I failed to address your scenario? You failed to even read my reply. What part of 'there are situations where the free market works much better than government currently does' do you not understand? Are you really this dense, or are you playing at being dumb for some kind of rhetorical purpose?
Yes, I was snarking on what appeared to be a hasty generalization and being intentionally dense. I apologize as you gave a well thought out reply...let me be more clear.
Let me be clear: not everyone in government is working on your behalf. But government as a whole is supposed to, and in our style of governance, if it isn't, then the citizens are to blame, because only they have the power to change things.
I don't dispute what you are saying the government is *supposed* to do. I'm sure we can find plenty to agree on there. What *actually* occurs is where there is contention. Also, blaming the victims isn't the most savvy of arguments that I've heard. Theoretically, yes, they can change things. Actually, the amount of effort required to do so is colossal.
In private enterprise on the other hand, everyone is working to take as much of your money as possible while giving you as little as possible. The system is designed that way. In fact, if a company does not try it's hardest to screw you over, its shareholders can sue....
Your penchant for hasty generalization popped up again. Private enterprise isn't always trying to screw people. Fair exchange happens...daily, in fact, it's common where both parties get the better part of the deal. Otherwise eBay would never exist. Your local hardware store would quickly go out of business if they tried to screw every customer. In a sense, I would argue that it is more of a meritocracy than government a people vote with their dollars and nasty businesses fail. Incidentally, when you write of shareholders suing, you are referring to public companies...the ones that are heavily regulated by the government so that situations like Enron and systemic bank failures don't occur.
...This is democracy of a different style: one dollar, one vote. Those with the most money get to decide who works at what, and who gets screwed. If you have no money, you have very few ways of pulling yourself out of poverty, and you are powerless.
You've genuinely confused me here. Are you saying capitalism is a different style of democracy? In any event, history has yet to show us a working system where the wealthy don't create the rules. And I don't see that change in...well, ever.
There are places where there is no government. Perhaps you should move to Somalia and experience the joys of a government-free existence.
Why would I do that? What argument are you addressing? I would be as likely to do that as you would be to move to a 1940's Communist Russia for a government-full existence.
You fail to address my scenario. If what you say is true then the free market could not work better.
If, as you say, everyone in the government is working for everyone else's behalf, there can be no better system than to have everyone working for the government.
Is there any level at which collective action (otherwise known as 'government') is a good thing? What is wrong with city jobs? Would you have the private sector take over all functions of government, on all levels? I would think, at the very least you would be in favor of a public police force to protect your property. No matter how many guns you have, someone has more, and is more willing to use them than you are. Fire departments are nice, too. As are public roads. In fact, I can't think of many things that city governments currently do that the private sector could do better. The private sector exists to give you as little value for your dollar as you can be convinced to accept. The government is an agent working on your behalf.
You make it sound so good. If that's the case then all people should work for the government (otherwise known as 'collective inaction') at all levels. Everyone will be an agent working for everyone else's behalf. There will be no potholes, no fires, and no crime.
I abhor the "church" of Scientology, but gladly attend my local congregation..... Your comment betrays a bigotry towards all organized religion, and I cannot see what benefit it added to this conversation.
"A bigot is a person who is intolerant of or takes offense to the opinions, lifestyles or identities differing from his or her own, and bigotry is the corresponding attitude or mindset."
Hackers have reportedly infiltrated restricted computer databases at the University of California Berkeley, putting the private data of 160,000 students, alumni, and others at risk.
It was at risk before before it was infiltrated. Now the loss has been guaranteed.
Certainly there is a point where lowering taxes reduces total revenue. That point is a tax rate somewhere between 0 and 100%; where? That's up for debate.
There is also a point where higher tax rates reduce revenue. I posit that that point is lower for entities like a corporation. They can move their headquarters to another country at will when it is more profitable to avoid taxes.
You are correct. However, people don't get fired if they do something.
Scenario 1: A school closes down, then weeks later they get the swine flu. Well, the school can say they did what they could.
