The more you cut teacher salaries, the worse the teachers, because anyone with any brains at all will see private sector employment more and more appealing.
- fucking hell, that's the problem. Teaching, like any other service is and should be a private sector enterprise. Having government involved in it is the root of the problem.
Schools should be run for the benefit of the students, not the teachers.
- correct, but this requires free market and not socialism or fascism.
Free market capitalism builds competition for the sake of the consumer/client/user and it pushes prices down and you will not find teachers who would agree to that type of competition.
As an anarcho-capitalist, libertarian / objectivist I support free market, thus any government intrusion into private affairs of individuals and their business is oppression and an unwelcome development, but obviously you are within your rights to support whatever government oppression you like but that conflicts with your 'libertarian fucktardness'.
Zero ability to enforce property rights implies that they cannot protect their property, so if they can protect it (by force and by reciprocal agreements with other corporations who also own some property there) they can protect it.
If you leave your house and go on a 2 year trip around the world it doesn't mean you lose your property rights to it, or maybe it does in your mind? There are reciprocal expectations around property rights basically, if you want yours to be upheld you will uphold those of others.
One thing I will agree upon: if you didn't set your own foot on a previously unclaimed piece of property and didn't fence it, you have 0 claim to it. I am with Rothbard on this issue, once you claim a previously unclaimed piece of property and combine your labour in some way with it, it is yours morally, the question of enforcement is a separate one, that's where private protection / reciprocity take turns.
You are talking about private property rights, government is not needed at all to have private property rights, all you have to do is be able to protect your property and in a free market (free from government intervention) property rights are reciprocal and any disputes can be handled in private courts. There is no problem with corporations (read with individual people) controlling private property, that's just capitalism (private ownership and operation of property).
And yes, corporations are people. Do not misunderstand that to mean that Google is a person, what it means is that Google is just a paper entity, however there are actual living human beings that own it and run it, that's what it means when somebody says: corporations are people. It refers to people who own/run the corporations.
Yeah, yeah, of-course you are attacking me, not my ideas but me personally. Attacking a person rather than his ideas, fine, that's the modus operandi with most incompetents as I already quoted Asimov. You think you can disguise a personal attack rather than an attack on an idea with your 'concern' for me, whatever.
Somehow I am quite certain that in the age of instant communications and the Internet this is not an insurmountable issue for free market participants.
On the other hand I have less than 0 trust in anything (anything) that comes out of government. Less than 0 specifically because I expect it to be propaganda based and to be against my self interest and against the interests of society at large and in the interests of some better connected entities who have monopoly access to government officials.
In a market free from government intrusion people do make money (and we know they do, we have this happening today) by providing expert opinion and they stake their own brand name on it.
Wrong, free market means market without external regulations that are not intrinsic emerging properties of the market itself and governments are an imposition, a violent group put together to interfere with the intrinsic emerging properties of the market.
Free market is market free from government rules, nothing else at all.
I do not watch USA television regardless of what you believe I do not watch Fox and regardless of what many here assume I didn't read Atlas Shrugged until literally a year ago out of curiosity and though I found it to be a beautiful work of philosophy and art, my views have formed over almost 3 decades prior based on my own understanding of the world we live in here.
So if you want to attack my views, attack my views, but do not assume things that I did not specifically mention or refer to.
I pay for everything I enjoy and I like paying for things I enjoy, that's the only thing I need from society - to be able to buy things I enjoy. What I hate about the so called society is you, people like you, who want to use violence as a group against individuals, because people like you want to steal and use group violence to achieve it. Is that clear enough for you?
And why at all would you presume that I am 'trolling'? What, everybody who sees government as the ultimate oppressive evil force that only exists to destroy individual freedoms is a 'troll'? Interesting. It is essential liberty that has been denied generations of individuals not having their earnings stolen from them via taxes. There is such a thing as voluntary exchange, you are incapable of even slight understanding that is enough for a human society to work together, there is no need for coercive group violence, it is destructive and it starts at the very beginning, promoted by parents hitting their fucking kids.
