economics (obviously you don't) please STFU."
Sorry I should have clarified. All of my friends in college were econ majors and I just base my statements on what they've told me. I personally did not go down that road.
"Or, if such a treatment does not exist they can just let the illness kill them. Why do you tip-toe around that?"
I didn't. I covered that in the very next sentence, which you conveniently disregarded.......
"I'm not even going to get in to the tortured logic that somehow equates economy stimulating rebate checks for people to printing money, but sees printing money to pay for a war we can not afford as "putting money in the system"."
OK, so say it with me: "I am purposely ignoring part of your argument."
"I would rather watch someone die of a treatable illness than to chip in for their treatment. "
If you want to chip in, feel free to. Don't force everyone else to because of your personal opinion on the matter.
In the last hour and a half, my post has gone from +2 to +5 and back at least 3 times!
"And if none exists they should just roll over and die, right?"
I addressed that in the very next sentence that you conveniently disregarded... yeeesh...
"Our Government has been doing this for the greater good ever since the invention of the railroad and the subsequent use of eminent domain and/or right-of-ways to ensure that railroads could connect the entire country. Ditto for roads, telecommunications lines, airports, blah, blah, blah, blah."
What is this "greater good" and how does it justify rights violations? All of the services you've mentioned have been and (in some regions) are still being provided through private organizations. The only differences between the two situations (private, public) are:
1. The public services are funded through an unjustifiable rights violation.
2. Competition among private services gives private companies an incentive to provide the best possible service at the lowest price. Because there is only one provider for a public service (and no competing providers are permitted to exist), there is no incentive for public services to provide the best service or the cheapest service.
"Government backed securities are sold to individuals/investment firms/other Governments to finance deficit spending."
This is all on the presumption that that money will eventually be paid back. So you are getting a loan, but it is being passed off as real money. I understand what you're saying about the distinction though, I just don't think most people have any idea how bogus the whole plan is.
"If Conservatives really believe that then why are most of them in favor of the War on Drugs?"
Because anyone can label themselves a "Liberal" or a "Conservative", including entire parties. On a slight tangent, the Libertarian Party, for example, says it supports such rights as I have mentioned, but they just nominated for a presidential candidate the individual who introduced the Defense of Marriage Act to Congress in 1996, and who has a long history of anti-drug policy (including personally blocking a bill legalizing medical marijuana usage in DC, and prohibiting the final vote tally for that bill from being made public).
The other choices you're forgetting are:
1) Get donations from friends/family/community to pay for expensive treatments.
2) Petition friends/family/community and your representatives to overturn the laws preventing less expensive treatments from existence (laws created by corrupt politicians backed by corrupt companies).
"Unfortunately, they usually trust the lender or real estate agent to act in their best interest. And, in many cases, the agent will just lie or say that its just there for the lawyers."
If their lender/agent lies to them, and they have proof of the lies, they can take those individuals to court and get restitution.
"The lending companies are the ones that should be targeted. They can either be forced to remove all predatory practices (like increasing your interest rate by several hundred percent due to one late payment), or simply forced to erase the mortgage completely and give total ownership to the individuals."
There is no difference between a rights violation through taxation and the rights violation you have just described. Both involve the government telling a private party what to do with property they freely acquired from other freely-acting individuals.
And, if you don't think taxation would be involved, from where is the funding coming for the federal investigations and implementations of the regulations being applied to these companies.
"By that definition, America has been a socialist nation since its inception."
I can almost agree with that. While the US has always permitted forced taxation, it is not a rights violation until that forced taxation actually occurs. People could have freely chosen not to buy into that bogus permission (which incidentally is as bogus as permitting someone to enslave another), but they did not.
"After all, we're depriving private military, judicial, and police..."
That makes no sense. The government is charged with upholding the rights of the citizenry, and that can only be done through the courts and by force. Private implementations of force are rights violations.
As for the definition of socialism, which one are you using? I'm using the most common one ("a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.")
"So socialized medicine, which has been proven to work far better than privatized medicine in the entire rest of the developed world, somehow equates to 100% of Americans losing their property rights?"
Yes. Everyone has a right to property they freely acquired from other freely-acting individual. When the government (or anyone else) starts forcefully taking away that property, that right is being violated. Whether or not some service "works" (according to its own definitions, mind you) for some period of time does not justify a rights violation of any kind.
