Tea Party

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

http://www.vdare.com/roberts/090913_healthcare.htm

 

I find it troubling that you guys still think this Health Care argument is actually about providing a better Health Care system for the American people.

 

I'm not going to say that every person protesting this actually understands exactly why doing this is a bad idea. However I do not care.

 

The fact that they are actually RIGHT regardless for their reason is what is important.

[TheoHuxtable..]

Great review by The Young Turks of Michael Moore's new movie, "Capitalism":

 

 

 

I agree that Michael Moore was out of bounds to infer that capitalism is "evil", but he was right on many points. And I'm glad Michael Moore went after Reagan, because conservatives seem to act like Reagan is the messiah. He was wrong on so many levels, particularly his trickle-down economic philosophy, his cutting of various social programs, and his need to expand the military to unprecedented levels.

 

I consider myself a democratic socialist; I believe in capitalism and I believe that we should own our own homes and buy our own property. And I believe people should own their own business, and that free market competition between private businesses is a necessity for both consumers and businessmen/women. I just feel there should be some government regulation against corporations in the market, and government funding of social programs & health care. This whole socialist scare-tactic brought on by conservatives is hearkening back to the "Cold War" era of the Soviet Union. The USSR was scary not because they were "socialist" or "communist", but because they were an authoritarian & totalitarian regime with a robust military and a quest for world domination & influence. So now we associate anything "socialist" with the Soviet Union. Do you believe the government should keep our streets paved? Then you're a socialist. Do you use the USPS instead of FedEx or UPS? Then you're a socialist. It's not "scary" when you actually look at what socialism is. Anyone that's a full-fledged communist is an idiot, as is anyone that is a full-fledged capitalist. Socialism is a healthy balance between the two.

[Smart]

The fact that they are actually RIGHT regardless for their reason is what is important.

 

So.. it's only the fact that they're Republicans or 'conservatives'?

[LEVEL 75 PALADIN]

Yea that is a pretty asinine statement...

[Decyferon]

http://www.vdare.com/roberts/090913_healthcare.htm

 

I find it troubling that you guys still think this Health Care argument is actually about providing a better Health Care system for the American people.

 

I'm not going to say that every person protesting this actually understands exactly why doing this is a bad idea. However I do not care.

 

The fact that they are actually RIGHT regardless for their reason is what is important.

 

I didn't think it was about providing a better health care system for American people, I thought it was more for creating a health care system that is actually for all people regardless of them having Insurance or not.

 

I still do not understand why people think it is such a bad idea to have healthcare for all, seems like a humane thing to do, if your rich enough to be able to afford private healthcare then pay for it, if you can't afford private healthcare then at least you have some provided by the government.

 

I swear America is the only plae that seems to have this view on healthcare, if they tried to get rid of the National Health Service in the UK there would be uproar, I personally would fight for all I had to make sure we have a nationally provided free healthcare programme, which is something that all countries should have.

 

Just because private companies make so much money from Healthcare in the US the big businesses are against it because it would eat into the shareholder profits, boo fucking hoo

 

Personally I think that a doctor refusing healthcare to someone because they don't have insurance goes against the hippocratic oath of doctors to ethically practise medicine

[angelofdeath]

Great review by The Young Turks of Michael Moore's new movie, "Capitalism":

 

 

 

I agree that Michael Moore was out of bounds to infer that capitalism is "evil", but he was right on many points. And I'm glad Michael Moore went after Reagan, because conservatives seem to act like Reagan is the messiah. He was wrong on so many levels, particularly his trickle-down economic philosophy, his cutting of various social programs, and his need to expand the military to unprecedented levels.

 

I consider myself a democratic socialist; I believe in capitalism and I believe that we should own our own homes and buy our own property. And I believe people should own their own business, and that free market competition between private businesses is a necessity for both consumers and businessmen/women. I just feel there should be some government regulation against corporations in the market, and government funding of social programs & health care. This whole socialist scare-tactic brought on by conservatives is hearkening back to the "Cold War" era of the Soviet Union. The USSR was scary not because they were "socialist" or "communist", but because they were an authoritarian & totalitarian regime with a robust military and a quest for world domination & influence. So now we associate anything "socialist" with the Soviet Union. Do you believe the government should keep our streets paved? Then you're a socialist. Do you use the USPS instead of FedEx or UPS? Then you're a socialist. It's not "scary" when you actually look at what socialism is. Anyone that's a full-fledged communist is an idiot, as is anyone that is a full-fledged capitalist. Socialism is a healthy balance between the two.

 

moore's new movie will do one thing i like.

from what im hearing it apparently calls out chris dodd as being a key player in the housing collapse, bankster bailouts etc. this could inadvertently help elect a very free market guy who is going to be challenging dodd for his senate seat this year... peter schiff.

 

other than that...moore knows as much about economics as does a kindergarten student.

 

moore supposedly talks about how workers co-ops are the only way to run companies. so someone called him on it and asked if his production company was worker owned... and he said something stupid like...'well, that worker co-op thing doesnt apply to artistic endeavors such as this...'

moore continually talks about the evils of the market and racism, yet he lives in a town with hardly any minorities and invests in the stock market and owns shares in many many big name corporations. more is no better than any of the neo con tea party activists... both are hypocritical idiots.

 

the 'socialist scare tactics' went much further back than the cold war. the old right formed in the 20's and 30's as a direct reaction to the progressive movement and got the biggest boost against the new deal. the coalition was made up of far lefties, businessmen, anarchists, right wingers, etc.

during this time period there was mainly 2 political ideologies. fascism and socialism (hey, just like today!) the people who favored liberty were few in numbers.

 

sure, the governments were scary because they were ALL of the above. fascist, socialist, totalitarian, etc. socialism cannot exist without alot of guns on the side of the government. the state must be used to coerce the people, rob them for their initiatives and programs, and regulate everything about thier lives. so yes, socialism is scary. socialism as you are talking about, on the national level cannot be done through a free approach, you must force the citizens to participate. it is not like the nunnery or the kibbutz which are voluntary forms of socialism. why not just allow whoever wants to partcipate in the socialism, participate, and those that dont want to, can be left out? this would be the only set up of socialism where you could say there is no totalitarianism going on.

