[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
The views of the Cato Institute are a bit more realistic.
going to privatizing the dept. of Transportation. what would stop the private companies from monopolizing our freeways . [/quote]
Competition
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
this is why I do not understand the attraction, I think the people that own the roads would tax the shit out of us , I know we could stay home sell the car do away with cable and high speed internet and we could let all our infrastructure go to hell we , Who needs education . It is all backwards thinking.
[/quote]
Well I am sure they could raise prices, but an entrepreneur would come in and build a road and charge less, bring the prices down. Infrastructure would be fine.
[quote]
When I grew up all the popular tV shows were westerns , there was always an evil mega land owner that cotroled the water source or would muscle the little guy out . There was very little law, alot of it went to the highest bidder . I have always felt reality was alot more creative than Hollywood[/quote]
You’re basing this on a Western movie? I like Westerns but they play the hype of the Wild West, when actually the West was safer than living inside the big cities in the East.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
this is why I do not understand the attraction, I think the people that own the roads would tax the shit out of us[/quote]
That just means you do not understand economics.
There is a price that the market will bear and if it goes below or above that price goods or their buyers disappear, respectively.
Besides this, there would be many transit companies that would probably end up being owned by road conglomerates which would end up making transportation much cheaper than it is now.
Not only that, prices signal to investors whether or not it might be worthwhile to invest in alternatives to the current means of transportation.
But you see, all of these things rely on a completely free markets…that includes roads, too.
Oh, and BTW, the people that “own” the roads now DO TAX THE SHIT OF US, ANYWAY![/quote]
It means no such thing , if some one has a monopoly . That means they have a monopoly . Why doesn’t this free market move into a third world country so they can use it as an example on how the free market is so superior to good government[/quote]
Because most third world countries have tyrants as leaders. Kind of hard to do what you wish when you are in a position to killed for doing it. How is it possible to have a monopoly when someone can freely come in and compete with prices that will be higher than yours.
Which I said before, requires those to ignore logic.
Just because you have 4 to 1 saying competion would keep the price of a private free way in line does not make it so . This is so fucking silly , think of the cost of building a competeing freeway
I contend there is no way the free market could get up running with out agovernment to rail against. All sucessful societies have Government . NONE HAS THE MARKET RULING.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
this is why I do not understand the attraction, I think the people that own the roads would tax the shit out of us[/quote]
That just means you do not understand economics.
There is a price that the market will bear and if it goes below or above that price goods or their buyers disappear, respectively.
Besides this, there would be many transit companies that would probably end up being owned by road conglomerates which would end up making transportation much cheaper than it is now.
Not only that, prices signal to investors whether or not it might be worthwhile to invest in alternatives to the current means of transportation.
But you see, all of these things rely on a completely free markets…that includes roads, too.
Oh, and BTW, the people that “own” the roads now DO TAX THE SHIT OF US, ANYWAY![/quote]
It means no such thing , if some one has a monopoly . That means they have a monopoly . Why doesn’t this free market move into a third world country so they can use it as an example on how the free market is so superior to good government[/quote]
Because most third world countries have tyrants as leaders. Kind of hard to do what you wish when you are in a position to killed for doing it. How is it possible to have a monopoly when someone can freely come in and compete with prices that will be higher than yours.[/quote]
what if we were attacked by a TYRANT 
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Which I said before, requires those to ignore logic.[/quote]
Look in the Mirror
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
NONE HAS THE MARKET RULING. [/quote]
The market does not rule as a government does. It organizes supply with demand based on the many actions of individuals acting in their best interests. Government could not do that if it tried and as we have constantly seen only raise the price of everything it touches – including roads. Indeed, the government needs to market for its existence.
Logic. You lack the ability to recognize it.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
this is why I do not understand the attraction, I think the people that own the roads would tax the shit out of us[/quote]
That just means you do not understand economics.
There is a price that the market will bear and if it goes below or above that price goods or their buyers disappear, respectively.