"If socialism is so evil, I'm sure you'd like to do away with socialized armed forces, police"
The government is charged with upholding rights. That is done through the courts and by force through through the executive branch. So of course we need armed forced and police to uphold our rights. I'm just saying that such taxation is only justified if it is voluntary. Just as you freely choose to pay some amount for insurance against emergencies, you would also freely choose to pay toward upholding your rights (and the rights of everyone else).
"fire departments, roads, sewers, electric companies and all the other evil socialist practices America currently has"
Yes, there is no reason why these services could not be provided by private organizations, and in fact all of these services are and have been provided by private organizations. The only differences between the two situations (private, public) are:
1. The public services are funded through an unjustifiable rights violation.
2. Competition among private services gives private companies an incentive to provide the best possible service at the lowest price. Because there is only one provider for a public service (and no competing providers are permitted to exist), there is no incentive for public services to provide the best service or the cheapest service.
"Where is Obama against privacy?"
Do you think you will have any control over your personal records (medical, financial, etc) under a system where an entity backed by force is controlling the service that is utilizing those records? You would be incorrect to assume that.
"Where is he against personal, as opposed to corporate property rights?"
Both he and his wife have spoken very openly about altruism, which by definition must require the curbing (read: abolition) of property rights.
"You are simply scare mongering, not presenting a rational position."
A pithy characterization backed up by no rationale whatsoever.
"Unless not saving them would mean all our productivity would go down the drain... which is exactly the problem that we are facing today."
According to what source? A free market doesn't just collapse and die. The only portions that collapse are the corrupt portions (where information is purposely being distorted, withheld, or otherwise not properly being dispersed). The rest will function fine, and the portions that collapse will immediately start being rebuilt.
"A tax rebate check is only printed money if you are running deficits like we are under Republican rule, not if you have a surplusses like we had by the time Bill Clinton left office."
What does this discussion have to do with being Republican/Democrat? Both parties are bad for the system. Given that we currently have a deficit, does it make sense to say we should put out more "rebate" checks, as Obama is doing (and probably McCain too)?
Not only that, but consider the difference between a one time stimulous check, and an occupation of a foreign country that costs us $341 Million per day and has left us less safe. That is $341 Million of printed money per day. Convenient you would forget about that
I did not forget it - it simply does not have anything to do with the current subject. Spending money on a bogus war is still putting money into the system. And if we lose that money (as apparently billions have been lost), the value of the dollars that are left in the system will go up. What does devalue the dollar, though, is printing more money out of thin air (read: the deficit), so if you truly are against devaluing the dollar then you should be against Obama on that issue.
"It is immoral to bankrupt people for getting sick and any society that has the ability to prevent this has a moral duty to."
Who is "bankrupting" who? If people opt for expensive treatments, then they should pay for that treatment. Or, if they can't afford it, they should choose a less expensive treatment. If the government is preventing less expensive treatments from being available to the public (which is at the root of your concern), then such laws should be overturned, allowing less expensive treatments to exist.
As for morality: it is immoral to take by force from another individual any of their property. Agreed? It is likewise immoral for a government backed by force to do the same, with the threatened alternatives of jail or emigration. People have a right to everything that they have freely acquired through trade with other freely-acting individuals.
"All other industrialized nations provide a health care system to their citizens that actually treats their conditions rather than just extracting as much money while providing as little healthcare as possible."
And likewise those nations, industrialized or not, are violating the rights of their citizens. The government does not grant natural rights - rather, it is charged with upholding them.
"However, many people (not the crowd that reads this) don't have even a slight understanding of what any of it means, let alone know how to realistically budget for years in advance or how to prepare for less than status quo times."
So why do they sign the contract? Why do they not ask any questions about what is meant by the text they don't understand?
"As uninformed as they may be, most/many of them are productive members of society."
It's fine that they are still productive. But members of the public should not be forced to give up some of their own productivity (in the form of money) to support such individuals when they become unproductive.
"Socialism? Bought into the right wing bullet points, huh?
What "bullet points" are these. I'm going simply on the definition of socialism. Take a service, prevent private organizations from providing it, and have the government provide it instead, funded through forced taxation. That is what Obama wants to do with healthcare, and I'm sure McCain will support it when it's politically profitable too.
"Just a matter of values, oh, and McCain is devoid of them."
Agreed. Obama's only value is altruism, which he puts higher than all of our rights - to property, to privacy, and so on.