 

do i think the government should pave streets? nope.

you are correct you are a roads socialist if you believe they should.

 

the USPS is a monopoly. fed ex, UPS, DHS, etc cannot compete on carrying first class mail. lysander spooner tried this in the mid 1800's. see what happened to him. UPS, etc exploits a small whole in the postal regulations that doesnt forbid other carriers from carrying packages. but first class mail...is a government monopoly. if you want to use first class letter service, you have no choice but the post office.

 

but you are correct to say that the post office is a government institution.

people who are anti socialism are not hypocrites if they walk on a side walk, use US federal reserve notes or send letters, because there is no other alternative. the government has monopolies of these things.

 

as with everything, all these conversations wouldnt be happening if you social engineers allowed voluntary cooperation with your programs and initiatives. but of course, this would not be the socialist planned society you wish for. you need to crack a few eggs, to make an omelete right?

[Decyferon]

I have to admit I agree with Theo, I believe that we should own our own homes and capatalism does creat a varied marketplace, but it should be done with a view to creating a good marketplace for workers and the future of countries industries, not just bleeding out ptofits for the shareholders and fat cats, but I also believe in regulation, if there had been stricter regulation by the financial regulators around the world then we wouldn't currently be in the financial situation we are now in.

 

I also believe the government should pave the streets, provide lighting on the streets and collect our refuse and recycling, things that all happen in the UK and I am not being told how to live my life and have never been told by the governement as to how to live my life. I pay my taxes so I should have access to healthcare, good roads, lighting etc, why should I pay a private company to provide these things as well? Yes private companies do this work, but they get the contracts from the government, but if they don't get the job done then they don't get the contract again.

 

I think, like theo said, that it all harks back to the cold war and the soviets and the totalitarian governemnt in china, that is not what modern socialism is like, the UK suffered under a conservative 'right' government, margaret thatcher was a disgusting piece of trash that ruined this country (i am personally looking forward to the bitch dying a horrible death) and sold off our national industries to the private sector who then bleed it dry for the most profit and to the detriment of the workforce.

[angelofdeath]

"in regulation, if there had been stricter regulation by the financial regulators around the world then we wouldn't currently be in the financial situation we are now in."

 

the governments already regulate every single aspect of markets. ever since day one the interventionists have been saying they just need a few more sensible regulations. this cycle will not stop until there is total nationalization of the economy. its been going on for a century or two.

 

it wasnt capitalism that failed, it was regulation. government. the socialist type intervention which every one praises. relying on regulation creates moral hazard. wiki it.

with our corporatist/fascist economy we have privatized profit and socialized risk. we need to privatize BOTH.

 

"and I am not being told how to live my life and have never been told by the governement as to how to live my life. I pay my taxes so I should have access to healthcare, good roads, lighting etc, why should I pay a private company to provide these things as well? Yes private companies do this work, but they get the contracts from the government, but if they don't get the job done then they don't get the contract again."

 

you shouldnt pay a private company to do something if the government steals money from you in the form of taxes to do the same thing.

we should stop the government from stealing money from us.

why not make it voluntary?

this is running your life. you dont have a choice, the freedom to choose, how to dispose of your trash. the government does not allow the private sector to operate roads. the tax system and public sector finance are not just like a regular market like you claim. in a regular market you get to choose to buy something and from whom. in the case of roads, trash collection, etc, the government takes your money for the service. if you resist this theft, you will go to jail. if you resist forcibly enough and wont go to jail, they will shoot you if you try to defend yourself.

 

can you see the difference?

 

if we had walmart and citi group doing this form of business we would be outraged. we would call it theft and coercion.

when the government engages in business practice like this we enthusiastically call it 'public service.'

[Decyferon]

in the UK the FSA who regulate the financial markets, let the hedge fund style trading of bad debts go unchecked, with strciter regulation of this trading then we would not have been in the situation, so stricter regulation would have helped, to allow the companies to continue trading unregulated would have been terrible in my opinion. The bankers and traders are greedy and would have just made sure they made money and to hell with everyone else who would have suffered, so i do agree regulation did fail because they weren't strict enough on the companies. I know what you mean about private profit and public risk, I personally would like to see these banks that have been helped out by the governments having to do more for the people but they continue to operate in the way they previously would and this does annoy me. I consider myself a shareholder in these companies now as they have been bailed out by tax money, and I should now be entitled to dividends from these companies, i also think that until these banks have paid in full the money that bailed them out then the governemtn should be in control of wages and bonuses because these bankers do not deserve the wages they have.

 

I know I pay taxes to have my rubbish collected etc, but i am happy with that, I don't want to have to choose a company to pick up my rubbish and have to go through the hassles of having additional bills and things to organise. I don't mind that, it makes my life easier.

 

I wouldn't mind having the option of where my taxes go because then I could choose not to pay for wars I don't believe in, but most other things that my taxes go towards I would continue to pay towards like healthcare, education, roads, refuse etc

 

I know that in a regular market i would get to choose who does what with my money but I don't care which company fixes the roads etc, as long as it gets done I am happy, so while I can see your stance that this is running my life, I don't see it that way. I mean that my life is not being run from the view that I can choose which supermarkets to buy my food from, which internet provider to use, where to live and what to wear, things that directly affect me.

 

I suppose it is just a difference of cultures that we are from, it has always been this way in the UK and it has always worked reasonably well

 

*edit* also if it were voluntary the vast majority of people would not put money towards maintinag roads, putting money into the healthservice and education, street lighting etc, tax is a good thing because it is dependant on what you earn. you think a private company would allow you to pay dependant on your financial status? no they would charge as much as they could to make their profit. Then if you didn't pay towards say the maintaing of roads then they would make you because they would refuse you access to use these roads.

[x5v1s]

Were only gonna die from our own arrogance.