Scenario 2: A school doesn't close down and they get the swine flu. Complaints will flow in from angry parents about why the didn't *do* something. Heads could roll, etc.
BBC is well run, but it isn't a private monopoly. It is a government run agency that uses "best practices" learned from being in business a long time and paying attention to other well run broadcasters. They are not in business to make a profit, but to provide a sercice to its audience at a cost that is politicaly justifiable. Their motive to keep costs in line (or to show a "profit") is political.
The political justification of the multimillion pound pay packages to their executives would be interesting to hear. And to grant them 16% pay increases in the teeth of a recession....I find it hard to see how they are just doing a public good and not in it for a profit.
That said, the rest of your post is a great read and should be moderated up.
The important difference between a publicly-run network and a privately-run network is that the public network is not run with the intention of generating maximum profits for the shareholders, but rather for the public good.
Don't delude yourself into thinking that just because a network is public that profit isn't a motivation. Nor is everything publicly-run done for the "public good".
The child abuse comparison is dramatic, but not really equivalent. Those who abuse their children do so intentionally to harm them.
Those who choose not to vaccinate are doing their best to help them even if you think they are misguided. Their intentions are not remotely the same.
Using your logic, those who have obese children are also abusers and the government should dictate there as well. I won't point out the slippery slope, but will point out that parents are (usually) better at parenting than governments even though all are amateurs.
Slashdot Mirror
Clearly this is a terrorist act targeting Americans!
The American Taliban strikes again.
I failed to address your scenario? You failed to even read my reply. What part of 'there are situations where the free market works much better than government currently does' do you not understand? Are you really this dense, or are you playing at being dumb for some kind of rhetorical purpose?
Yes, I was snarking on what appeared to be a hasty generalization and being intentionally dense. I apologize as you gave a well thought out reply...let me be more clear.
Let me be clear: not everyone in government is working on your behalf. But government as a whole is supposed to, and in our style of governance, if it isn't, then the citizens are to blame, because only they have the power to change things.
I don't dispute what you are saying the government is *supposed* to do. I'm sure we can find plenty to agree on there. What *actually* occurs is where there is contention. Also, blaming the victims isn't the most savvy of arguments that I've heard. Theoretically, yes, they can change things. Actually, the amount of effort required to do so is colossal.
In private enterprise on the other hand, everyone is working to take as much of your money as possible while giving you as little as possible. The system is designed that way. In fact, if a company does not try it's hardest to screw you over, its shareholders can sue....
Your penchant for hasty generalization popped up again. Private enterprise isn't always trying to screw people. Fair exchange happens...daily, in fact, it's common where both parties get the better part of the deal. Otherwise eBay would never exist. Your local hardware store would quickly go out of business if they tried to screw every customer. In a sense, I would argue that it is more of a meritocracy than government a people vote with their dollars and nasty businesses fail. Incidentally, when you write of shareholders suing, you are referring to public companies...the ones that are heavily regulated by the government so that situations like Enron and systemic bank failures don't occur.
...This is democracy of a different style: one dollar, one vote. Those with the most money get to decide who works at what, and who gets screwed. If you have no money, you have very few ways of pulling yourself out of poverty, and you are powerless.
You've genuinely confused me here. Are you saying capitalism is a different style of democracy? In any event, history has yet to show us a working system where the wealthy don't create the rules. And I don't see that change in...well, ever.
There are places where there is no government. Perhaps you should move to Somalia and experience the joys of a government-free existence.
Why would I do that? What argument are you addressing? I would be as likely to do that as you would be to move to a 1940's Communist Russia for a government-full existence.
You fail to address my scenario. If what you say is true then the free market could not work better.
If, as you say, everyone in the government is working for everyone else's behalf, there can be no better system than to have everyone working for the government.
Is there any level at which collective action (otherwise known as 'government') is a good thing? What is wrong with city jobs? Would you have the private sector take over all functions of government, on all levels? I would think, at the very least you would be in favor of a public police force to protect your property. No matter how many guns you have, someone has more, and is more willing to use them than you are. Fire departments are nice, too. As are public roads. In fact, I can't think of many things that city governments currently do that the private sector could do better. The private sector exists to give you as little value for your dollar as you can be convinced to accept. The government is an agent working on your behalf.
