- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
The Cradle of Independence Rolls Over for Microsoft
|
|
|
Comments (62)
42 earlier comments in the full thread.
>Then you would have no need for coercive actions against non-interested individuals.
Does that phrase actually mean anything, Bob?
You huff and you puff so much, it's hard to tell when there is actual content.
Does that phrase actually mean anything, Bob?
You huff and you puff so much, it's hard to tell when there is actual content.
> that US postal example also is the answer to the question jrm asked about how they managed it in my country
Here's why I asked. If you structure the bidding process correctly, it's possible to have some of the advantages of price competition, the efficiency of private enterprise, and still keep the benefits of monopoly.
It's not ideal, but what I've been trying to get at is that there is no ideal way to solve this in a less than ideal world.
So I'm gonna give up on this. Slackware 12 has been out for a while, and I still haven't finished customizing an install disk...
Here's why I asked. If you structure the bidding process correctly, it's possible to have some of the advantages of price competition, the efficiency of private enterprise, and still keep the benefits of monopoly.
It's not ideal, but what I've been trying to get at is that there is no ideal way to solve this in a less than ideal world.
So I'm gonna give up on this. Slackware 12 has been out for a while, and I still haven't finished customizing an install disk...
> Does that phrase actually mean anything, Bob?
Yes. Think about it: Coercive means used against non-interested individuals. Taxes, used to pay for things that the people taxed do not want and would otherwise not pay for.
This is in contrast to interested individuals coming together for shared goals, such as building the NYC subway/elevated railways (just in case you didn't have time to read the article), building the QE2, SpaceShip1, Norman Borlaug, the Boulder Dam, Turnpikes, etc.
Putting a gun to someone's head and telling them what to do is just so much easier. No persuasion required, and by spreading out the cost of a project over lots of people who otherwise wouldn't pay for them, the costs to the interested individuals is reduced or eliminated even if the project fails miserably.
That's why "special interests" lobby for government favors. They get more than they put in. However, since different special interests do the same, the costs are raised for everyone far beyond what they would be if those same things were paid for by interested individuals.
> You huff and you puff so much, it's hard to tell when there is actual content.
Everything is actual content, Dino. You just prefer using force, so you ignore what you don't like.
> isn't the Washington DC metro publicly owned too?
I believe so. It would be interesting to see what the costs are. Where I've lived, the "public" transportation systems never earn back in ticket sales what they cost to run. The light-rail system in San Jose, California, for instance, earned about 14% of its operating (not building or debt service cost, just daily operating) expenses through ticket sales.
It's an incentives problem. Had the system been built by people trying to make a profit, the light-rail would at _least_ have run between the airport, amusement park and train station. Sadly, the bureaucrats who had it built didn't think of that. But then, it's _not_their_money_.
Yes. Think about it: Coercive means used against non-interested individuals. Taxes, used to pay for things that the people taxed do not want and would otherwise not pay for.
This is in contrast to interested individuals coming together for shared goals, such as building the NYC subway/elevated railways (just in case you didn't have time to read the article), building the QE2, SpaceShip1, Norman Borlaug, the Boulder Dam, Turnpikes, etc.
Putting a gun to someone's head and telling them what to do is just so much easier. No persuasion required, and by spreading out the cost of a project over lots of people who otherwise wouldn't pay for them, the costs to the interested individuals is reduced or eliminated even if the project fails miserably.
That's why "special interests" lobby for government favors. They get more than they put in. However, since different special interests do the same, the costs are raised for everyone far beyond what they would be if those same things were paid for by interested individuals.
> You huff and you puff so much, it's hard to tell when there is actual content.
Everything is actual content, Dino. You just prefer using force, so you ignore what you don't like.
> isn't the Washington DC metro publicly owned too?
I believe so. It would be interesting to see what the costs are. Where I've lived, the "public" transportation systems never earn back in ticket sales what they cost to run. The light-rail system in San Jose, California, for instance, earned about 14% of its operating (not building or debt service cost, just daily operating) expenses through ticket sales.
It's an incentives problem. Had the system been built by people trying to make a profit, the light-rail would at _least_ have run between the airport, amusement park and train station. Sadly, the bureaucrats who had it built didn't think of that. But then, it's _not_their_money_.