[angelofdeath]

in the UK the FSA who regulate the financial markets, let the hedge fund style trading of bad debts go unchecked, with strciter regulation of this trading then we would not have been in the situation, so stricter regulation would have helped, to allow the companies to continue trading unregulated would have been terrible in my opinion. The bankers and traders are greedy and would have just made sure they made money and to hell with everyone else who would have suffered, so i do agree regulation did fail because they weren't strict enough on the companies. I know what you mean about private profit and public risk, I personally would like to see these banks that have been helped out by the governments having to do more for the people but they continue to operate in the way they previously would and this does annoy me. I consider myself a shareholder in these companies now as they have been bailed out by tax money, and I should now be entitled to dividends from these companies, i also think that until these banks have paid in full the money that bailed them out then the governemtn should be in control of wages and bonuses because these bankers do not deserve the wages they have.

 

 

instead of me getting into an intense economic debate about moral hazard, central banking, socialism, fascism, and how markets operate... i'd like to pose a question to the interventionists... i have for a long time.

 

if we go ahead and pass a law that regulates the hedge fund trading like you would like... can we just call it quits there? will you stop trying to regulate further? will this end the debate? and if so why not, and what other actions will you call for.

 

you see... ever since time began and governments were created... people called forth this government to intervene to save everything, save the people from themselves, regulate evil capitalists, vote money out of the public treasury to give to other people etc... and the interventionists always say they just need to do one more thing and everything will be fine.

100 years later and 10000 laws later, they still just need one more law to make things perfect.

 

so when will it be enough? when will we have properly reigned in capitalism to save it from itself and there will never ever again be any more problems?

 

as for the bailouts... we shouldnt of bailed anyone. but this is the world we live in. do you think if one special interest (the poor) get hand outs, another special interest (bankers) wont? if you create a precedent of throwing out public money and making a certain case for doing this... everyone will soon be receiving public money. technically the bailout is a loan, but i dont think it will ever get paid back and it wont be paid back with interest, because essentially the governments bought bad debt that isnt worth anything. if it was, people would be lining up to buy it and there would be no crisis. so if we loaned the companies money, they will continue on their path of destruction, part of which includes the big bonuses you talk about. its easy to get all fired up about that, but look at what the governments did... they are simply allowing the fun and games to keep on going... in teh real world with a free market, the companies would of tanked, all the stock and crap the higher ups own, would be worthless and they would of all lost money. this leads into moral hazard.

 

the banks all acted the way they did because the federal reserve and other banks were giving out cheap money. this made it cheap to borrow money. so people did. banks wrote loans to people who couldnt pay back. now for the real kicker, they have all the government agencies behind them, guaranteeing the loans. if they fail, the government will bail them out... who wouldnt take the risk? and this doesnt even touch on the regulations the government already has in place forcing lenders to make loans to people who cant pay them back under the CRA, and under acts.

 

I wouldn't mind having the option of where my taxes go because then I could choose not to pay for wars I don't believe in, but most other things that my taxes go towards I would continue to pay towards like healthcare, education, roads, refuse etc

 

yeah maybe i should give up on talking about rubbish collection and just talk about things you dont like, like war. the non aggression axiom philosophy that i follow applies not only to war, but to everything. so that includes the forced extraction of taxes from the populace to pay for trash collection.

 

but all this stuff is getting really 'deep.'

if you step back and look at the big picture... if a ron paul go into office... the last he would be concerned about was trash collection or taking away welfare payments to the guy with no legs. he would be concerned first with ending the US empire and starting to dismantle the federal regulatory apparatus, abolish the federal reserve and allow competing monetary forms to operate freely in the market.

 

the issues such as trash collection, etc are to be left to each state and/or county.

 

*edit* also if it were voluntary the vast majority of people would not put money towards maintinag roads, putting money into the healthservice and education, street lighting etc, tax is a good thing because it is dependant on what you earn. you think a private company would allow you to pay dependant on your financial status? no they would charge as much as they could to make their profit. Then if you didn't pay towards say the maintaing of roads then they would make you because they would refuse you access to use these roads.

 

and we start back at square one.

taxes are theft.

why dont you try this. i'll say it again.

take a handgun over to your neighbor. tell him that you are extracting tax revenue from him to pay for your daughters new shoes. see how this goes. see how you feel. see how he feels. this is what the government does with tax revenue. except they just all get together, decide they are going to take a certain amount of money from group X. and if you dont pay, they send in their IRS agents to get you, one way or the other.

 

im not a road entrepreneur but i have read about private roads extensively.

 

roads in the US are supposed to be funded by taxes that are put on fuel. every gallon of gas you pump the fed and state governments extract tax revenue. it is tacked on to the price of fuel. when i was helping to run a shop that pumped gas, the feds were getting 24 or 28 cents a gallon and the local governments were getting a percentage... when gas was 3.00 a gallon, almost .50 a gallon went to taxes.

if you dont buy gas, supposedly you dont pay for roads. but we all know with the governments in debt, borrowing, printing money, extracting income taxes etc etc, we are all paying for roads anyway. but you can get off road diesel for example. its 50 cents cheaper than highway diesel and only difference is its dyed red. if you run this on the highway, and you get caught the DOT can charge you with back taxes on every mile on your speedometer.

 

i think roads would be funded probably in a toll fashion. there would be more efficiency. you pay more for example in a high congested city, and you'll be able to get to where you want to go faster. who knows... i dont know exactly how it would be funded. it might be funded by advertising, like google, you dont pay to use google do you? i dont know how it would work, but yeah, driving on the road, you would have to pay just like when you buy a cheeseburger. you have to pay. "wait, what, you mean you have to pay for a cheeseburger? what if the poorer people cant pay the full 1.06 for a mc double? we need to spread the costs around!"

 

sure, roads would be private property. just like malls. do you really see any shopping malls refusing people access to them, because they are privately owned? i dont have a crystal ball to see how every road would be funded. but the old 'they wont let you on the road because of ________" is silly. they want to make money. if they charge to much, and no one uses the roads, they go broke. if they discriminate against minorities, they go broke. just like any other business.

