Don't expect anything to be handed to me, never have - but I know better than to throw energy into a wasted effort of trying to change from within a system that is fundamentally flawed. There are better ways.
excuse me? You don't have a clue as to what I do either privately(business) or politically - just another empty and unsubstantiated statement (or in this case, accusation).

you think its like rolling dice or something? There are concrete reasons why government tends to 'screw up' moreso than not - in fact, it is pretty much a forgone conclusion that its nearly impossible for government to not screw up due to the immutability of certain economic functions. You seem to be taking my accusations of government as a personal attack, I didn't realize you revered it so much, perhaps its best not to tread on such a touchy subject for you.

government is not a business. Sure, there are 'good' people and 'bad' people in government, but the machine itself, how it functions, why it functions, and the forces which act upon it tend to make all government action a social 'bad'.

I love the metaphors to violence when describing free market actions: nobody 'takes over' and nobody is 'killing off'... these are all describing voluntary free market interactions which infringe on no one's 'rights'. Microsoft doesn't now, and never did, have a monopoly. In fact, it use to ignore government altogether until a bunch of companies that found that competing against Microsoft was too hard so they got together and lobbied government to restrict Microsoft in ways they could not. Now Microsoft is well aware of the threat posed by government and is most assuredly going to put resources towards making sure government force is used to their benefit instead of the other way around... monopolistic actions soon to follow. A monopoly cannot form (or at least stay intact) without government support.

Do you know this 'ultimate cost'? Why do you assume that consumers are not 'thinking critically'? Perhaps they are not doing as YOU might wish they would act, but that doesn't mean that they are not choosing the best thing at the time. Walmart is a pretty good (not perfect due to their use of government to obtain property, or their support of government minimum wage to drive out potential competitors) example of the natural charity and good which comes from the free market - thanks to Walmart, millions of people have directly benefited either by obtaining otherwise unaffordable goods, or by obtaining desired employment.

labor unions are not 'business' at all, really.

of course not - it only reflects the humans participating within it. But, as far as producing and distributing goods and services while respecting natural human rights and condoning peaceful interaction between folks, it is the best humans can do at this point


it is perfectly inefficient, I would at least give it that much!

when did I ever say anything like 'make the government worse'? How about just get rid of it altogether? Nothing wrong with starting out small, as a test bed to help show statists exactly how a free market acts and its results - it could be all voluntary, let a group of like-minded folks get together on a private tract of land which they own and don't tax/regulate/anything on that parcel of land... see what happens. Why does having such a place seem to frighten you - you, or anyone who didn't want to be part of it, wouldn't be forced to participate or deal with these folks in the least, just let them be.

you make it sound like the reason why the government undertakes any project is because it knows the most efficient method of accomplishing it. The government doesn't do things because they are 'logical', but rather because certain political forces have acted in their own self-interest. There is no motivation to do anything 'efficiently', by any standard.

stuff them up yours! They are not 'my' wars, they are manufactured crisis by government, you think I came up with the misnomer 'War on Poverty' or 'War on Drugs' - it's your love of government (combined with others) that make politicians believe they have this magical ability to fix things that they can't, to sweep away rights as they see fit, and to cast countless lives away for the so-called 'common good'.

lol - 'voting', how it does blind some.

How do you define oppression? Must be different from common understand or the dictionary.

is that your argument, "Maoists said 'make it better' and they were wrong, so anyone who says 'make it better' is also wrong"?

By what standard do you determine if either is working best?

really? How is their unemployment rate doing - do you think those folks are happy?

I do

I had no option to do it on my own - government made it economically ridiculous to do so.


nice opinion - are you suggesting that we would be breathing air so bad that our stamina and energy would be significantly sapped? I just don't think so.

The government police do not do this at all - at best they have come along at some time in the future AFTER the crime has been committed and taken some interesting notes. The measures I have personally undertaken have been much more effective in preventing crimes against me.
oh yes - first the government stole my parents money so they couldn't provide the education that they desired for me, then it forced me to attend government schools which are not setup to 'educate' folks in the least. And now you say that government is responsible (and therefore 'owns') a part of my hard work and earnings? What a crock!

never

did I miss something? Which foreign dictatorship desires to attack me?

LOL! You must mean, "The government creates an artifical labor shortage domestically by preventing other folks from competing in our marketplace and the end result is that every consumer (including me) suffers - it is a wealth transfer scheme, like most political programs.

