I didn't say they fail. At least not completely. They just do a shitty job when compared to private industry. It takes more money, more time, and usually results in worse quality. If they were a private business, they would have been out of business long ago.

3/9/2010 9:51:09 AM

Poor wording probably -- because of the passion behind the issue.
He likely meant "who very often does a shitty job at anything they try to do"

3/9/2010 9:52:12 AM

Quote :

"How many people gave a shit about Haiti before the earthquake? Fucking no one. That's why it was the poorest goddamn country on earth."

Oh really? Nobody gives a shit about Haiti, despite them getting billions in aid every year?

3/9/2010 9:57:42 AM

Billions?

3/9/2010 10:02:29 AM

Quote :

"If they were a private business, they would have been out of business long ago."

...so what then, you want the US ran by a conglomeration of oil companies, banks and retail companies?

Quote :

"Billions?"

Quote :

"Foreign aid makes up approximately 30–40% of the national government's budget. The largest donor is the US, followed by Canada and the European Union.[85] From 1990 to 2003, Haiti received more than $4 billion in aid."

lol, sumbody made something up ITT


not to mention the subject under discussion wasn't aid given by governments, it was aid given people (hence the "no one" part)...personal decisions, not governmental ones.

3/9/2010 10:03:55 AM

Did you know that the government is not, in fact, a business and thus is not charged with making profits?

You can learn facts like this and more at your local library.

3/9/2010 10:06:10 AM

^how cute.

It is the only entity that can use its force to take from an individual and spent their money anyway they seem fit, legally.

So while its not in business, who has to earn its EVIL PROFITS, it does take from one to provide for others. Be it individuals or future generations.

3/9/2010 10:15:52 AM

Quote :

"It is the only entity that can use its force to take from an individual and spent their money anyway they seem fit, legally."

there are other countries to live in you know...i'm sure many would have you unless you're a total loser. but be warned, good luck finding a decent [read: safe, livable] one without social programs. so have at it.

just know that you're on the same side of this issue as the dude who flew a plane into a federal building and that other dude who blew up a federal building in oklahoma. they also hated the government, though hopefully more than you do.

Quote :

"So while its not in business, who has to earn its EVIL PROFITS"

nobody said profits are evil buddy. problem is they don't always coexist with whats best for the american citizens. so while they work beautifully in the commercial marketplace, they do not in the governmental landscape

3/9/2010 10:18:54 AM

Quote :

"It is the only entity that can use its force to take from an individual and spent their money anyway they seem fit, legally. So while its not in business, who has to earn its EVIL PROFITS, it does take from one to provide for others. Be it individuals or future generations."

Ok? So when you agree to live in a country bound by a social contract, do you expect your government to not actually enforce the laws and such that you've by default agreed to? Or are you just another poorly thought-out anarcho-capitalist on this board?

And through what sense of morality should any firm providing a necessary service (say, a private hospital) be run not as a non-profit?

3/9/2010 10:25:14 AM

Quote :

"Or are you just another poorly thought-out anarcho-capitalist on this board"

that.

there are a number of people on this board who can debate his side much more competently (although it wouldn't take much to hit that metric), so I'm sure they'll be in here at some point.

3/9/2010 10:35:19 AM

Quote :

"just know that you're on the same side of this issue as the dude who flew a plane into a federal building and that other dude who blew up a federal building in oklahoma. "

Yeah, anyone who believes in private property rights and limited govt is the same as these people. Great point. No room for a racism claim to top it off?

And where are you loons getting anarchy claims? Its pretty damn evident to everyone that our current path of entitlements is not sustainable. Yet the adult children keep on throwing fits of "I wants" without any expectation of contributing to paying for any of it.

[Edited on March 9, 2010 at 10:39 AM. Reason : .]

3/9/2010 10:37:21 AM

Quote :

""just know that you're on the same side of this issue as the dude who flew a plane into a federal building and that other dude who blew up a federal building in oklahoma. ""

So then I guess you're on the same side of those who have killed billions of people in the 20th century alone?