>Yes. Think about it: Coercive means used against non-interested individuals. Taxes, used to pay for things that the people taxed do not want and would otherwise not pay for.
So, is that to say that you would oppose taxes to support an army? A police force? Fire departments?
So, is that to say that you would oppose taxes to support an army? A police force? Fire departments?
> So, is that to say that you would oppose taxes to support an army? A police force? Fire departments?
I oppose taxes. The ends do not justify the means.
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed, and hence clamorous to be led to safety, by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” --H. L. Mencken
If you wish to present a hand-picked list of things which I, you, and others believe are important, and by doing so try to insinuate that those same things would not exist without taxes, you can only do so by pretending that the Minute Men and Militia, the Posse and Bounty Hunter, and the private, company and volunteer fire departments did not and do not exist.
The problem with presenting such a list is that you have to pick popular things that people generally support in order to try and make your point. That same popularity means that there is no need to fund them at gunpoint.
I oppose taxes. The ends do not justify the means.
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed, and hence clamorous to be led to safety, by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” --H. L. Mencken
If you wish to present a hand-picked list of things which I, you, and others believe are important, and by doing so try to insinuate that those same things would not exist without taxes, you can only do so by pretending that the Minute Men and Militia, the Posse and Bounty Hunter, and the private, company and volunteer fire departments did not and do not exist.
The problem with presenting such a list is that you have to pick popular things that people generally support in order to try and make your point. That same popularity means that there is no need to fund them at gunpoint.
How then do you propose that they should be funded? Schools, Public Safety, etc if not by a tax base.
>That same popularity means that there is no need to fund them at gunpoint.
It's safe to say that, in the absence of army and police, the only things that will be funded at gunpoint will be those desired by invaders and criminals.
Seriously, Bob, you must not look around you much. Some people already refuse to pay taxes to support an "immoral war", I have no doubt that many would decide that an army is ok, but, gee, things are tight right now and I'm sure Bob down the street will give plenty to help keep them up. Some things cost what they cost, regardless of how much people are willing to pay. Free markets are great, but they don't work for everything. Competing armies, for example, are called war.
It's safe to say that, in the absence of army and police, the only things that will be funded at gunpoint will be those desired by invaders and criminals.
Seriously, Bob, you must not look around you much. Some people already refuse to pay taxes to support an "immoral war", I have no doubt that many would decide that an army is ok, but, gee, things are tight right now and I'm sure Bob down the street will give plenty to help keep them up. Some things cost what they cost, regardless of how much people are willing to pay. Free markets are great, but they don't work for everything. Competing armies, for example, are called war.
> How then do you propose that they should be funded? Schools, Public Safety, etc if not by a tax base.
Interested individuals coming together to solve problems. The same way everything is done _outside_ of coercive government.
Schools is the easiest of all, since it costs very little to actually educate. The "one room schoolhouse" worked very well, but required virtually no "administrative overhead" which is why the unions and bureaucrats destroyed them. Homeschooling is very effective, and there is no reason why the retired aircraft engineer down the street isn't tutoring in higher math a couple hours a week for a little extra cash.
I would have thought the spectacular results of the Sylvan Learning Centers would have put the last nail in the coffin of coerced "public" school, but there are none so blind as those who will not see.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfRUMmTs0ZA
While John Stossel comes out sadly in favor of "vouchers", the problems illustrated in this episode of 20/20 are well worth the time to watch it.
It doesn't take lots of money to educate a child, it takes attention. Since this is something both you and I believe is important, you and I both will donate time/money to efforts to educate those without the money to send their kids to school. Churches and other voluntary civil organizations will do what lots of the churches around my area are doing, setting up their own schools.
And who is to say that sitting down in a room with only kids your own age is all that good a way to learn anyway? Without the establishment setting the tone of all things "educational", the floodgates are open to every kind of human ingenuity in creating new and different curricula to teach different kids. Those kids (like me) who learned to read early can educate ourselves if given a list of materials and clear goals.
