"because they would be based on the concept of 'free market', which essentially means raping the earth."
That little nut got tossed out without argument, didn't it? The only "support" you give is this gem, which doesn't prove what you think it does: "With the government already basically giving the forests on public lands to logging companies for practically nothing, how much worse would it become if all restrictions on land use were abolished?". Any libertarian will tell you the solution to that problem is simply to remove such land ownership from government hands. When "everybody" owns the land, nobody does, and the loggers don't have to face the cost imposed by the loss of the trees. The government will simply dole out concessions without end or sense. It is worth noting that the ONLY owner of forests in the U.S. that does not replace trees faster than cut IS the state - NO private owner does this! Then they make it worse by constructing roads and logging infrastructure, essentially as a subsidy financed from the public coin. No libertarian would support that.
And if you think the free market is all about
"raping the earth", you can always take a look at places where the market wasn't so free... After describing some of the wholesale destruction found in such countries, P. J. O'Rourke said something like "Of course, you might say that communist states wasn't after environmental protection, they were trying to achieve prosperity for the workers. And look at how well they accomplished that."
"Having a half-decent education system is still better than leaving those who can't afford it out in the cold."
Which doesn't say anything about whether the government ought to be running that system. Very easy to simply adjust progressive taxes to get the same effect, if you think that's worth doing. Or establishing a voucher system, or some such. Maybe we can have an actually decent education system for everybody, instead of condemning most everyone (except for the rich that can afford to pay twice) to lame government schools.
"Yeah, because we know how many people boycotted shops down south earlier in the century. That worked real well. (I'm not calling you a racist for thinking that way; I'm just pointing out that your idea is stupid.)"
Listen mate - if attitudes in the south have changed at all, it's not because the north forced them to. I doubt if forced integration can do much to change attitudes - at least, not in a positive way. It just creates a lot of bitterness.
And you have a moral problem. Leaving aside the pragmatic issue of how to reduce racial discrimination, you still have to reconcile yourself with the fact that property rights and freedom of association ought to guarantee an individual the right to discriminate on ANY grounds he thinks wise - even on stupid grounds like racism.
"The point you're arguing is that the government does many things of use, not that it's preventing people and companies from doing useful things."
You're right about that - I did jump the gun a bit there. I was confusing you with all of those very obnoxious people that think privatization of space is wrong, that only square-jawed "heroes of the people" can or should go there, and that people like Mr. Tito shouldn't be allowed to "buy their way" into space.
Obviously the government does have SOME useful functions, even if that range is very small.
It's not about who's going to let us. It's about who's going to stop us.
"How would you feel if for the sake of arguement the eventual winner of the X-Prize were to become the MS of space exploration, with almost total control over who does what in space."
As opposed to governments that already have total control?
Anyway, there's good reasons for why this won't turn out that way. The success of MS is mostly because of compatibility issues - which don't apply here. How exactly is this hypothetical robber baron going to keep everyone out of space?
The Internet - first created by government agencies, only really useful once the private sector got in. Maybe we ought to do THE SAME THING with NASA!
Universal postal service - incompentently run and maintained by force. Want to start your own first class mail service? They'll shut you down! (this happened in Buffalo some decades ago)
Free education - you get what you pay for. The government can keep that one, thanks.
I'll give you a point about the eradication of smallpox, as I don't know enough about the history of that effort to argue. I suspect it might well have worked anyway. Of course, now we see wrong-headed government efforts to end insecticide use over inflated fears of cancer, while millions continue to die from malaria. Public health ain't exactly a rousing argument for your side.
Abolition of slavery happened because the North won the war - a fine argument for capitalism, actually. Anyway, most libertarians would agree that protecting the rights of citizens IS an appropriate use of government power.
Going to space and landing on the moon? Accomplished without the consent of some of the people that had to pay for it. I love space exploration as much as anyone, but I don't claim that I have a right to tax others to finance my hobbies.
As for satellites, aren't many, if not most, of those private efforts now anyway? And wouldn't it still be better if they could be?
Banning whites-only shops? By definition, ONLY a government can achieve that. Now ask if that's worth doing - and don't call me a racist for thinking that private boycott is a more effective means of ending racial discrimination.
Transcontinental highways (and roads in general)? Well, I'm willing to let the feds keep doing that one, unless I can think of a way for private industry to do it better.
Anyway, you are falling for the old fallacy of ignoring opportunity cost. Give me back some of the half of my income I pay, and I promise I won't roll cigs with twenties or wipe my ass on Mr. Hamilton. It's easy to see the benefits of the government spending our money - harder to see what might have happened if we had kept it and spent it ourselves.
Lack of installer - HA! Was I the only one that almost jumped out of my seat for joy when I discovered that you could just extract it into whatever directory and GO - like the good old days?!
Slashdot Mirror
Uh, taxes AREN'T a way to keep us down? What exactly are they then?