3/9/2010 10:48:31 AM

Quote :

"Yeah, anyone who believes in private property rights and limited govt is the same as these people"

my statement had nothing to do with those two issues, and everything to do with your obvious hatred of the federal government.

Quote :

"So then I guess you're on the same side of those who have killed billions of people in the 20th century alone?"

are you *trying* to not make any sense?

3/9/2010 10:48:57 AM

Hatred? Distrust is more accurate.

And we are far from a limited govt. I just feel that our govt/laws should treat everyone equally. And an individuals decisions/actions should be thiers as is thier consequences. But we have shifted consequences of bad decisions onto those not making those decisions and are surprised when they keep on making those decisions.

But whenever one group is treated differently, then resentment is a natural response. And why the govt shouldnt be doing that.

Quote :

"And through what sense of morality should any firm providing a necessary service (say, a private hospital) be run not as a non-profit? "

The fallacy of your arguement is that making a profit is somehow not moral.

3/9/2010 10:56:17 AM

Quote :

"just know that you're on the same side of this issue as the dude who flew a plane into a federal building and that other dude who blew up a federal building in oklahoma. they also hated the government, though hopefully more than you do. ... my statement had nothing to do with those two issues, and everything to do with your obvious hatred of the federal government"

synapse has officially lost his shit. He's actually resorting to the new version of Godwin's law.

**mostly rational discussion**
**more mostly rational discussion**
synapse: "OH YEAH? WELL YOU'RE A TERRORIST!" (paraphrased)

Quote :

"And through what sense of morality should any firm providing a necessary service (say, a private hospital) be run not as a non-profit?"

Gee, I don't know, maybe because they actually want their service to be available forever?
You fucking anti-profit and anti-business lefties are so fucking clueless.
If you only spend money on giving shit away for free, how do you keep doing it? By offering products and services for a profit, you can in turn offer even more of the products and services with the profits you've made. By offering products and services for no profit, you're stuck begging for more charity money. This concept is so basic, it is truly painful that so many lefties don't or won't accept it. Plus, how would the prices of the medical products and labor be minimized without the competion from for-profit firms? I'm sure you have answers, but I'm also sure they're full of shit.

[Edited on March 9, 2010 at 12:07 PM. Reason : ]

3/9/2010 11:54:05 AM

George Washington hated the government, amirite?

3/9/2010 12:07:24 PM

^^ hahahaha rational discussion? the government sucks at everything it does? that's rational discussion? i simply responded in kind.

fyi, when you spew crap like "lefties" and "leftists," people don't take you seriously. yes i know Rush does it, but people don't take him seriously either.
*the more you know*

3/9/2010 12:07:57 PM

Quote :

"So when you agree to live in a country bound by a social contract"

I guess it is nice to be able to choose which thugs rough you up.

Quote :

"but be warned, good luck finding a decent [read: safe, livable] one without social programs."

Do you actually believe this is causation? Do you seriously believe that Kenya would be a wonderful place to live if only they mandated paid vacation and unemployment benefits?

[Edited on March 9, 2010 at 12:15 PM. Reason : .,.]

3/9/2010 12:11:34 PM

Quote :

"hahahaha rational discussion? the government sucks at everything it does? that's rational discussion?"

Well, as I said earlier about his post: "Poor wording probably -- because of the passion behind the issue.
He likely meant "who very often does a shitty job at anything they try to do"

Also, I said "mostly rational". Please read more carefully.

Quote :

" i simply responded in kind"

That's fine -- If you want to admit to being trolled by a n00b that wasn't even trolling, that's your call.

Quote :

"spew crap like "lefties" and "leftists"

If I had meant to be specific, I would have. I was making a generalization, and as such, used a general term. "lefties" means "people generally on the left, politically". If you think it means something else -- maybe whatever Rush told you (I don't listen to that trash,) then you're wrong.