I do this for myself, with the help of Monster.com as well as other employment sites - government isn't necessary or desired and, if anything, only hinders the process.


I guess you really don't understand economics at all - government makes it too expensive to do these things alternatively.

Why do you suppose that the federal government would make it illegal for me to start my own post office (privately)? Why can't I offer my services to people to deliver their mail for them?
are you a moral relativist? Don't you think there are societal morals which form freely? or do you think that everyone defines their own morals and as long as they act accordingly, no matter what actions they undertake, then they are acting morally?
Him refraining from stealing is not immoral. If he is not able to morally come up with the funds necessary then he is not 'letting' his grandmother die and he is not committing some kind of immoral act.

same as above.

perhaps unintelligent, but we are not talking about intelligence, we are talking about morals - you know, that glue that helps hold society together.

my personal feelings? When someone steals from another, they are taking a part of their life, as well as preventing that person from using their own money towards perhaps equally ethical goals. What if MY grandmother also needed an operation, or my child need to be fed, does that all the sudden change your determination of the morality of his actions? Morals are not some kind of individually arbitrary abstraction.

That may be true, and I would understand, but it does not alleviate his responsibility to compensate the ones he has stolen from.

as far as private hospitals are concerned - get the government out of the pockets of the medical industry and you will see 'profitable' hospitals.

as far as determining whether or not a hospital needs to be built, the research done Must involve having a free market to provide prices of resources and goods - its not like you can take a poll and build accordingly, there are real costs involved, and these must be accounted for.

No, a person could choose to NOT deal with other people (except that government forces them to.)

I see the problem that you keep experiencing, and am unsure how to show you how the errors manifest themselves in your thoughts. Its rather intertwined: you think government is taking on a particular task because the market failed at doing it, you don't see how the government makes it much more costly (up to and past the point of profitability) to compete against it, you don't see how reducing the amount of money people have to spend affects their ability to provide these same services privately.

without taxation, private education would be CHEAPER than the current cost of public schools.
of course people would like to spread the cost! I want a new car that costs $50k and if I had the option, I would jump on the chance to spread the cost among 1000 folks, each paying a tax of $50 - except to force these people to give me $50 would be illegal.... why not so much for government to do the very same thing?

so sad it makes me cry - can't begin to tackle the fallacies contained within.

I need a new house, does that give me the right to make you pay for it?

luckily for all of us, the free market works all by itself, all of the time.

how do you base this opinion? Perhaps some background information might help you out here: I currently own a small business in another state which I started 6 years ago. Right now, I work from home telecommuting so that I can help raise 3 children and augmenting their public schooling with a homeschool regime. I coach two different soccer leagues (which the kids play in). Beyond that, I find that I have very little other time available to do other things that interest me. No, not 'Mr. Entrepreneur', but I can hold my own and have in the market. I doubt you could say the same.

you don't have the information to make these judgments - it's just childish insults which give me a great clue as to your age. Apparently I somehow stepped on your little toes along the way in our discussion, sorry to have hurt your feelings.

Yes, I have a problem when anyone steals from me - but I especially have a problem when they continue to do so, day in day out. Not to mention, this particular group also steals from all of my fellow citizens, in a wide variety of forms (the most insidious is through the Federal Reserve System), and puts such a drag on the economy that it is impossible to calculate how much progress has been siphoned away.

you really don't have a clue as to what I am saying, do you? Do you understand the 'Incentive' Problem that communism faces as an economic system? not even going to mention the Calculation Problem inherent in all government processes.

You stated before that you hate 'collectivists' yet you seem to be enamored with government and everything that it does for people. You have an unfailing faith in the voting process and this process somehow insures that the 'will of the people' prevails. I would guess that you also feel that as long as something, anything, were enacted by the democratic process, that it would be the correct thing to do. My guess is that you are relying too much on the indoctrination you received (are receiving?) at the hands of government schools.

Well, I don't know how we would accomplish it, but I fear our posts are becoming way to long and unwieldy - if it takes 2 hours to type up a response to each others post then we will soon decide its not worth it - but, I don't know how best to weed things down to manageable levels - any ideas?

Then do them.

No. I think it depends upon how intelligently people vote, how involved they choose to be in the government, and how educated they are on the process of government. Whether the government chooses to employ a good system, a ****ty system, or no system at all depends upon the voter.

Plenty if you're interested in hearing them.