Besides this, there would be many transit companies that would probably end up being owned by road conglomerates which would end up making transportation much cheaper than it is now.
Not only that, prices signal to investors whether or not it might be worthwhile to invest in alternatives to the current means of transportation.
But you see, all of these things rely on a completely free markets…that includes roads, too.
Oh, and BTW, the people that “own” the roads now DO TAX THE SHIT OF US, ANYWAY![/quote]
It means no such thing , if some one has a monopoly . That means they have a monopoly . Why doesn’t this free market move into a third world country so they can use it as an example on how the free market is so superior to good government[/quote]
Because most third world countries have tyrants as leaders. Kind of hard to do what you wish when you are in a position to killed for doing it. How is it possible to have a monopoly when someone can freely come in and compete with prices that will be higher than yours.[/quote]
what if we were attacked by a TYRANT [/quote]
Who is we? Collectivist fallacy.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Oh, and I predict we’ll eventually cut spending on defense, medicare, and SS. Defense, we’ll pretty much pull back from around the world. Programs like medicare and SS we’ll reform through simple measures. Such as indexing to life expenctancy. Then we’ll get a VAT tax or something. Look, these programs are here to stay, and the populace isn’t going to tolerate their destruction to make us solvent in the longterm. So, we’ll mess around and better match up our entitlements to demographic realities, also coming up with new ways to pull in revenue. Libertarian and Anarchist jawboning is good for killing some time, I guess. As long as you realize that’s all it achieves–Killing some time.[/quote]
The amount of truth contained in this paragraph is exceeded only by its ability to crush the hopes and dreams of libertarian and anarchist thinkers across the aethernets.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
this is why I do not understand the attraction, I think the people that own the roads would tax the shit out of us[/quote]
That just means you do not understand economics.
There is a price that the market will bear and if it goes below or above that price goods or their buyers disappear, respectively.
Besides this, there would be many transit companies that would probably end up being owned by road conglomerates which would end up making transportation much cheaper than it is now.
Not only that, prices signal to investors whether or not it might be worthwhile to invest in alternatives to the current means of transportation.
But you see, all of these things rely on a completely free markets…that includes roads, too.
Oh, and BTW, the people that “own” the roads now DO TAX THE SHIT OF US, ANYWAY![/quote]
It means no such thing , if some one has a monopoly . That means they have a monopoly . Why doesn’t this free market move into a third world country so they can use it as an example on how the free market is so superior to good government[/quote]
Because most third world countries have tyrants as leaders. Kind of hard to do what you wish when you are in a position to killed for doing it. How is it possible to have a monopoly when someone can freely come in and compete with prices that will be higher than yours.[/quote]
what if we were attacked by a TYRANT [/quote]
Who is we? Collectivist fallacy.[/quote]
this is suposed to be smoke , so i can not see , we would the collective of people that were trying to make a free market work .
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
NONE HAS THE MARKET RULING. [/quote]
The market does not rule as a government does. It organizes supply with demand based on the many actions of individuals acting in their best interests. Government could not do that if it tried and as we have constantly seen only raise the price of everything it touches – including roads. Indeed, the government needs to market for its existence.
Logic. You lack the ability to recognize it.[/quote]
Criminals would love this scenerio , I know the market would have law enforcement for sale .
It is not that I have an unability to understand this fantasy , it is you that fails to understand the realality of your proposal. I am not saying that your proposal would not work , I believe it would be a far inferior life for most everyone and I feel the longer it went with out direction the worst it would become
Again I contend your form of government could work well under NO circumstance , If you do dis agree tell me what would be an ideal cicumstance
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
NONE HAS THE MARKET RULING. [/quote]
The market does not rule as a government does. It organizes supply with demand based on the many actions of individuals acting in their best interests. Government could not do that if it tried and as we have constantly seen only raise the price of everything it touches – including roads. Indeed, the government needs to market for its existence.