 

but this discussion should take place once the federal government is back in its constitutional boundaries. the first step would be to remove the feds from roads all together. let the states fund them. the way it was originally set up. then once this is done, we can talk about the states and municipalities selling off the roads to private enterprise.

 

there are 40K deaths a year on government roads. if there were 40K deaths a year at disney world, do you think any one would go there? but the government keeps on operating without any loss because there is no other choice. its ultimately the governments fault for failure to regulate the roads. they are responsible for 40K deaths a year. i know one thing... if 40K people a year were being killed at shopping malls and other private businesses... they would fix that in a hurry. no one wants to lose any money from people scared to patronize a business.

[Decyferon]

AOD, you do make a lot of points and to be honest I do agree with a lot of what you say, as always I like to throw in the otherside of the arguement as it makes for an entertaining debate.

 

I don't believe that the banks should have been bailed out, they fucked up their business model and should have been made to suffer for it and gone out of business, I didn't agree with it at the time and don't agree with it now, I was disgusted that tax money was used to bail out these private companies, it isn't like all these small mom and pop stores going out of business can go to the government and say well our business went belly up could you bail us out!!

 

In the UK, the roads, refuse all those public services are dealt with by the local authority, who gets an annual amount of funding from the government and it is up to them to determine the best way to spend it, it isn't the central government that does these things it is on a local level, when i worked for the local authority we had reports of bad roads etc and we couldn't fix them because the money in the budget had been spent and they couldn't fix them until the next budget year.

 

I can't agree with the comparison of roads to malls, obviously malls will let customers in because the mall is owned by a company who leases space to the shops, the mall makes money from the shops, the shops make money from the public. I don't see how a private company owning roads would make money unless they charge to use it, which is all fine and well as long as there are alternative free routes to get places otherwise you are just restricting the movement of the populace, thus impeeding on your individual freedom to go where you like. I suppose maybe advertising would be a good way for them to make money on the roads? maybe that is an alternative.

 

Obviously your in the US i'm in the UK so we see things differently. In the UK we have huge taxes on fuel, then we also have road tax, which is variable on the emissions of the car, also for instance in london they have a congestion charge as well, meaning if you take a car into the city then you pay more for it. I personally am glad I'm not a car driver because it is frankly so expensive with taxes fuel parking etc

 

I think we agree on a lot of things but due to the differences between the UK and the US we talk from different perspectives, you obviously talk from what you know which is american government and policy and I always use UK government and policy in the debate.

 

The deaths on roads is more to do with the road users, not the actual roads (not in all instances tho) I don't blame the government for deaths on roads, and i wouldn't hold them responsible, it is driver error, vehicle failure many different factors, even if the roads were toll roads and private ownership we would still have these deaths and people would still need to use these roads, look at the toll motorways in France, they still have accidents no matter how well they are maintained and people continue to use them.

 

I am not pro government, I am not anti government I just try to look at things rationally and make my own decisions based on my understanding, I really wish i knew more people like you and casek and others because I would actually enjoy talking about these things rather than the barrage of typing and corrections to my awful spelling, sadly none of my friends take the time to try and look at the world around them and the importance of reasoned discussions and listening to other peoples opinions

[TheoHuxtable..]

do i think the government should pave streets? nope.

you are correct you are a roads socialist if you believe they should.

 

Care to explain why? You'd rather have private corporations & businesses pave our roads? The roads would probably be mismatch as different companies will use a different grades of asphalt and traffic stripes. And then someone's got to pay them. Will the people that live on these streets be responsible to pay these companies? Then you'd see a lot of neglect happening because people typically want to stretch their dollar in order to save.

[angelofdeath]

I was disgusted that tax money was used to bail out these private companies, it isn't like all these small mom and pop stores going out of business can go to the government and say well our business went belly up could you bail us out!!

 

lets not forget that alot of the 'mom and pops' are merely 'corporations' that everyone rails against.

small business isnt as in bed with the government as bigger companies are in the US, but they get their share of subsidies, laws passed in their favor. however you are right, mom and pop didnt get bailed out and will have a hard time getting bailed out. that is only because there lobby in the gov. isnt big enough.

 

In the UK, the roads, refuse all those public services are dealt with by the local authority, who gets an annual amount of funding from the government and it is up to them to determine the best way to spend it, it isn't the central government that does these things it is on a local level, when i worked for the local authority we had reports of bad roads etc and we couldn't fix them because the money in the budget had been spent and they couldn't fix them until the next budget year.

 

sounds like we pretty much have the same system. the feds disperse money to the states, as well as states taking in revenue to operate roads. like your mention, with the government budget type system, you will always have delays and non ideal use of resources. as with anything the government does, it doesnt thrive on success, it thrives on failure. the government must fail at most their projects in order to get more money to continue it. otherwise all those people lose jobs. its the exact opposite in the private sector. if you fail at pleasing the consumer, you fail.

 

I can't agree with the comparison of roads to malls, obviously malls will let customers in because the mall is owned by a company who leases space to the shops, the mall makes money from the shops, the shops make money from the public. I don't see how a private company owning roads would make money unless they charge to use it, which is all fine and well as long as there are alternative free routes to get places otherwise you are just restricting the movement of the populace, thus impeeding on your individual freedom to go where you like. I suppose maybe advertising would be a good way for them to make money on the roads? maybe that is an alternative.

 

like i said, i dont know how roads would be funded. most likely it be funded by tolls, i would think.

but whats the big deal? instead of paying .50 on each gallon of gas, you just pay it at a toll booth if you want to drive. but there is no doubt, the private sector will build and maintain the roads MUCH MUCH cheaper than any government can, so it will be cheaper, safer and more efficient. everything the government does, it wastes atleast 40% of what they spend.