[Edited on March 9, 2010 at 12:22 PM. Reason : ]

3/9/2010 12:14:11 PM

This thread got really fucking dumb.

3/9/2010 12:17:37 PM

that it did

3/9/2010 12:24:01 PM

Quote :

"Do you actually believe this is causation? Do you seriously believe that Kenya would be a wonderful place to live if only they mandated paid vacation and unemployment benefits? "

HOLY STRAW MAN BATMAN

just keep on making up my arguments for me please.

dude hates social programs and the federal government. i reminded dude that there are other places to live on this earth...but he'd have to get past his hatred of social programs, because they're in place in varying forms in pretty much any country that he would find comfortable to live in. that's the world we live in.

3/9/2010 1:00:54 PM

Quote :

"Reductions in the highest marginal tax rates in both the US and Canada in the 1980s did not result in the predicted collapse of charitable donations. Instead, over this period, donations (measured by the average size of donation) continued to increase. Since charitable donations have been a relatively stable percentage of personal income, it follows that the real growth of giving depends on the real growth of the economy. In other words, what matters most for increasing charitable donations is an individual's real income."

http://oldfraser.lexi.net/publications/forum/1999/06/04_charitable_donations.html

Only thing I could find quickly on income tax vs charity.

3/9/2010 1:01:56 PM

^^^It's mainly you that helped it along. People make legitimate points, and they're completely disregarded. It's a big game of Fox news style "gotcha!" but there's no substantive philosophical debate going on here.

Quote :

"Did you know that the government is not, in fact, a business and thus is not charged with making profits?"

And that's why we shouldn't have the government providing services that are best provided by private entities. For instance, we could have government run health insurance, and they could provide it for "free." Sure, they'd just be adding onto the debt that no one seems to care about anyway, but it would seem free, and no private insurance company could possibly compete. The government can operate at a loss until the whole system comes collapsing down. A private company needs to make a profit, and it needs to be competitive. Competition is what brings prices down and quality up. The government doesn't have to be competitive. That's why whenever government gets involved, real prices go up for the item being subsidized (health insurance, college tuition), and quality goes down (public schools, universities).

Quote :

"there are other countries to live in you know...i'm sure many would have you unless you're a total loser. but be warned, good luck finding a decent [read: safe, livable] one without social programs. so have at it."

Just because other countries haven't gotten it right doesn't mean we should emulate their actions.

Quote :

"just know that you're on the same side of this issue as the dude who flew a plane into a federal building and that other dude who blew up a federal building in oklahoma. they also hated the government, though hopefully more than you do."

Shameful.

Quote :

"nobody said profits are evil buddy. problem is they don't always coexist with whats best for the american citizens. so while they work beautifully in the commercial marketplace, they do not in the governmental landscape"

Jesus lord...see above.

Quote :

"Ok? So when you agree to live in a country bound by a social contract, do you expect your government to not actually enforce the laws and such that you've by default agreed to? Or are you just another poorly thought-out anarcho-capitalist on this board?"

I love this argument. "Oh, you're bound by the social contract, therefore you must agree with every law and its enforcement." You're supposed to struggle against bullshit handed down by the government, not just accept it.

[Edited on March 9, 2010 at 1:07 PM. Reason : ]

3/9/2010 1:06:45 PM

Quote :

"Just because other countries haven't gotten it right doesn't mean we should emulate their actions."

...i was [obviously] not comparing our country with other countries. i was [obviously] not speaking of the advantages/disadvantages of the social programs in other countries. i was [obviously] simply telling dude to gtfo.

Quote :

"Jesus lord...see above."

so you're saying corporate profits *can* coexist with what's best for individual american citizens? is there something i don't know about how a business operates...where does citizen welfare fit into their balance sheets?

Quote :

"A private company needs to make a profit, and it needs to be competitive. Competition is what brings prices down and quality up"

oh you mean the way health care prices have gone down, and quality has gone up, while it's been mainly ran by a multitude of private insurance companies?