It wasn't until I experienced the "Graduate Level Seminar" that I found an education style that I really "clicked" with. It's too bad such a style is limited only to the elite. That's why I enjoy the materials available on Mises.org so much, they're generally put together that way and make it very easy for me to enjoy learning something as usually dry and tedious as economics.
Oh, and BTW, they offer a complete college economics course for $300.
The number of students which remain, that require strict structure and a task-master in order to learn, is very small, which means that the most expensive teaching method can be made available to the minority that need it for a minute fraction of the vast wealth we're spending trying to make every kid learn that way.
What is "Public Safety"? Eliminate the prohibitions that make drug-running profitable and the prohibitions against private self defense, that eliminates the vast majority of crimes and criminals very quickly. Private crime investigation has always been more efficient than tax-funded, which is why private investigators and private security guards exist even with the tax money to pay for the (redundant) government police already taken.
If you mean disaster preparidness, private insurance and the profit motive work very well, if allowed to work. Private insurers do not want to pay, so they require various minimum safety elements to be in place, as well as giving discounts for people who put forth extra effort.
So-called "profiteers" make sure that sorely needed supplies will arrive for people who are hit with disasters. Keep in mind that they cannot make a profit if no one will buy their product, so they ensure that both their prices and the products they offer will meet the needs and demands of the people they wish to help.
The program within FEMA to give away mobile homes to "needy" people after Katrina was only discontinued within the last couple of weeks, because the level of waste and abuse became so bad that they couldn't ignore it any longer. Private charity knows no such ability to waste, but with FEMA _it's_not_their_money_.
The usual objection to all this is what is knows as the "free rider" problem. In fact, the only two objections I've ever heard to voluntary cooperation are "free rider" and "people don't know what is good for them, but I do".
I think I posted the talk about "objections to anarchy" above somewhere, but the talk touches on the "free rider" issue so it's relevant here too:
http://www.mises.org/mp3/MU2004/Long2.mp3
As far as, "people don't know what's good for them but I do", such insightful individuals would do the world far more good to put their intuition into practice and make a fortune helping people.
Interested individuals coming together to solve problems. The same way everything is done _outside_ of coercive government.
Schools is the easiest of all, since it costs very little to actually educate. The "one room schoolhouse" worked very well, but required virtually no "administrative overhead" which is why the unions and bureaucrats destroyed them. Homeschooling is very effective, and there is no reason why the retired aircraft engineer down the street isn't tutoring in higher math a couple hours a week for a little extra cash.
I would have thought the spectacular results of the Sylvan Learning Centers would have put the last nail in the coffin of coerced "public" school, but there are none so blind as those who will not see.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfRUMmTs0ZA
While John Stossel comes out sadly in favor of "vouchers", the problems illustrated in this episode of 20/20 are well worth the time to watch it.
It doesn't take lots of money to educate a child, it takes attention. Since this is something both you and I believe is important, you and I both will donate time/money to efforts to educate those without the money to send their kids to school. Churches and other voluntary civil organizations will do what lots of the churches around my area are doing, setting up their own schools.
And who is to say that sitting down in a room with only kids your own age is all that good a way to learn anyway? Without the establishment setting the tone of all things "educational", the floodgates are open to every kind of human ingenuity in creating new and different curricula to teach different kids. Those kids (like me) who learned to read early can educate ourselves if given a list of materials and clear goals.
It wasn't until I experienced the "Graduate Level Seminar" that I found an education style that I really "clicked" with. It's too bad such a style is limited only to the elite. That's why I enjoy the materials available on Mises.org so much, they're generally put together that way and make it very easy for me to enjoy learning something as usually dry and tedious as economics.
Oh, and BTW, they offer a complete college economics course for $300.
The number of students which remain, that require strict structure and a task-master in order to learn, is very small, which means that the most expensive teaching method can be made available to the minority that need it for a minute fraction of the vast wealth we're spending trying to make every kid learn that way.
What is "Public Safety"? Eliminate the prohibitions that make drug-running profitable and the prohibitions against private self defense, that eliminates the vast majority of crimes and criminals very quickly. Private crime investigation has always been more efficient than tax-funded, which is why private investigators and private security guards exist even with the tax money to pay for the (redundant) government police already taken.