Logic. You lack the ability to recognize it.[/quote]
Criminals would love this scenerio , I know the market would have law enforcement for sale .
It is not that I have an unability to understand this fantasy , it is you that fails to understand the realality of your proposal. I am not saying that your proposal would not work , I believe it would be a far inferior life for most everyone and I feel the longer it went with out direction the worst it would become
Again I contend your form of government could work well under NO circumstance , If you do dis agree tell me what would be an ideal cicumstance[/quote]
I already told you what my ideal is. I would rather people be free to choose what is in their own best interests and not have it be decided for them by government (or the “will of the people”).
I just don’t get how you can think that a free market on law enforcement could be a bad thing. More choices is always better than one – even if a few might be corrupt it beats the corruption of a monopoly institution like government. In a free market those that do not meet the needs of the consumers go out of business. The government no matter how faulty it gets will never be “out of business”. Democracy ensures that one dunderhead will be replaced for an other.
Furthermore, with government out of the way all goods and services would become cheaper and more abundant – again, this gives people more freedom to choose and thus they are much better off for it. I have a feeling its your inability to grasp how the free market works to achieve the optimal price that keeps you from being convinced of my arguments.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
NONE HAS THE MARKET RULING. [/quote]
The market does not rule as a government does. It organizes supply with demand based on the many actions of individuals acting in their best interests. Government could not do that if it tried and as we have constantly seen only raise the price of everything it touches – including roads. Indeed, the government needs to market for its existence.
Logic. You lack the ability to recognize it.[/quote]
Criminals would love this scenerio , I know the market would have law enforcement for sale .
It is not that I have an unability to understand this fantasy , it is you that fails to understand the realality of your proposal. I am not saying that your proposal would not work , I believe it would be a far inferior life for most everyone and I feel the longer it went with out direction the worst it would become
Again I contend your form of government could work well under NO circumstance , If you do dis agree tell me what would be an ideal cicumstance[/quote]
I already told you what my ideal is. I would rather people be free to choose what is in their own best interests and not have it be decided for them by government (or the “will of the people”).
I just don’t get how you can think that a free market on law enforcement could be a bad thing. More choices is always better than one – even if a few might be corrupt it beats the corruption of a monopoly institution like government. In a free market those that do not meet the needs of the consumers go out of business. The government no matter how faulty it gets will never be “out of business”. Democracy ensures that one dunderhead will be replaced for an other.
Furthermore, with government out of the way all goods and services would become cheaper and more abundant – again, this gives people more freedom to choose and thus they are much better off for it. I have a feeling its your inability to grasp how the free market works to achieve the optimal price that keeps you from being convinced of my arguments.[/quote]
One of the problems is everyone has different ideals . There would be no coheision.
I think rather than paid law enforcement we would have gangs , some being kinder than others but you would have to belong to a gang for protection. I thin society as a whole would be contolled not by the market but by the strongest gangs .
I think for a free market it is imperative to have a good government. That is why the free market does not exsist in places like Somalia and Afganistan .I know our Gov is bloated and needs parred down. I got that
I think the largest market that is not free and shows it is the illegal drug market. If they quit arresting for drug offenses , drugs would become so cheap no one would want to be involved with them
I believe to say the market would self equal and controll everything is a kin to the tail wagging the dog
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
NONE HAS THE MARKET RULING. [/quote]
The market does not rule as a government does. It organizes supply with demand based on the many actions of individuals acting in their best interests. Government could not do that if it tried and as we have constantly seen only raise the price of everything it touches – including roads. Indeed, the government needs to market for its existence.
Logic. You lack the ability to recognize it.[/quote]
Criminals would love this scenerio , I know the market would have law enforcement for sale .
It is not that I have an unability to understand this fantasy , it is you that fails to understand the realality of your proposal. I am not saying that your proposal would not work , I believe it would be a far inferior life for most everyone and I feel the longer it went with out direction the worst it would become
Again I contend your form of government could work well under NO circumstance , If you do dis agree tell me what would be an ideal cicumstance[/quote]
I already told you what my ideal is. I would rather people be free to choose what is in their own best interests and not have it be decided for them by government (or the “will of the people”).