Quote :

"Shameful."

the level of his hatred (or passion as you guys call it), and strikingly similar viewpoints reminds me of those crazies.

3/9/2010 1:12:16 PM

Quote :

"so you're saying corporate profits *can* coexist with what's best for individual american citizens? is there something i don't know about how a business operates...where does citizen welfare fit into their balance sheets?"

I don't know man, do you use a computer? Do you have a cell phone? Have they been getting consistently better over the years? It's not government that did that, it's competition. If you buy stuff, you're benefiting greatly from competition and the profit motive.

Quote :

"oh you mean the way health care prices have gone down, and quality has gone up, while it's been mainly ran by a multitude of private insurance companies?"

Health care prices haven't gone down...that's the entire problem. They should have gone down, with all the medical technology that has come out, but they haven't.

3/9/2010 1:29:00 PM

Quote :

""Reductions in the highest marginal tax rates in both the US and Canada in the 1980s did not result in the predicted collapse of charitable donations. Instead, over this period, donations (measured by the average size of donation) continued to increase. "

Awesome. God whats your take on that?

health care prices have gone down while quality has improved in areas where the consumer pays for it fully.

[Edited on March 9, 2010 at 1:43 PM. Reason : .]

3/9/2010 1:38:06 PM

Quote :

"I don't know man, do you use a computer? Do you have a cell phone?"

i wasn't referring to luxury items. i'm talking about basic services such as health care, public safety and education...this is where the unbridled goal of corporate profits and public welfare cannot peacefully coexist, imo.


^^ that's such a red herring argument. charitable donations can't provide a comprehensive enough safety net for those who need it most. there are people in this country who actually *need* public assistance to survive, not because they make bad decisions or smoke crack all day, but because that was the hand they were dealt in life.

3/9/2010 1:38:21 PM

So private industry can provide every other good and service better than the government, but those specific industries which you deem to be "basic services" can only be provided reasonably by government?

3/9/2010 1:44:13 PM

Quote :

"i wasn't referring to luxury items. i'm talking about basic services such as health care, public safety and education."

Because the fields of health care, public safety and education don't use high-tech stuff.
Health care in particular is not at all high-tech.



[Edited on March 9, 2010 at 1:45 PM. Reason : ]

3/9/2010 1:44:54 PM

Quote :

"Because the fields of health care, public safety and education don't use high-tech stuff. Health care in particular is not at all high-tech."

wtf are you talking about?? this isn't a high tech vs low tech argument. wow. way to completely miss the point.

3/9/2010 1:48:59 PM

i pay a boat load of taxes. but that's because, hell, i make a pretty darn good salary. so i don't mind the taxes too much, because i'm doing alright. while i do wish the fed government didn't waste as much money as it does, i understand that most government programs help ensure all society (including me) has many basic needs taken care of. and i'm cool with that, even if i would rather have bought myself a 1975 cadillac eldorado instead of paying some of my tax bill.

that being said, if i were president, i would cut taxes and cut defense spending. i'm ok with welfare programs, some people have it pretty rough and need help. Northrop Grumman, Halliburton, and General Dynamics DO NOT need my help. Anyhow, just my two cents.

[Edited on March 9, 2010 at 2:34 PM. Reason : .]

3/9/2010 2:33:15 PM

Ok let's get back to the core issues here:

1. Competitive private industry provides everything better than forced monopoly (government).

2. Exchange can only happen in one of two ways, voluntarily or forcefully (coercion). The first is moral, the second is immoral. Taxation is the second.

Thus taxation is unnecessary and immoral. We should work toward a society centered around voluntary exchange and free choice.

3/9/2010 2:58:53 PM

its a good way to put it. what is taxes except stealing? theres no exchange like busness. no freedom.

END TAXES NOW.

3/9/2010 3:05:31 PM

^^ And who, pay tell, ensures fair and open commerce in this anti-government utopia of yours?

GOOD TO SEE YOU BACK HOOPS

3/9/2010 3:09:32 PM

I'm with you Hoops.