 

you make a compelling case about 'freedom to travel' however there is no such thing. really the freedom to 'travel' is the freedom to 'trespass.' where do you draw the line? there is no freedom to enter someones property. these fears are sort of silly. to fear that roads would not allow people to use the roads, is like saying a grocery store wont sell you food. given the high demand of travel, im sure the roads system would operate just like groceries. you just have to pay to use them like you would pay for a gallon of milk, instead of having the government take the money from you. i think just because its not happening today, that is seems so radical. if we had socialized food, we would all think it would be impossible for the market to supply food.

The deaths on roads is more to do with the road users, not the actual roads (not in all instances tho) I don't blame the government for deaths on roads, and i wouldn't hold them responsible, it is driver error, vehicle failure many different factors, even if the roads were toll roads and private ownership we would still have these deaths and people would still need to use these roads, look at the toll motorways in France, they still have accidents no matter how well they are maintained and people continue to use them.

 

you are correct, sure people would still die, but i can guarantee you the death toll would be lower, because roads would be losing money. the person who runs the safer road, would make more. so the incentive would be to try to find ways to decrease death tolls/make your road safer.

you are correct, lots of things lead to read deaths. these are just the proximate causes. the ultimate cause is the road managers. if a restaurant goes out of business, you dont blame the cook for making shitty food, you blame the manager for running the business that way. for keeping the cook who cooks shitty food.

like i said, im not a road owner, so i dont know what policies would work and what wouldnt. maybe, we dont need speed limits. maybe, its not speed that kills alot of people, maybe its the variance in speed between lanes. maybe we all need to drive slower, im not sure. but you can bet if we had competition with roads, each road owner for example, would try different things, research heavily and come out being able to say, they have the safest cross country highway, etc etc.

 

 

 

 

I am not pro government, I am not anti government I just try to look at things rationally and make my own decisions based on my understanding, I really wish i knew more people like you and casek and others because I would actually enjoy talking about these things rather than the barrage of typing and corrections to my awful spelling, sadly none of my friends take the time to try and look at the world around them and the importance of reasoned discussions and listening to other peoples opinions

 

yeah i hear ya. most of my friends dont care about any of this stuff. some do, but most dont.

i can go on a survival forum or a gun board all day long and talk about stuff, but i like talking on here because people are different than those other places. granted i'll get into with the Mccain/bush types on those places, but over all its preaching to the choir. this gives me a chance to try to hone better arguments

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

So.. it's only the fact that they're Republicans or 'conservatives'?

 

Did you read the article?

 

The point I was trying to make had nothing to do with your question. I don't fall into the trap of Republicans vs Democrats. Because they are basically all the same.

 

Throughout the thread people keep going on about how the "Tea Party" protesters are buying into "myths" and have no real clue as to what they are protesting against. All I am saying is that I don't care for the reason they are out there. The fact that they are RIGHT in being against what is being proposed is what matters.

 

I'm not a Republican. So I could careless about that.

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

Yea that is a pretty asinine statement...

 

Did you even understand what I meant by it?

 

Probably not.

 

So talking about asinine statements.

 

I didn't think it was about providing a better health care system for American people, I thought it was more for creating a health care system that is actually for all people regardless of them having Insurance or not.

 

I still do not understand why people think it is such a bad idea to have healthcare for all, seems like a humane thing to do, if your rich enough to be able to afford private healthcare then pay for it, if you can't afford private healthcare then at least you have some provided by the government.

 

I swear America is the only plae that seems to have this view on healthcare, if they tried to get rid of the National Health Service in the UK there would be uproar, I personally would fight for all I had to make sure we have a nationally provided free healthcare programme, which is something that all countries should have.

 

Just because private companies make so much money from Healthcare in the US the big businesses are against it because it would eat into the shareholder profits, boo fucking hoo

 

Personally I think that a doctor refusing healthcare to someone because they don't have insurance goes against the hippocratic oath of doctors to ethically practise medicine

 

 

Apparently you didn't read the article I posted before my statement. It pretty much goes hand in hand.

 

AOD also explained why insurance companies are so important now.

 

This argument is just like watching a dog chase it's tail though. You come around saying how it's the right thing to do. The points against a National Health Care system are provided, they are admitted to be "good points" and than ignored. Repeat.

 

Every time I get into a conversation with someone about this and I provide my reasons against this, he/she looks at me like I'm the most cold-hearted son of a bitch to walk the Earth. All of my reasons are thrown out the window and I am no longer human.

 

It is what it is. It's going to happen regardless. Even if there was a wide spread revolt.

[Decyferon]

Sorry Ilotsmybrain, I should have referred back to the bill and made my points relevant to that, it is confusing for me because the healthcare system in the US is completely different to here. I was just stating my opinion on how I think a healthcare service should be provided.

 

I do not believe people should be forced to buy healthcare insurance, even if given tax credits or tax breaks for it. The taxes that you pay should be used to fund a healthcare service. A healthcare service should be free, with no other expense than from the taxes you pay, there should be no exceptions due to pre-existing conditions or anything like that, Insurance shouldn't even be associated with healthcare, in my opinion.

 

In the article posted I really agree with these points:

 

'What the US needs is a single-payer not-for-profit health system that pays doctors and nurses sufficiently that they will undertake the arduous training and accept the stress and risks of dealing with illness and diseases.'

 

'The only way to reduce the cost of health care is to take the profit and paperwork out of health care. '

 

I did work for a private healthcare insurance company here, and I left that job because I disagreed with the principle of healthcare insurance, the customer's had a limit to how much could be spent on treatment per year, they were excluded for pre-existing conditions. Yes, they could go to private hospitals and not have to worry about waiting lists but an NHS hospital was always better suited to treat them than a private hospital as the private hospitals are a business that thinks about profits and overheads.

 

So yes, I disagree with the proposed bill if it is forcing people to pay additional costs on top of their taxes for healthcare, if the US governemnt cannot manage it books to provide free healthcare then they have major issues and should look at the way they manage the country.

 

When I say social healthcare I mean just that, that the government funds it and your taxes pay for it, I'm sorry if you thought I was just dismissing your point, I should have read the article more thoroughly before commenting.