Everything private is cheaper in a free market economy. In a non-free market economy (which is what is set up almost everywhere across the world), private companies can manipulate governments to their advantage by buying influence and thus preventing actual competition.
FDA is there to prevent competition, so is every other law and tax, preventing actual competition creates a skewed market, in which it is impossible to get a true reading on what costs are actually.
Same with any government operation, money is fungible, so government operations are subsidised in more ways than one. Since there are very few actual free markets and that health care is not allowed to operate as a free market almost anywhere at all, comparing private health care in a non-free market and declaring that government beats free-market private health care is in itself a gigantic lie that you prefer to promote, that's your business, but you are not going to fog this issue that way for me.
It is a set of corporations, parent corporation and a number of daughter businesses set up to minimise taxes and other types of liabilities. It is what I have to work with in the current environment. I prefer bearer certificates personally, they are a bit difficult to set up today. I prefer it if governments didn't exit at all and there was no such thing as a government controlled corporate charter of-course, given that the world is what it is, I come up with the best way of doing business I can in our reality.
Apple would exist just fine, government wouldn't exist.
Government shouldn't be protecting anybody in business for any reason, including 'intellectual property' nonsense.
As to murdering and kidnapping - this is a private matter, it is up to any given locality how to deal with such nonsense, personally I prefer completely private security and private courts for handling any criminal activity.
Roads do not disappear if government does not usurp power by oppressing people into submission, roads should be completely private as well.
Gasoline quality and whatever other quality, all of it is up to private brands to maintain and compete upon.
A functioning government is a Mafia and should be understood and treated as such.
Yes, hypocrisy is amusing, however there is no hypocrisy with a company that earned money in a foreign country not bringing its profits to USA so they can avoid paying those taxes.
As to the corporate charter provided by government - this shouldn't exist.
There shouldn't be intellectual property law - this shouldn't exist.
Free market is exactly absence of government creating monopolies, destroying competition, taxing income and profit and wealth, meddling with businesses, passing labour laws, etc.
There shouldn't be any government and there shouldn't be such a thing as 'limited liability' provided by government corporate law.
Yes, deficits are bad. Yes, running deficits and adding to debts means higher future payments due to interest on the debt and it means higher future taxes.
In order to restart economic activity debts have to be paid off and/or restructured, debts have to be minimised and deficits have to stop.
Running deficits means taxing future earnings at a higher rate than the current tax rate, that's because debts cannot be accrued forever and it's not fake 'borrowing ceiling' that governments don't care about, it's the real lending ceiling that will be imposed by people who will no longer subsidise your economy with their productivity.
Cutting taxes and increasing debt based spending or inflation based spending is not cutting taxes at all, which is why Bush never actually cut taxes, he increased them by increasing spending.
USA is now the biggest debtor in history of the world and his happened since Nixon defaulted on the dollar in 1971 and the inflation started wiping out USA economy.
Government provided health care is not cheaper. FDA is not cheaper, government laws and taxes and regulations do not make things cheaper, they either make things impossible or much more expensive than otherwise.
You are full of statistics, aren't you? Private health care, actually private, without government intervention cannot be beat by price by any government health care at all, given that TAX AND REGULATIONS COSTS ARE HIDDEN FROM SIGHT.
And then there is a simple penalty.... You don't have a headquarters here in the US you don't sell a product here.... there are all sorts of cat and mouse games that can be played.
Really?:)))) That would make for one EMPTY WalMart, wouldn't it?
Go ahead, think through that once more, you like your stuff that you buy every day in any store in USA? Most of it was NOT made in America.
Ok, now take your analogy and add the following: if you are constantly eating on 'the tab', while you are no longer being productive, you lost your job, you ate through your assets, you have nothing left and your skills are deteriorating, the restaurant would be full-hearty to keep feeding you there, thinking that you would ever pay any of that debt back.
Western world is seeing its economies being destroyed and not in small part due to welfare state policies of that world. The government and health care or insurance should not be mixed. Same applies to everything, including military at this point as far as I am concerned, at least if the idea is to keep peace rather than increase violence and murder. The reality is the problem for you, not me, you don't actually pay attention to the reality and the reality is bigger than only health care, it is the entire state of economy and health care is not outside of the economy. I prefer to use private health care specifically because of much better quality and given choices people would take that option, their choices are removed from them by their governments and by the declining economy, which is again, resulting from their government growth and destruction of free market capitalism.