I just don’t get how you can think that a free market on law enforcement could be a bad thing. More choices is always better than one – even if a few might be corrupt it beats the corruption of a monopoly institution like government. In a free market those that do not meet the needs of the consumers go out of business. The government no matter how faulty it gets will never be “out of business”. Democracy ensures that one dunderhead will be replaced for an other.
Furthermore, with government out of the way all goods and services would become cheaper and more abundant – again, this gives people more freedom to choose and thus they are much better off for it. I have a feeling its your inability to grasp how the free market works to achieve the optimal price that keeps you from being convinced of my arguments.[/quote]
One of the problems is everyone has different ideals . There would be no coheision.[/quote]
This will always be a problem and government does not solve it. The market actually allows people with different and competing ideals to get along with one an other.[quote]
I think rather than paid law enforcement we would have gangs , some being kinder than others but you would have to belong to a gang for protection. I thin society as a whole would be contolled not by the market but by the strongest gangs .[/quote]
We already do have gangs that do this because they understand that government cannot.[quote]
I think for a free market it is imperative to have a good government. That is why the free market does not exsist in places like Somalia and Afganistan .I know our Gov is bloated and needs parred down. I got that [/quote]
If the free market does not exist it is because the government tries to govern it. The black market is a market that attempts to subvert government oppression. The unfortunate part is that black markets are not free precisely because gangs and the like have an incentive to be violent as long as the government keeps narcotics’ prices artificially high thru prohibition[quote]
I believe to say the market would self equal and controll everything is a kin to the tail wagging the dog[/quote]
It’s not really the “market” that corrects itself. The market is just a process for exchange. The market influences and is influenced by people acting in their own best interests. It requires unhampered price signals to work. When the government interferes it masks real prices and therefor the actors in the market cannot know what is really going on.
When the signals are unhampered it does not guarantee that all actors will make the right choices but at least they will know sooner rather than later that they have made the wrong choice and then can “fix” what they have done. That is how the market is “self correcting”. It is continually sending signals to buyers and sellers who can only act on the information that comes from the market.
This is why when prices are artificially high it creates bubbles. Investors jump into the market expecting greater ROI than can be realized by current productive capacities and the whole thing must collapse – unless the government further distorts prices by bailing out the failures.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Who is we? Collectivist fallacy.[/quote]
…says the man who constantly refers to “the market”.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Who is we? Collectivist fallacy.[/quote]
…says the man who constantly refers to “the market”.
[/quote]
But there is a distinction between the market – a process that signals prices to buyers and sellers – and the collectivist “we” when it is used to describe quantitative absolutes.
For example, the saying, “we are all in this together” is a collectivist fallacy.
We are not all in this together because “we all” have different circumstances.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
But there is a distinction between the market – a process that signals prices to buyers and sellers – and the collectivist “we” when it is used to describe quantitative absolutes.
For example, the saying, “we are all in this together” is a collectivist fallacy.
We are not all in this together because “we all” have different circumstances.[/quote]
Nonsense. You yourself refer to “markets” accomplishing deeds in the collective, look no further than a few posts ago:
[i]The black market is a market that attempts to subvert government oppression.
The market influences. . .people.[/i]
Market participants “have different circumstances” all the same as the individuals that make up your “we” or “society” - and your “market” is a “collectivist fallacy” by your own set of definitions.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
NONE HAS THE MARKET RULING. [/quote]
The market does not rule as a government does. It organizes supply with demand based on the many actions of individuals acting in their best interests. Government could not do that if it tried and as we have constantly seen only raise the price of everything it touches – including roads. Indeed, the government needs to market for its existence.
Logic. You lack the ability to recognize it.[/quote]
Criminals would love this scenerio , I know the market would have law enforcement for sale .