[Decyferon]

AOD, do you think that if private companies were maintaining the roads they would maintain them to such a high standard that there would be no problems or do you think at some point the bottom line would mean they would start cutting corners and reducing costs, which is essentially what business do, they look to cut costs and increase profits. I know you say that people would stop using the roads if accidents remained high etc, but will there be multiple roads to the same destination ran by seperate companies or would one company have a monopoly in a certain area?

 

Also, what happens at the end of the month and I may have no money and I need to get to work but I don't have money for the toll, and I need to use that road to get to work. Would there still be free maintained roads to use or would I essentially be screwed because I can't afford the toll. I know I would need to take the responsibility to make sure money was available but sometimes things arise that you haven't budgetted for eat away at your funds.

[nsmbfan]

whole page. too long. didn't read.

 

you can tell who's full of bullshit by the character count in their posts.

 

look, here's the point i'm making, and you don't have to read a lot:

 

Tea Party - not good enough. Anything short of absolute revolution is like pissing in the wind.

[angelofdeath]

AOD, do you think that if private companies were maintaining the roads they would maintain them to such a high standard that there would be no problems or do you think at some point the bottom line would mean they would start cutting corners and reducing costs, which is essentially what business do, they look to cut costs and increase profits. I know you say that people would stop using the roads if accidents remained high etc, but will there be multiple roads to the same destination ran by seperate companies or would one company have a monopoly in a certain area?

 

Also, what happens at the end of the month and I may have no money and I need to get to work but I don't have money for the toll, and I need to use that road to get to work. Would there still be free maintained roads to use or would I essentially be screwed because I can't afford the toll. I know I would need to take the responsibility to make sure money was available but sometimes things arise that you haven't budgetted for eat away at your funds.

 

sure, i think it would be just any other business.

i think you will have your super nice maintained roads and your shitty roads.

i think some government roads are maintained TO MUCH. lots of waste. every year the highway at my work was getting repaved. i talked to one of the guys and he didnt know why they kept repaving it other than... they have to keep doing it to keep their budget met.

 

who knows... im sure there would be a drive to put roads in the most economically efficient areas. hell, if you live in the middle of no where, you already probably have shitty roads. and alot of those people moved out there just for those shitty roads... to keep outsiders away from them. i know when paved roads went into the area where my family is from, i always heard them bitching about it.

i guess it would all depend if people could buy up enough land to run another road.

i think the only thing that could happen at present would be to sell off the current roads and allow private enterprise to take them over.

 

yeah, i would think if you couldnt pay and a toll was the method, you couldnt pass.

that being said. im sure a pass system like we have would be around. actually, i've heard alot of people speculate that speed pass type system would be the way private roads would operate. you get on the highway at point x, you get off at y and then it would be added to your tab like your electric bill. even the toll roads around here, where you have to pay a toll to cross a bridge, you can drive through without paying, but you'll get a bill in the mail.

but overall, i'd imagine it would be like eating... if you forgot your money, you cant buy a sandwich for lunch. unless the roads have some sort of system implemented with the passes, license plate scans.

 

i think at the very least, they should allow some private roads to atleast compete with the government roads. im sure if some company came up with a scheme to bypass certain high congested areas of big cities for example, and you had to pay to get on this turn pike, im sure they would do alot of business... alot of people dont like sitting in traffic.

the market usually takes care of this sort of stuff... you might have to wait inline for a while at a walmart, UNLESS you want to go to target and pay slightly more but the lines are usually much much much shorter.

[TheoHuxtable..]

AOD: Can you answer my question, above?

[nsmbfan]

Capitalism has worked for all of us so far. It's basically Darwinism, only the strong survive.

 

The problem lies in the fact that WE PROTECT THE WEAK. Because we believe in human rights. The right that everybody has the right to live. This is where old ideas meet new problems.

 

For me to make money, someone must spend money.

For me to eat, someone must starve.

For me to piss in a clean bathroom, someone has to clean shit.

 

 

AND IT WAS WORKING JUST FINE UNTIL WE GREW A GOD DAMN CONSCIENCE.

 

The issue is that powers have consolidated to a few men. These men run the world and control who lives and dies. PEOPLE MUST DIE FOR OTHER PEOPLE TO LIVE - IT'S JUST THAT SIMPLE.

 

I am glad I can sit idly by on the winning team. Loving it in fact. The hell I live in is called wage slavery. Better than real slavery. But they sell ideas to us (usually our ideas, sold back to us), so we can work hard to achieve the thing we covet most.

 

So we bury ourselves in debt, we work 5 days out of the week and rest for 2, all to maintain some lame ass status quo... throw in drugs like Xanax, now you have a nation of zombies.

 

And they convinced us we are the greatest country in the world. Makes sense, it's the only one I'm familiar with... why wouldn't it be?

[angelofdeath]

Care to explain why? You'd rather have private corporations & businesses pave our roads? The roads would probably be mismatch as different companies will use a different grades of asphalt and traffic stripes. And then someone's got to pay them. Will the people that live on these streets be responsible to pay these companies? Then you'd see a lot of neglect happening because people typically want to stretch their dollar in order to save.

 

we have different machine/ tool and die makers. does the world need a police force to enforce that fasteners such as nuts and bolts all have the correct thread, pitch and diameter? standardization is a huge part of capitalism.

roads are mismatched now. different localities take care of their of the roads differently. within 1 hour drive of me, you can be on the most manicured roads and freshly paved asphalt you have ever seen, cross into a major metro area and you see pot holes, poorly cared for streets and sidewalks and on the other extreme you have single lane country roads with no center stripe. go a little further and you are on gravel roads. we dont have standardization right now.

it would be in everyones best interest to standardize. but so what if they are not all alike? our stores arent standardized. but i think its pretty safe to say the design that the most people liked the best would be the design in most use.

