Korashk
November 2nd, 2010, 09:32 PM
For those new to the discussion:
How much involvement should the government have with the economy? I say none, lets debate.
~~~~~
Continuing the discussion that started here (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showthread.php?t=86492&page=3) in the other thread.
I'd like some statistics for that, it seems like charging for previously free services, even after removing some taxes, wouldn't save any money. Some things are still going to have to be taxed so that the government can operate.
Not some taxes, most taxes. Here's an article (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3231) on the costs of private school.
Because people are naturally greedy. Even if government had NO involvement in the economy, which is probably not possible, corporations would still try and gain power over the consumers.
How would they go about doing that?
I don't support letting corporations get away with unsafe and unclean environmental practices. It's important — essential — that we protect the environment for future generations, and for the health and safety of ourselves.
They would only be able to pollute property that they own without facing potential lawsuits. Part of absolute private property rights is the right of others to seek damages from you when you damage their property.
You didn't address the wastefulness of it. Sure, it could possibly be cheaper, but it's a pointless idea. Why have, let's say, 6 different corporations operating 6 different roads to the exact same destination, when you only need one?
I don't really know what you mean by wastefulness. How is it wasteful, and even if it is, why does that matter? I've also addressed why 6 (competition) is better than 1 (monopoly).
Well, that's just asking for a hellish world.
Why should one receive a service they did not pay for?
As I said before, it's still a wasteful and pointless idea.
Don't see how its wasteful and lessening the burden on the consumer is not pointless.
You're focusing too much on prices. There's a fine line between cutting spending and endangering the public.
Endangering the public is extremely bad for business.
School systems, police, fire and water are supposed to be controlled by one entity universally for maximum efficiency, not by multiple entities.
Umm...do you think the government is at all efficient? It's common knowledge that the private sector is immensely more efficient than the government.
I meant in modern history (20th century to present).
You're not really making a point here. See here for arguments in favor of private roads (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-market_roads), and here for a modern example of something similar to private fire departments (http://www.vcstar.com/news/2007/oct/27/private-companies-offer-fire-protection/).
That's the thing: it isn't. All it creates is disorganization and waste. It's also not nearly as kind to our lower-income classes.
See above about efficiency, and it would be much kinder to lower income families by the simple fact that it would be cheaper.
How much involvement should the government have with the economy? I say none, lets debate.
~~~~~
Continuing the discussion that started here (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showthread.php?t=86492&page=3) in the other thread.
I'd like some statistics for that, it seems like charging for previously free services, even after removing some taxes, wouldn't save any money. Some things are still going to have to be taxed so that the government can operate.
Not some taxes, most taxes. Here's an article (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3231) on the costs of private school.
Because people are naturally greedy. Even if government had NO involvement in the economy, which is probably not possible, corporations would still try and gain power over the consumers.
How would they go about doing that?
I don't support letting corporations get away with unsafe and unclean environmental practices. It's important — essential — that we protect the environment for future generations, and for the health and safety of ourselves.
They would only be able to pollute property that they own without facing potential lawsuits. Part of absolute private property rights is the right of others to seek damages from you when you damage their property.
You didn't address the wastefulness of it. Sure, it could possibly be cheaper, but it's a pointless idea. Why have, let's say, 6 different corporations operating 6 different roads to the exact same destination, when you only need one?
I don't really know what you mean by wastefulness. How is it wasteful, and even if it is, why does that matter? I've also addressed why 6 (competition) is better than 1 (monopoly).
Well, that's just asking for a hellish world.
Why should one receive a service they did not pay for?
As I said before, it's still a wasteful and pointless idea.
Don't see how its wasteful and lessening the burden on the consumer is not pointless.
You're focusing too much on prices. There's a fine line between cutting spending and endangering the public.
Endangering the public is extremely bad for business.
School systems, police, fire and water are supposed to be controlled by one entity universally for maximum efficiency, not by multiple entities.
Umm...do you think the government is at all efficient? It's common knowledge that the private sector is immensely more efficient than the government.
I meant in modern history (20th century to present).
You're not really making a point here. See here for arguments in favor of private roads (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-market_roads), and here for a modern example of something similar to private fire departments (http://www.vcstar.com/news/2007/oct/27/private-companies-offer-fire-protection/).
That's the thing: it isn't. All it creates is disorganization and waste. It's also not nearly as kind to our lower-income classes.
See above about efficiency, and it would be much kinder to lower income families by the simple fact that it would be cheaper.