It is not that I have an unability to understand this fantasy , it is you that fails to understand the realality of your proposal. I am not saying that your proposal would not work , I believe it would be a far inferior life for most everyone and I feel the longer it went with out direction the worst it would become
Again I contend your form of government could work well under NO circumstance , If you do dis agree tell me what would be an ideal cicumstance[/quote]
I already told you what my ideal is. I would rather people be free to choose what is in their own best interests and not have it be decided for them by government (or the “will of the people”).
I just don’t get how you can think that a free market on law enforcement could be a bad thing. More choices is always better than one – even if a few might be corrupt it beats the corruption of a monopoly institution like government. In a free market those that do not meet the needs of the consumers go out of business. The government no matter how faulty it gets will never be “out of business”. Democracy ensures that one dunderhead will be replaced for an other.
Furthermore, with government out of the way all goods and services would become cheaper and more abundant – again, this gives people more freedom to choose and thus they are much better off for it. I have a feeling its your inability to grasp how the free market works to achieve the optimal price that keeps you from being convinced of my arguments.[/quote]
One of the problems is everyone has different ideals . There would be no coheision.[/quote]
This will always be a problem and government does not solve it. The market actually allows people with different and competing ideals to get along with one an other.[quote]
I think rather than paid law enforcement we would have gangs , some being kinder than others but you would have to belong to a gang for protection. I thin society as a whole would be contolled not by the market but by the strongest gangs .[/quote]
We already do have gangs that do this because they understand that government cannot.[quote]
I think for a free market it is imperative to have a good government. That is why the free market does not exsist in places like Somalia and Afganistan .I know our Gov is bloated and needs parred down. I got that [/quote]
If the free market does not exist it is because the government tries to govern it. The black market is a market that attempts to subvert government oppression. The unfortunate part is that black markets are not free precisely because gangs and the like have an incentive to be violent as long as the government keeps narcotics’ prices artificially high thru prohibition[quote]
I believe to say the market would self equal and controll everything is a kin to the tail wagging the dog[/quote]
It’s not really the “market” that corrects itself. The market is just a process for exchange. The market influences and is influenced by people acting in their own best interests. It requires unhampered price signals to work. When the government interferes it masks real prices and therefor the actors in the market cannot know what is really going on.
When the signals are unhampered it does not guarantee that all actors will make the right choices but at least they will know sooner rather than later that they have made the wrong choice and then can “fix” what they have done. That is how the market is “self correcting”. It is continually sending signals to buyers and sellers who can only act on the information that comes from the market.
This is why when prices are artificially high it creates bubbles. Investors jump into the market expecting greater ROI than can be realized by current productive capacities and the whole thing must collapse – unless the government further distorts prices by bailing out the failures.[/quote]
About the only thing I can agree with is that we have gangs but not for the same reason. If your form of no government is so superior , why does it not flourish. I mean not one example .
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
But there is a distinction between the market – a process that signals prices to buyers and sellers – and the collectivist “we” when it is used to describe quantitative absolutes.
For example, the saying, “we are all in this together” is a collectivist fallacy.
We are not all in this together because “we all” have different circumstances.[/quote]
Nonsense. You yourself refer to “markets” accomplishing deeds in the collective, look no further than a few posts ago:
[i]The black market is a market that attempts to subvert government oppression.
The market influences. . .people.[/i]
Market participants “have different circumstances” all the same as the individuals that make up your “we” or “society” - and your “market” is a “collectivist fallacy” by your own set of definitions.[/quote]
That only because you fail to recognize a very important distinction.
The market is a process.
We are who make use of the market; however, not every person in that we make use of it in the same way.
The concept of the market is very abstract. There is no way the pronoun “we” can be used with any accuracy in such an abstract fashion.
I can point to many instances of the market that are measurable – we call them prices. No such examples work for the word “we” unless I am referring to specific instances of people I am grouped with.
Now, just to be intellectually honest, I do use we in the editorial sense but not when I am trying to be philosophically rigorous.