 

i dont know how exactly it would work out, i dont have a crystal ball.

most town house complexes around me are all on privately owned roads. the town house complex owns them and maintains them. i'd imagine this is built into the rent/home owners association fees.

the malls are all privately owned and maintained. the town house complexes have nice roads, nicer than the county roads in most of the areas around me.

[TheoHuxtable..]

we have different machine/ tool and die makers. does the world need a police force to enforce that fasteners such as nuts and bolts all have the correct thread, pitch and diameter? standardization is a huge part of capitalism.

roads are mismatched now. different localities take care of their of the roads differently. within 1 hour drive of me, you can be on the most manicured roads and freshly paved asphalt you have ever seen, cross into a major metro area and you see pot holes, poorly cared for streets and sidewalks and on the other extreme you have single lane country roads with no center stripe. go a little further and you are on gravel roads. we dont have standardization right now.

it would be in everyones best interest to standardize. but so what if they are not all alike? our stores arent standardized. but i think its pretty safe to say the design that the most people liked the best would be the design in most use.

 

i dont know how exactly it would work out, i dont have a crystal ball.

most town house complexes around me are all on privately owned roads. the town house complex owns them and maintains them. i'd imagine this is built into the rent/home owners association fees.

the malls are all privately owned and maintained. the town house complexes have nice roads, nicer than the county roads in most of the areas around me.

 

 

I live in something similar to a townhouse area, that has its own roads on its property, and thus the company has to maintain its own roads. But guess what? They still have to abide by local GOVERNMENT when it comes to lines, street signs, etc.

 

Yes, some streets aren't as maintained as others. But you can't expect every single street to be paved exactly the same with the same wear & tear. But that would be even moreso under a privatized road system. Because since capitalism thrives on profit, roads in low-income areas would receive far less funding than high-income areas.

 

A country road being made out of dirt or gravel doesn't seem to bother many. These aren't high-trafficked areas. Who cares about some small obscure road deep in the forest that maybe 20 cars might use that whole day?

 

I agree thought about standardization. However you are wrong to say that all nuts & bolts have the same diameter and thread. In fact that's ridiculous. Anyone can go in a hardware store and find numerous different sizes and fittings for such tools. And you have to match that with whatever you're connecting it to. But I'm not sure how various companies reach a consensus on standardization. From what I've seen, standardization is reached when consumers choose a product over another, or a particular corporation achieves a monopoly in which all competing brands are eliminated, and the consumer has no choice. For example, Blu-Ray is now the standard HD video disc format. It happened because one company bogarted the other. Just as VHS overtook Betamax. And I'm assuming the same with USB overtaking other memory drive formats.

[angelofdeath]

the nuts and bolt example is in reference to... if a nut has a 14mm head, all 14mm nuts will have this size head that fits a 14mm socket. when a bolt has a 8mm 1.25 fine pitch, it will be the same as another companies 8mm 1.25 fine pitch.

 

is a townhouse complex having not having a stop sign the worst thing in the world? im sure, the townhouse complex managers can figure out where to put a stop sign. im definitely not scared of this.

 

ok, so if public funded roads arent all maintained the same, why is it bad if they arent under a private system?

in fact, as i mentioned in another post, alot of people move far away just to be on those gravel roads. when they put a paved road to my families farm in the 90's i never heard the end of it. the topic still comes up how much they hate it.

 

low income areas (or rural areas, and you said its fine for rural areas to have shitty roads) have shitty roads right now with public funding. if you do into the city and go to a shitty neighborhood, you are guaranteed to find potholes and dirty ass streets. if you to the fancy ass neighborhood, they have better roads.

so if the roads were privatized, it doesnt sound like much would change. if a company maintains roads in the ghetto, the roads probably wouldnt be as nice as they would in the area where the mcmansions are at. what other point is there in being rich or striving to be rich, than to get better service? the poor probably dont eat filet mignon every night, they dont live in mansions, whats the big deal if their roads get maintained less than a road in a rich area? most of these people have the victim mindset anyway and destroy everything as it is.

 

i think we are on the same page with standardization... if a company makes a dvd, it will play in a dvd player, etc. through competition other media forms go broke and the winners take over.

maybe something sort of relevant to this is how when a product becomes the industry standard, sometime you even refer to the object by the brand name. like 'frigidaire' is common for any refrigerator. 'bush hog' is common for any rotary mower deck pulled behind a tractor. vise grips for any locking plier. channel locks for any slip joint pliers, etc etc.

[TheoHuxtable..]

moore's new movie will do one thing i like.

from what im hearing it apparently calls out chris dodd as being a key player in the housing collapse, bankster bailouts etc. this could inadvertently help elect a very free market guy who is going to be challenging dodd for his senate seat this year... peter schiff.

 

other than that...moore knows as much about economics as does a kindergarten student.

 

moore supposedly talks about how workers co-ops are the only way to run companies. so someone called him on it and asked if his production company was worker owned... and he said something stupid like...'well, that worker co-op thing doesnt apply to artistic endeavors such as this...'

moore continually talks about the evils of the market and racism, yet he lives in a town with hardly any minorities and invests in the stock market and owns shares in many many big name corporations. more is no better than any of the neo con tea party activists... both are hypocritical idiots.

 

the 'socialist scare tactics' went much further back than the cold war. the old right formed in the 20's and 30's as a direct reaction to the progressive movement and got the biggest boost against the new deal. the coalition was made up of far lefties, businessmen, anarchists, right wingers, etc.

during this time period there was mainly 2 political ideologies. fascism and socialism (hey, just like today!) the people who favored liberty were few in numbers.

 

Yes, my mistake. I know the Cold War is considered to have technically lasted from 1945-1991. However when I was thinking of the Red Scare, I was thinking of the 20's and 30's.

 

sure, the governments were scary because they were ALL of the above. fascist, socialist, totalitarian, etc. socialism cannot exist without alot of guns on the side of the government. the state must be used to coerce the people, rob them for their initiatives and programs, and regulate everything about thier lives. so yes, socialism is scary. socialism as you are talking about, on the national level cannot be done through a free approach, you must force the citizens to participate. it is not like the nunnery or the kibbutz which are voluntary forms of socialism. why not just allow whoever wants to partcipate in the socialism, participate, and those that dont want to, can be left out? this would be the only set up of socialism where you could say there is no totalitarianism going on.