You are correct about one thing: there is no way to ignore the system, the only real question to yourself is what are you doing in your life about it, how do you ensure that your losses are minimised in this socialist/fascist nightmare of a system (and I am quite positive things are actually getting better over time, not worse, in the last 300 years markets have been freer than ever and individual property rights have been exercised more than ever before, of-course the last 40 years, since the default on the gold dollar the things went downhill quite a bit in the American and European parts of the world, but they have been getting better in Asia and parts of Africa).
I am an individual first of all, I act with my own self interest in mind, that is simply a fact. Everything else is your opinion and it's not an informed one. However I am far away from a hypocrite, I actually do as I say as much as I possibly can, from the way I structure my business to my personal life, I am quite good at following my own advice.
Actually wrong, there are very few places that do not have government hands all over health care, education, transportation, energy, everything. The places where government hands are not elbow deep in these services are rare, but they exist. Singapore has very little involvement in health insurance, there is a basic required minimum insurance and everything else is voluntary. They also have no minimum wage and highest per capita earnings.
Wrong, services that I WANT to buy I can buy on my own and they would be much cheaper and in more abundance and with more options if governments weren't creating monopolies to support inefficient companies in many sectors. Private roads, private health care, private energy, private transport, private food, private insurance, private education, private money, private law, private protection, private anything costs less and can be paid for as needed and in private sector nobody is forced to pay for anything they do not require or wish to use. There is a gigantic difference between voluntary purchase of services and being forced into group slavery by the mob and the power hungry politicians who get their power from the tacit complicity of the mob.
Democracy is mobocracy, it is dictatorial oppression of the minority by majority (in case if the majority votes) or at least of a voting majority and it is not in the best interest of an individual, it is slave ownership by proxy.
Slashdot Mirror
The more you cut teacher salaries, the worse the teachers, because anyone with any brains at all will see private sector employment more and more appealing.
- fucking hell, that's the problem. Teaching, like any other service is and should be a private sector enterprise. Having government involved in it is the root of the problem.
Schools should be run for the benefit of the students, not the teachers.
- correct, but this requires free market and not socialism or fascism.
Free market capitalism builds competition for the sake of the consumer/client/user and it pushes prices down and you will not find teachers who would agree to that type of competition.
As an anarcho-capitalist, libertarian / objectivist I support free market, thus any government intrusion into private affairs of individuals and their business is oppression and an unwelcome development, but obviously you are within your rights to support whatever government oppression you like but that conflicts with your 'libertarian fucktardness'.
Zero ability to enforce property rights implies that they cannot protect their property, so if they can protect it (by force and by reciprocal agreements with other corporations who also own some property there) they can protect it.
If you leave your house and go on a 2 year trip around the world it doesn't mean you lose your property rights to it, or maybe it does in your mind? There are reciprocal expectations around property rights basically, if you want yours to be upheld you will uphold those of others.
One thing I will agree upon: if you didn't set your own foot on a previously unclaimed piece of property and didn't fence it, you have 0 claim to it. I am with Rothbard on this issue, once you claim a previously unclaimed piece of property and combine your labour in some way with it, it is yours morally, the question of enforcement is a separate one, that's where private protection / reciprocity take turns.
You are talking about private property rights, government is not needed at all to have private property rights, all you have to do is be able to protect your property and in a free market (free from government intervention) property rights are reciprocal and any disputes can be handled in private courts. There is no problem with corporations (read with individual people) controlling private property, that's just capitalism (private ownership and operation of property).
And yes, corporations are people. Do not misunderstand that to mean that Google is a person, what it means is that Google is just a paper entity, however there are actual living human beings that own it and run it, that's what it means when somebody says: corporations are people. It refers to people who own/run the corporations.