"because they would be based on the concept of 'free market', which essentially means raping the earth." That little nut got tossed out without argument, didn't it? The only "support" you give is this gem, which doesn't prove what you think it does: "With the government already basically giving the forests on public lands to logging companies for practically nothing, how much worse would it become if all restrictions on land use were abolished?". Any libertarian will tell you the solution to that problem is simply to remove such land ownership from government hands. When "everybody" owns the land, nobody does, and the loggers don't have to face the cost imposed by the loss of the trees. The government will simply dole out concessions without end or sense. It is worth noting that the ONLY owner of forests in the U.S. that does not replace trees faster than cut IS the state - NO private owner does this! Then they make it worse by constructing roads and logging infrastructure, essentially as a subsidy financed from the public coin. No libertarian would support that. And if you think the free market is all about "raping the earth", you can always take a look at places where the market wasn't so free ... After describing some of the wholesale destruction found in such countries, P. J. O'Rourke said something like "Of course, you might say that communist states wasn't after environmental protection, they were trying to achieve prosperity for the workers. And look at how well they accomplished that."
Good point - you can't plant just anything. Plenty of people should pay extra for nice big hardwood planks.
Raising awareness is maybe a reason to do it personally - but I hope the state is not acting on such vague motives.
hmmm... New Hampshire is on that list - but not for long!
"Having a half-decent education system is still better than leaving those who can't afford it out in the cold."
Which doesn't say anything about whether the government ought to be running that system. Very easy to simply adjust progressive taxes to get the same effect, if you think that's worth doing. Or establishing a voucher system, or some such. Maybe we can have an actually decent education system for everybody, instead of condemning most everyone (except for the rich that can afford to pay twice) to lame government schools.
"Yeah, because we know how many people boycotted shops down south earlier in the century. That worked real well. (I'm not calling you a racist for thinking that way; I'm just pointing out that your idea is stupid.)"
Listen mate - if attitudes in the south have changed at all, it's not because the north forced them to. I doubt if forced integration can do much to change attitudes - at least, not in a positive way. It just creates a lot of bitterness.
And you have a moral problem. Leaving aside the pragmatic issue of how to reduce racial discrimination, you still have to reconcile yourself with the fact that property rights and freedom of association ought to guarantee an individual the right to discriminate on ANY grounds he thinks wise - even on stupid grounds like racism.
"The point you're arguing is that the government does many things of use, not that it's preventing people and companies from doing useful things."
You're right about that - I did jump the gun a bit there. I was confusing you with all of those very obnoxious people that think privatization of space is wrong, that only square-jawed "heroes of the people" can or should go there, and that people like Mr. Tito shouldn't be allowed to "buy their way" into space.
Obviously the government does have SOME useful functions, even if that range is very small.
It's not about who's going to let us. It's about who's going to stop us. "How would you feel if for the sake of arguement the eventual winner of the X-Prize were to become the MS of space exploration, with almost total control over who does what in space." As opposed to governments that already have total control? Anyway, there's good reasons for why this won't turn out that way. The success of MS is mostly because of compatibility issues - which don't apply here. How exactly is this hypothetical robber baron going to keep everyone out of space?
CONCUR - MOD HIM UP
Huh?
The Internet - first created by government agencies, only really useful once the private sector got in. Maybe we ought to do THE SAME THING with NASA!
Universal postal service - incompentently run and maintained by force. Want to start your own first class mail service? They'll shut you down! (this happened in Buffalo some decades ago)
Free education - you get what you pay for. The government can keep that one, thanks.
I'll give you a point about the eradication of smallpox, as I don't know enough about the history of that effort to argue. I suspect it might well have worked anyway. Of course, now we see wrong-headed government efforts to end insecticide use over inflated fears of cancer, while millions continue to die from malaria. Public health ain't exactly a rousing argument for your side.
Abolition of slavery happened because the North won the war - a fine argument for capitalism, actually. Anyway, most libertarians would agree that protecting the rights of citizens IS an appropriate use of government power.
Going to space and landing on the moon? Accomplished without the consent of some of the people that had to pay for it. I love space exploration as much as anyone, but I don't claim that I have a right to tax others to finance my hobbies.
As for satellites, aren't many, if not most, of those private efforts now anyway? And wouldn't it still be better if they could be?
Banning whites-only shops? By definition, ONLY a government can achieve that. Now ask if that's worth doing - and don't call me a racist for thinking that private boycott is a more effective means of ending racial discrimination.
Transcontinental highways (and roads in general)? Well, I'm willing to let the feds keep doing that one, unless I can think of a way for private industry to do it better.
Anyway, you are falling for the old fallacy of ignoring opportunity cost. Give me back some of the half of my income I pay, and I promise I won't roll cigs with twenties or wipe my ass on Mr. Hamilton. It's easy to see the benefits of the government spending our money - harder to see what might have happened if we had kept it and spent it ourselves.
Lack of installer - HA! Was I the only one that almost jumped out of my seat for joy when I discovered that you could just extract it into whatever directory and GO - like the good old days?!