DOWN WITH TAXES!!!!

3/9/2010 3:10:30 PM

Everyone does. Through free markets and protection of private property. But the implementation is what I said we should be working toward. The only point I'm trying to make here is that what we have now is obviously not best. So instead of simply dismissing the idea of improving society, why not actually work to figure out how it could work? Before getting into the logistics people have to be on board that voluntary society is preferable to a coercive one. Unfortunately many people won't even accept that.

3/9/2010 3:16:55 PM

If someone is saying down with taxes they tend to be on the political side of entitlements, as they want something they dont want to pay for, so for them its DOWN WITH TAXES!!!!!. And you are seeing that as the percentage of those actually paying the taxes is getting shifted to the minority.

I think many, like myself, are wanting an end to the discrimination with taxes. Thats why I support the Fairtax. Until we get everyone paying something, they will continue to want more and our debt spiral will continue. Of course then, instead of cutting benefits they simply elect to raise taxes on the rich.... Which is working so well for our most liberal states right now.

3/9/2010 3:21:51 PM

Quote :

"If someone is saying down with taxes they tend to be on the political side of entitlements, as they want something they dont want to pay for"

of course. everyone who wants to maintain entitlement programs are the recipients of said aid. just like everyone who supports ending them are rich fat white dudes who will never need them. thank you for sharing

3/9/2010 3:44:29 PM

I am tired of taxation being used as a political chip with the masses. if taxes are to be raised, they should be raised on all of us. if they are to be lowered, they should be lowered for all of us. I want politicians to have to think long and hard about the consequences of raising the tax burden of everyone to fund whatever pet project, entitlement or war they want pursue. I dont want them to seemingly be able to do whatever they please and take a dump on whatever unfortunate demographic is the target at the time.

that is why I am in favor or scrapping the current system and going exclusively with a fairtax or flat tax.

taxation regulation = tons of power. it also = the total disregard for a budget. I want my federal government to have a little less power and impact in my daily life and be forced to adhere to a budget like I do.

3/9/2010 3:47:27 PM

Quote :

"I don't know man, do you use a computer? Do you have a cell phone?"

Quote :

"i wasn't referring to luxury items. i'm talking about basic services such as health care, public safety and education...this is where the unbridled goal of corporate profits and public welfare cannot peacefully coexist, imo."

Quote :

"Because the fields of health care, public safety and education don't use high-tech stuff. Health care in particular is not at all high-tech. "

Quote :

"wtf are you talking about?? this isn't a high tech vs low tech argument. wow. way to completely miss the point."

His point was that private competition makes technology better, and technology isn't just for luxury items. All goods and services, including the intellect and technology intensive ones found in health care and education, are made better, cheaper, and more efficient by private competion among for-profit companies.

You said: "...health care, public safety and education....is where the unbridled goal of corporate profits and public welfare cannot peacefully coexist, imo."
That is crap. Good thing it's only your opinion.

[Edited on March 9, 2010 at 4:01 PM. Reason : ]

3/9/2010 4:01:15 PM

I don't think anyone here is arguing that the private sector isn't better at producing goods and services.

I wish the other side of things would stop pretending that that's all that matters in the areas of health, education, and safety. Many of us believe that universal coverage is an imperative in these realms, and it's a fact that the private sector can't achieve that goal.

If you want to attack our argument, attack our belief that all humans deserve a basic level of health, education, and safety. Don't attack our belief that government involvement is necessary to achieve this goal, because it isn't debatable.

3/9/2010 4:19:26 PM

Quote :

"If you want to attack our argument, attack our belief that all humans deserve a basic level of health, education, and safety. Don't attack our belief that government involvement is necessary to achieve this goal, because it isn't debatable."

I agree with you that everyone should have health, education, and safety. How about we debate whether it is right for you to forcefully steal from others in order to provide these things? I say absolutely not. I think that it should be provided for voluntarily, and that through education and advancement of technology, these things would be provided without the need of a coercive force.