If you mean disaster preparidness, private insurance and the profit motive work very well, if allowed to work. Private insurers do not want to pay, so they require various minimum safety elements to be in place, as well as giving discounts for people who put forth extra effort.
So-called "profiteers" make sure that sorely needed supplies will arrive for people who are hit with disasters. Keep in mind that they cannot make a profit if no one will buy their product, so they ensure that both their prices and the products they offer will meet the needs and demands of the people they wish to help.
The program within FEMA to give away mobile homes to "needy" people after Katrina was only discontinued within the last couple of weeks, because the level of waste and abuse became so bad that they couldn't ignore it any longer. Private charity knows no such ability to waste, but with FEMA _it's_not_their_money_.
The usual objection to all this is what is knows as the "free rider" problem. In fact, the only two objections I've ever heard to voluntary cooperation are "free rider" and "people don't know what is good for them, but I do".
I think I posted the talk about "objections to anarchy" above somewhere, but the talk touches on the "free rider" issue so it's relevant here too:
http://www.mises.org/mp3/MU2004/Long2.mp3
As far as, "people don't know what's good for them but I do", such insightful individuals would do the world far more good to put their intuition into practice and make a fortune helping people.
>It doesn't take lots of money to educate a child, it takes attention.
Yes. I have been amazed at the ability of parents without teaching credentials to educate their children -- and in far less time than public schools demand their little butts be affixed to classroom seats.
Similarly, I've seen shoestring budget private schools outperform public schools that, by comparison, have an embarrassment of riches at their disposal.
I am, however, absolutely convinced that publicly available education -- by whatever means and in whatever form it is best delivered -- is the sacred obligation of a free society. That is not the same as saying everyone should be sitting in public schools. It is the same as saying that no child should be unable to get a decent education.
Yes. I have been amazed at the ability of parents without teaching credentials to educate their children -- and in far less time than public schools demand their little butts be affixed to classroom seats.
Similarly, I've seen shoestring budget private schools outperform public schools that, by comparison, have an embarrassment of riches at their disposal.
I am, however, absolutely convinced that publicly available education -- by whatever means and in whatever form it is best delivered -- is the sacred obligation of a free society. That is not the same as saying everyone should be sitting in public schools. It is the same as saying that no child should be unable to get a decent education.
> Seriously, Bob, you must not look around you much. Some people already refuse to pay taxes to support an "immoral war"...
As I said already, it's so much easier to rob people at gunpoint to pay for these escapades than it is to convince them to support the efforts by proving to them how much good they are.
Golly, some folks might say "no".
> Some things cost what they cost, regardless of how much people are willing to pay.
"Free Rider" problem again, often and well answered if you had the time to read or listen to the links I've provided.
> Free markets are great, but they don't work for everything.
Yes, they do. Well, not everything, since "immoral war" would have few voluntary donations. Good thing, too.
> Competing armies, for example, are called war.
No, competing _STATES_ are called "war".
I've already pointed you to this article, but I will do so again:
"But, wouldn't the warlords take over?" http://www.mises.org/story/1855
What you fail to recognize is that war is _inefficient_ in the extreme, and can only be sustained by governments because _it's_not_their_money_.
As I said already, it's so much easier to rob people at gunpoint to pay for these escapades than it is to convince them to support the efforts by proving to them how much good they are.
Golly, some folks might say "no".
> Some things cost what they cost, regardless of how much people are willing to pay.
"Free Rider" problem again, often and well answered if you had the time to read or listen to the links I've provided.
> Free markets are great, but they don't work for everything.
Yes, they do. Well, not everything, since "immoral war" would have few voluntary donations. Good thing, too.
> Competing armies, for example, are called war.
No, competing _STATES_ are called "war".
I've already pointed you to this article, but I will do so again:
"But, wouldn't the warlords take over?" http://www.mises.org/story/1855
What you fail to recognize is that war is _inefficient_ in the extreme, and can only be sustained by governments because _it's_not_their_money_.
>What you fail to recognize is that war is _inefficient_ in the extreme, and can only be sustained by governments because _it's_not_their_money_.