You make it sound so good. If that's the case then all people should work for the government (otherwise known as 'collective inaction') at all levels. Everyone will be an agent working for everyone else's behalf. There will be no potholes, no fires, and no crime.
Simple, what could possibly go wrong?
I abhor the "church" of Scientology, but gladly attend my local congregation. ....
Your comment betrays a bigotry towards all organized religion, and I cannot see what benefit it added to this conversation.
"A bigot is a person who is intolerant of or takes offense to the opinions, lifestyles or identities differing from his or her own, and bigotry is the corresponding attitude or mindset."
In psychology, we call that projection.
And what about "Church"?
I avoid involving the word Church when referring to Scientology since that will defame other churches unrelated to Scientology.
Don't bother, other churches can use more defamation.
It was at risk before before it was infiltrated. Now the loss has been guaranteed.
Brilliant post! Very true!
You are correct, given your example that wouldn't be more profitable. However, some country will always be cheaper.
You are also correct they wouldn't move the employees. They would just hire the cheaper ones elsewhere.
Bringing new life to the tyranny of the majority....
Certainly there is a point where lowering taxes reduces total revenue. That point is a tax rate somewhere between 0 and 100%; where? That's up for debate.
There is also a point where higher tax rates reduce revenue. I posit that that point is lower for entities like a corporation. They can move their headquarters to another country at will when it is more profitable to avoid taxes.
+1
Excellent, a critical reader...the world needs more of you.
Dubious, this is projected to be the first pandemic in 50 years. They can't be too cautious.
You are correct. However, people don't get fired if they do something.
Scenario 1: A school closes down, then weeks later they get the swine flu. Well, the school can say they did what they could.
Scenario 2: A school doesn't close down and they get the swine flu. Complaints will flow in from angry parents about why the didn't *do* something. Heads could roll, etc.
BBC is well run, but it isn't a private monopoly. It is a government run agency that uses "best practices" learned from being in business a long time and paying attention to other well run broadcasters. They are not in business to make a profit, but to provide a sercice to its audience at a cost that is politicaly justifiable. Their motive to keep costs in line (or to show a "profit") is political.
The political justification of the multimillion pound pay packages to their executives would be interesting to hear. And to grant them 16% pay increases in the teeth of a recession....I find it hard to see how they are just doing a public good and not in it for a profit.
That said, the rest of your post is a great read and should be moderated up.
The capitalization doesn't make your statement true.
The important difference between a publicly-run network and a privately-run network is that the public network is not run with the intention of generating maximum profits for the shareholders, but rather for the public good.
Don't delude yourself into thinking that just because a network is public that profit isn't a motivation. Nor is everything publicly-run done for the "public good".
I thought the same thing. Perhaps their time would better be spent predicting the next big change in academics and its pitfalls.
Nearly all isn't all.
If it makes you feel better, you could think of it as he's agreeing with the climate experts that do not believe in global warming.
"god" is not an answer, it's the avoidance of an answer.
Science asks "how" and accepts "I don't know" as a legitimate answer.
It's a theoretical particle, not a hypothetical particle.
Nice post. I wouldn't blur the line between medical doctors and medical researchers so much, but I agree.
I might also point out that doctors don't necessarily always have a, b, and c either but I agree with your intent.
For the record, I have my son immunized. :)
Almost certainly part of the increase is due to awareness of the condition. Kind of like how ADD didn't exist 20 years ago and is now an epidemic.
However, there really is no clarity on the issue. This gray area lets parents imaginations run wild...
The child abuse comparison is dramatic, but not really equivalent. Those who abuse their children do so intentionally to harm them.
Those who choose not to vaccinate are doing their best to help them even if you think they are misguided. Their intentions are not remotely the same.
Using your logic, those who have obese children are also abusers and the government should dictate there as well. I won't point out the slippery slope, but will point out that parents are (usually) better at parenting than governments even though all are amateurs.