terrible idea.
terrible idea.
be moderate my son. we live in a complex society that absolutely requires a certain degree of non-profit maximizing governance. Rand's ideas were interesting and should be thought about but human nature will get the best of us - at least at this point in human history.
same goes for the other end of the spectrum but to a worse degree because people are more apt to "fall for" its ideas and vote in that way.
Sounds good. When I buy the road that provides access to your house, the price to let an ambulance travel over my road to your home will be $5 million.
Sure...the rich have almost everything right now--why not give them the rest? Just hand everything over to Wall Street. They seem like a moral bunch.
The only rational role of government is to protect individual rights, i.e. the rights to one's life, freedom, privacy, and property. This means the government has to be responsible for law enforcement, justice, and national security (which does not include spying on or abridging the rights of innocent citizens on the premise that one out of a million might be a terrorist). Nothing else. The government should not be involved in any form in realms of life such as education, healthcare, finance, energy, or consumer protection. All government involvement in these areas should be phased out, and this country will continue its systemic economic decline until they are.
Because that'w how they do things in countries that have higher living standards than we do.
You are absolutely right about spying, but the remainer of your program is a recipe for disaster.
libertariankid wrote:
read rothbard, that would never happen in a free society
[
quote]great idea wrote:
Sounds good. When I buy the road that provides access to your house, the price to let an ambulance travel over my road to your home will be $5 million.
[/quote]
Why don't you explain why it would never happen in a free society?
But for the sake of the OP, it's incorrect to think in terms of "privatization." The term suggests that the government should have an active role in ensuring that the private sector provides some form of things you want to privatize. It shouldn't. The government just needs to be phased out so people can be free to live how they want. If people want education, entrepreneurs will provide it in a free society, and their success or failure will be defined by their ability to provide the kind of education people want rather than the kind that the government dictates we should have.
And people's success or failure (with their sustenance and lives on the line) dependent solely on supply and demand. Insane.
outsiderunner wrote:
And people's success or failure (with their sustenance and lives on the line) dependent solely on supply and demand. Insane.
The availability of what you want is always determined by the laws of supply and demand regardless of government involvement. It's pretty crazy that you apparently think government has the power to override laws of economics; it exemplifies how whacked out liberals are, and how messed up they are intellectually that they can't distinguish between man-made laws and laws of nature like supply and demand.
So, they are in the process of privatizing the Denver Boulder Turnpike. The tolls are to be capped at 16 bucks round trip-and if the concessionaire does not make it's revenue goals sufficient to plow snow and pay $100 Million of bonds, then the taxpayers have to write them a check for the difference. If revenues exceed the goals, the concessionaire gets to keep it. The concessionaire also gets to veto any parallel route construction. The state is also motivated to keep the parallel routes congested, else they have to subsidize the concessionaire if traffic is diverted to unclogged roads. Deal lasts 50 years-with no apparent escape hatch for the state. Similar deals are cooking on C470 south of Denver and the I70 mountain corridor. All being negotiated in smoke filled rooms.
All this brought to you by a crooked Democrat. He's out-Republicaned the Republicans. Government can't be run like a business, because it's not a business-it's a monopoly. When it's run like a business, politicians give the monopoly rights to their cronies.
Man-made laws? So what would your quasi-anarchy look like? An every-man-for-himself paradise for the rich and powerful? A grim alter-society where everything goes to the highest bidder? Men (and women) of reason have always espoused a foundation of temporal order and authority, and, even with this, have had to hope and pray for the best, as we inhabit an imperfect world.
It's sad that some people can't fathom a country without all the ridiculous government institutions they've always known. OMG no FDA, your heart pills are going to explode now! 200 years from now they'll have a Department of Poopypants whose mission is to regulate the dimensions of every toilet bowl to prevent you from falling in and drowning when you sit down to take a shit, and even though we're doing just fine without it today, tomorrow's liberals will be utterly certain that life as we know it depends on its existence. What liberalism really is is a stupidocracy.
I, Me wrote:
It's sad that some people can't fathom a country without all the ridiculous government institutions they've always known. OMG no FDA, your heart pills are going to explode now! 200 years from now they'll have a Department of Poopypants whose mission is to regulate the dimensions of every toilet bowl to prevent you from falling in and drowning when you sit down to take a shit, and even though we're doing just fine without it today, tomorrow's liberals will be utterly certain that life as we know it depends on its existence. What liberalism really is is a stupidocracy.
You know, a lot of regulations were actually in response to scandals. Eg Sarbames-oxley as a result of well published control failures at Enron
what if i privatize ur mom
I, Me wrote:
It's sad that some people can't fathom a country without all the ridiculous government institutions they've always known. OMG no FDA, your heart pills are going to explode now! 200 years from now they'll have a Department of Poopypants whose mission is to regulate the dimensions of every toilet bowl to prevent you from falling in and drowning when you sit down to take a shit, and even though we're doing just fine without it today, tomorrow's liberals will be utterly certain that life as we know it depends on its existence. What liberalism really is is a stupidocracy.
Actually building codes already provide very specific requirements for the appropriate height and width of a toilet, and for good reason, too.
Real Runners wrote:
This means the government has to be responsible for law enforcement, justice, and national security
How is that rational? If you want your property protected, you pay for it. Why should I pay police to protect your property? If your loved one is murdered, why should I have to pay for the investigation and prosecution? You want it investigated and prosecuted? You can pay for it.
So what happens when you fail to pay your monthly fire bill, and your house burns to the ground?
Looks like your idea just went up in flames, bruh.
Jeff Wigand wrote:
How is that rational? If you want your property protected, you pay for it. Why should I pay police to protect your property? If your loved one is murdered, why should I have to pay for the investigation and prosecution? You want it investigated and prosecuted? You can pay for it.
For future reference, I never read anything you post.