Yeah, yeah, of-course you are attacking me, not my ideas but me personally. Attacking a person rather than his ideas, fine, that's the modus operandi with most incompetents as I already quoted Asimov. You think you can disguise a personal attack rather than an attack on an idea with your 'concern' for me, whatever.
Somehow I am quite certain that in the age of instant communications and the Internet this is not an insurmountable issue for free market participants.
On the other hand I have less than 0 trust in anything (anything) that comes out of government. Less than 0 specifically because I expect it to be propaganda based and to be against my self interest and against the interests of society at large and in the interests of some better connected entities who have monopoly access to government officials.
In a market free from government intrusion people do make money (and we know they do, we have this happening today) by providing expert opinion and they stake their own brand name on it.
Wrong, free market means market without external regulations that are not intrinsic emerging properties of the market itself and governments are an imposition, a violent group put together to interfere with the intrinsic emerging properties of the market.
Free market is market free from government rules, nothing else at all.
I do not watch USA television regardless of what you believe I do not watch Fox and regardless of what many here assume I didn't read Atlas Shrugged until literally a year ago out of curiosity and though I found it to be a beautiful work of philosophy and art, my views have formed over almost 3 decades prior based on my own understanding of the world we live in here.
So if you want to attack my views, attack my views, but do not assume things that I did not specifically mention or refer to.
I pay for everything I enjoy and I like paying for things I enjoy, that's the only thing I need from society - to be able to buy things I enjoy. What I hate about the so called society is you, people like you, who want to use violence as a group against individuals, because people like you want to steal and use group violence to achieve it.
Is that clear enough for you?
And why at all would you presume that I am 'trolling'? What, everybody who sees government as the ultimate oppressive evil force that only exists to destroy individual freedoms is a 'troll'? Interesting. It is essential liberty that has been denied generations of individuals not having their earnings stolen from them via taxes. There is such a thing as voluntary exchange, you are incapable of even slight understanding that is enough for a human society to work together, there is no need for coercive group violence, it is destructive and it starts at the very beginning, promoted by parents hitting their fucking kids.
The last refuge of the incompetent is violence and in your case violent tendencies are expressed in personal ad-hominem attacks.
Everything private is cheaper in a free market economy. In a non-free market economy (which is what is set up almost everywhere across the world), private companies can manipulate governments to their advantage by buying influence and thus preventing actual competition.
FDA is there to prevent competition, so is every other law and tax, preventing actual competition creates a skewed market, in which it is impossible to get a true reading on what costs are actually.
Same with any government operation, money is fungible, so government operations are subsidised in more ways than one. Since there are very few actual free markets and that health care is not allowed to operate as a free market almost anywhere at all, comparing private health care in a non-free market and declaring that government beats free-market private health care is in itself a gigantic lie that you prefer to promote, that's your business, but you are not going to fog this issue that way for me.
It is a set of corporations, parent corporation and a number of daughter businesses set up to minimise taxes and other types of liabilities. It is what I have to work with in the current environment. I prefer bearer certificates personally, they are a bit difficult to set up today. I prefer it if governments didn't exit at all and there was no such thing as a government controlled corporate charter of-course, given that the world is what it is, I come up with the best way of doing business I can in our reality.
Apple would exist just fine, government wouldn't exist.
Government shouldn't be protecting anybody in business for any reason, including 'intellectual property' nonsense.
As to murdering and kidnapping - this is a private matter, it is up to any given locality how to deal with such nonsense, personally I prefer completely private security and private courts for handling any criminal activity.
Roads do not disappear if government does not usurp power by oppressing people into submission, roads should be completely private as well.
Gasoline quality and whatever other quality, all of it is up to private brands to maintain and compete upon.
A functioning government is a Mafia and should be understood and treated as such.
Yes, hypocrisy is amusing, however there is no hypocrisy with a company that earned money in a foreign country not bringing its profits to USA so they can avoid paying those taxes.
As to the corporate charter provided by government - this shouldn't exist.
There shouldn't be intellectual property law - this shouldn't exist.
Free market is exactly absence of government creating monopolies, destroying competition, taxing income and profit and wealth, meddling with businesses, passing labour laws, etc.
There shouldn't be any government and there shouldn't be such a thing as 'limited liability' provided by government corporate law.