3/9/2010 4:25:27 PM

^exactly.

Boone, do you consider it fair for someone to pay for thier own health insurance and pay the taxes that cover medicaid, to actually not be able to afford some of the services that medicaid provides for. So the person who actually contributes cannot get something, while the one who doesnt does. Thats upside down. But that is what we have happening.

As for Synapse, entitlement spending is the fastest growing in our budget and only expected to get worse. As is the numbers actually paying MORE than they receive in taxes. Those are the facts. So you can see how one would be angry about adding MORE weight to the backs of fewer people, esp when the ones that support adding more have no or little intention of contributing.

3/9/2010 4:30:55 PM

^^
Exactly. In others words, the private sector can achieve a basic level of health, education, and safety for all Americans. However, I don't believe it should go past a basic level. Even with education, we mostly stop at high school.
And besides.... Health care, quite simply, is not a right.


-----------------------------------

No, they're the people whose health, education, and safety "should be provided for voluntarily, and that through education and advancement of technology, these things would be provided without the need of a coercive force." That's the difference.
\/

[Edited on March 9, 2010 at 4:44 PM. Reason : \/]

3/9/2010 4:33:00 PM

Nevermind the people who can't afford the cost of basic level of health, education, and safety that the private sector sets.

And that really is the difference, isn't it?

[Edited on March 9, 2010 at 4:38 PM. Reason : .]

3/9/2010 4:38:08 PM

Quote :

"Don't attack our belief that government involvement is necessary to achieve this goal, because it isn't debatable."

It is debatable. If we had a free market in healthcare, the argument goes, then prices would be significantly lower, perhaps low enough for private charity to easily afford healthcare for the now much smaller group of people that cannot afford to pay for it themselves.

3/9/2010 4:39:04 PM

^^ That's what charities are for. People would provide basic needs for those who need it. They do now even with all of the government programs in place. There are lots of private scholarships for instance. People do not die in the streets because they can't afford hospitals. People will help because they choose to, and that's the way it should be. No one should be forced to at gunpoint.

3/9/2010 4:45:49 PM

Quote :

"No, they're the people whose health, education, and safety "should be provided for voluntarily, and that through education and advancement of technology, these things would be provided without the need of a coercive force"

i dont follow. is it: maybe your kid will receive his heart medicine this week, maybe he won't? depends on if somebody voluntarily provides it for him?

Quote :

"No one should be forced to at gunpoint"

nobody is being forced at gunpoint. if you have to make shit like this up to drive your argument home, you've lost.

Quote :

"esp when the ones that support adding more have no or little intention of contributing"

really. you profess to know the aims of millions of people? that's pretty amazing man, how do you do that?

3/9/2010 4:47:12 PM

Quote :

"How about we debate whether it is right for you to forcefully steal from others in order to provide these things?"

What you're describing applies to any form of taxation. There's no point in arguing if you're against all forms of taxation.

Quote :

"I think that it should be provided for voluntarily, and that through education and advancement of technology, these things would be provided without the need of a coercive force"

I think we should sell all the magic gumdrops raining from the sky to other countries, and use the proceeds to provide universal coverage. My plan is only slightly more whimsical than yours.

Quote :

"Exactly. In others words, the private sector can achieve a basic level of health, education, and safety for all Americans."

...and that's true simply because you said it is? When in human history has the free market provided universal education, healthcare, and safety?

Quote :

"And besides.... Health care, quite simply, is not a right. "

This is a non sequitor. The government provides us with many things that aren't rights.

Quote :

"Boone, do you consider it fair for someone to pay for thier own health insurance and pay the taxes that cover medicaid, to actually not be able to afford some of the services that medicaid provides for. So the person who actually contributes cannot get something, while the one who doesnt does. Thats upside down. But that is what we have happening."

No, but how is this germane to the debate? Your argument is against patchwork universal health coverage, not universal healthcare coverage, in general.

3/9/2010 4:47:25 PM