Your notion was pretty thoroughly tested between May 10 and June 22, 1940. Efficient, inefficient, pretty, ugly, polite or rude, It didn't do so well.
Your notion was pretty thoroughly tested between May 10 and June 22, 1940. Efficient, inefficient, pretty, ugly, polite or rude, It didn't do so well.
> between May 10 and June 22, 1940.
Ah, I'd forgotten the period when no taxes went to support the military.
Thank you for the reminder.
Unless, somehow, that's not what you meant. Woe be it for me to put words in your mouth.
> I am, however, absolutely convinced that publicly available education -- by whatever means and in whatever form it is best delivered -- is the sacred obligation of a free society.
Then you, and I, will be donating to some of the same efforts, if/when that wealth is not taken at gunpoint. Glad to hear it. Demonstrating, once again, that coercive funding/attendance methods are not needed.
Ah, I'd forgotten the period when no taxes went to support the military.
Thank you for the reminder.
Unless, somehow, that's not what you meant. Woe be it for me to put words in your mouth.
> I am, however, absolutely convinced that publicly available education -- by whatever means and in whatever form it is best delivered -- is the sacred obligation of a free society.
Then you, and I, will be donating to some of the same efforts, if/when that wealth is not taken at gunpoint. Glad to hear it. Demonstrating, once again, that coercive funding/attendance methods are not needed.
>Unless, somehow, that's not what you meant. Woe be it for me to put words in your mouth.
Don't actually know how the French army was funded, but it would seem that the Nazis would not have turned back on being apprised that there were more efficient ways to enjoy a nice view of the Seine.
Don't actually know how the French army was funded, but it would seem that the Nazis would not have turned back on being apprised that there were more efficient ways to enjoy a nice view of the Seine.
> the Nazis would not have turned back on being apprised that there were more efficient ways to enjoy a nice view of the Seine.
Ah, of course. Those voluntarily funded Nazis and their all-volunteer army?
Or rather, the aggressive imperial force wielded by a government to invade their neighbors at the cost of their citizens lives and fortunes taken at gunpoint.
While only annoying, one should note that the French resistance was a _volunteer_ force, a militia of local, interested individuals.
No, they didn't hold back the Germans in WW2, but they weren't _called_upon_ to do so either. The French _government_ capitulated, and the citizens had to go along with German occupation.
No matter how much governments may say they fight "for" their people, governments wield armies only to fight for the government itself.
Edit: Oooo! Here's one for ya,
Why Germans Supported Hitler, Part 1 http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0703a.asp
Ah, of course. Those voluntarily funded Nazis and their all-volunteer army?
Or rather, the aggressive imperial force wielded by a government to invade their neighbors at the cost of their citizens lives and fortunes taken at gunpoint.
While only annoying, one should note that the French resistance was a _volunteer_ force, a militia of local, interested individuals.
No, they didn't hold back the Germans in WW2, but they weren't _called_upon_ to do so either. The French _government_ capitulated, and the citizens had to go along with German occupation.
No matter how much governments may say they fight "for" their people, governments wield armies only to fight for the government itself.
Edit: Oooo! Here's one for ya,
Why Germans Supported Hitler, Part 1 http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0703a.asp
er.... this is going over the line, fellas. Want to take it outside?
> Want to take it outside?
What? I have no wish to use coercion against anyone. Let the "might makes right" guy take it outside.
:^)
Ok, point taken.
If I may make one last statement on the subject: Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.
What? I have no wish to use coercion against anyone. Let the "might makes right" guy take it outside.
:^)
Ok, point taken.
If I may make one last statement on the subject: Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.
Hey, just be glad I don't make you two hug and sing a brotherhood song.
>Hey, just be glad I don't make you two hug and sing a brotherhood song.
EEEEEEEWWWWW! Now I've got to go take a bath in Vichy water.
EEEEEEEWWWWW! Now I've got to go take a bath in Vichy water.
> and sing a brotherhood song.
sudden flashback to _The Addams Family_ movie
sudden flashback to _The Addams Family_ movie
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post
Ah! Now you got me scared...
Edit: isn't the Washington DC metro publicly owned too? Worked just fine, clean and efficient, the several times I rode it.