Yes, deficits are bad. Yes, running deficits and adding to debts means higher future payments due to interest on the debt and it means higher future taxes.
In order to restart economic activity debts have to be paid off and/or restructured, debts have to be minimised and deficits have to stop.
Running deficits means taxing future earnings at a higher rate than the current tax rate, that's because debts cannot be accrued forever and it's not fake 'borrowing ceiling' that governments don't care about, it's the real lending ceiling that will be imposed by people who will no longer subsidise your economy with their productivity.
Cutting taxes and increasing debt based spending or inflation based spending is not cutting taxes at all, which is why Bush never actually cut taxes, he increased them by increasing spending.
USA is now the biggest debtor in history of the world and his happened since Nixon defaulted on the dollar in 1971 and the inflation started wiping out USA economy.
Government provided health care is not cheaper. FDA is not cheaper, government laws and taxes and regulations do not make things cheaper, they either make things impossible or much more expensive than otherwise.
You are full of statistics, aren't you? Private health care, actually private, without government intervention cannot be beat by price by any government health care at all, given that TAX AND REGULATIONS COSTS ARE HIDDEN FROM SIGHT.
And then there is a simple penalty.... You don't have a headquarters here in the US you don't sell a product here.... there are all sorts of cat and mouse games that can be played.
Really? :)))) That would make for one EMPTY WalMart, wouldn't it?
Go ahead, think through that once more, you like your stuff that you buy every day in any store in USA? Most of it was NOT made in America.
Ok, now take your analogy and add the following: if you are constantly eating on 'the tab', while you are no longer being productive, you lost your job, you ate through your assets, you have nothing left and your skills are deteriorating, the restaurant would be full-hearty to keep feeding you there, thinking that you would ever pay any of that debt back.
Western world is seeing its economies being destroyed and not in small part due to welfare state policies of that world. The government and health care or insurance should not be mixed. Same applies to everything, including military at this point as far as I am concerned, at least if the idea is to keep peace rather than increase violence and murder. The reality is the problem for you, not me, you don't actually pay attention to the reality and the reality is bigger than only health care, it is the entire state of economy and health care is not outside of the economy. I prefer to use private health care specifically because of much better quality and given choices people would take that option, their choices are removed from them by their governments and by the declining economy, which is again, resulting from their government growth and destruction of free market capitalism.
You are correct about one thing: there is no way to ignore the system, the only real question to yourself is what are you doing in your life about it, how do you ensure that your losses are minimised in this socialist/fascist nightmare of a system (and I am quite positive things are actually getting better over time, not worse, in the last 300 years markets have been freer than ever and individual property rights have been exercised more than ever before, of-course the last 40 years, since the default on the gold dollar the things went downhill quite a bit in the American and European parts of the world, but they have been getting better in Asia and parts of Africa).
I am an individual first of all, I act with my own self interest in mind, that is simply a fact. Everything else is your opinion and it's not an informed one. However I am far away from a hypocrite, I actually do as I say as much as I possibly can, from the way I structure my business to my personal life, I am quite good at following my own advice.
Actually wrong, there are very few places that do not have government hands all over health care, education, transportation, energy, everything. The places where government hands are not elbow deep in these services are rare, but they exist. Singapore has very little involvement in health insurance, there is a basic required minimum insurance and everything else is voluntary. They also have no minimum wage and highest per capita earnings.
Wrong, services that I WANT to buy I can buy on my own and they would be much cheaper and in more abundance and with more options if governments weren't creating monopolies to support inefficient companies in many sectors. Private roads, private health care, private energy, private transport, private food, private insurance, private education, private money, private law, private protection, private anything costs less and can be paid for as needed and in private sector nobody is forced to pay for anything they do not require or wish to use. There is a gigantic difference between voluntary purchase of services and being forced into group slavery by the mob and the power hungry politicians who get their power from the tacit complicity of the mob.
Democracy is mobocracy, it is dictatorial oppression of the minority by majority (in case if the majority votes) or at least of a voting majority and it is not in the best interest of an individual, it is slave ownership by proxy.