 

do i think the government should pave streets? nope.

you are correct you are a roads socialist if you believe they should.

 

the USPS is a monopoly. fed ex, UPS, DHS, etc cannot compete on carrying first class mail. lysander spooner tried this in the mid 1800's. see what happened to him. UPS, etc exploits a small whole in the postal regulations that doesnt forbid other carriers from carrying packages. but first class mail...is a government monopoly. if you want to use first class letter service, you have no choice but the post office.

 

Is this necessarily a bad thing? Okay, why does the USPS have a "monopoly" on first class mail? Who is stopping FedEx or UPS from having their own first class mail? Is it because the USPS offers the cheapest prices that they can't compete with? If this is the case. then this benefits the consumer. Which is good for the economy.

 

but you are correct to say that the post office is a government institution.

people who are anti socialism are not hypocrites if they walk on a side walk, use US federal reserve notes or send letters, because there is no other alternative. the government has monopolies of these things.

 

as with everything, all these conversations wouldnt be happening if you social engineers allowed voluntary cooperation with your programs and initiatives. but of course, this would not be the socialist planned society you wish for. you need to crack a few eggs, to make an omelete right?

 

 

 

 

On Rachel Maddow's show the other night, she spoke about the government during the Great Depression putting millions of Americans to work on establishing our National Parks. National Parks are a way to preserve the natural beauty of this nation for the benefit, virtually non-profit. There may be gift shops at national parks, I'm not sure. And there are probably hotels and ot. But National Parks are free.

 

Are national parks "evil" because they were instituted & preserved by the government? Are national parks the big bad evil forms of socialism?

 

Now imagine if we allowed your utopian view of full-fledged capitalism, and had corporations & business manage the area which is now Yellowstone. Since capitalism thrives on profit, profit would obviously have to be made. Yellowstone would have hotels built on it, townhouses, and amusement parks with attractions like Old Faithful.

 

Do you think parks in general are evil, since these were created by the government? City parks in the US are run by the local governments. If capitalists had full control over Manhattan, Central Park would not exist because it would be covered in more skyscrapers, brownstones, hotels, and high-rise apartment complexes. An open park that's free for the public to enjoy does not benefit the capitalist. But with "socialism", public parks work extremely well.

[TheoHuxtable..]

the nuts and bolt example is in reference to... if a nut has a 14mm head, all 14mm nuts will have this size head that fits a 14mm socket. when a bolt has a 8mm 1.25 fine pitch, it will be the same as another companies 8mm 1.25 fine pitch.

 

Of course! It's called measurements. Of course one company's 14mm nut is going to be the same size as another company's 14mm nut. That really has nothing to do with standardization. We also have adjustable wrenches as well that fit any head. Speaking from experience, there is no such "standardization when it comes to nuts, bolts, rivets, nails, etc. That's why you buy adjustable wrenches, different size hammers, etc.

 

is a townhouse complex having not having a stop sign the worst thing in the world? im sure, the townhouse complex managers can figure out where to put a stop sign. im definitely not scared of this.

 

No, but it is necessary. And we can't put our faith in how traffic signs are placed based on what a manager "thinks" or "feels". They have to abide by a certain GOVERNMENT rulebook when doing so. And for good reason. There could be lawsuits against the owners if someone's hit by a car because there were no stop signs when there should've been.

 

 

ok, so if public funded roads arent all maintained the same, why is it bad if they arent under a private system?

 

A private system would be worse, is what I'm saying. Again, the motivation behind capitalism is profit. An area with lower profit for the corporation would also mean degraded funding. A "socialist" government road system does not thrive on profit, but for fulfilling needs of the people.

 

 

in fact, as i mentioned in another post, alot of people move far away just to be on those gravel roads. when they put a paved road to my families farm in the 90's i never heard the end of it. the topic still comes up how much they hate it.

 

low income areas (or rural areas, and you said its fine for rural areas to have shitty roads)

 

 

I didn't say it was "shitty". A country road should look like a country road. I don't expect a road in the middle of a forest in Kentucky to look like Broadway Avenue in Manhattan. Different roads have their place in different areas. An example of a "shitty" road in the country would be something filled with potholes, or some muddy road that blends in with swamp with dangerous boulders in the middle. A simple dirt path or a gravel road near a farm is not shitty.

 

have shitty roads right now with public funding. if you do into the city and go to a shitty neighborhood, you are guaranteed to find potholes and dirty ass streets. if you to the fancy ass neighborhood, they have better roads.

so if the roads were privatized, it doesnt sound like much would change.

 

It would be worse. Don't believe me? Look at the "private" homes built in the ghetto and the "private" homes built in a wealthy suburb. The contrast is far greater than the difference between public roads in both neighborhoods.

 

if a company maintains roads in the ghetto, the roads probably wouldnt be as nice as they would in the area where the mcmansions are at. what other point is there in being rich or striving to be rich, than to get better service? the poor probably dont eat filet mignon every night, they dont live in mansions, whats the big deal if their roads get maintained less than a road in a rich area? most of these people have the victim mindset anyway and destroy everything as it is.

 

i think we are on the same page with standardization... if a company makes a dvd, it will play in a dvd player, etc. through competition other media forms go broke and the winners take over.

maybe something sort of relevant to this is how when a product becomes the industry standard, sometime you even refer to the object by the brand name. like 'frigidaire' is common for any refrigerator. 'bush hog' is common for any rotary mower deck pulled behind a tractor. vise grips for any locking plier. channel locks for any slip joint pliers, etc etc.

[shai]

the USPS is a monopoly. fed ex, UPS, DHS, etc cannot compete on carrying first class mail. lysander spooner tried this in the mid 1800's. see what happened to him. UPS, etc exploits a small whole in the postal regulations that doesnt forbid other carriers from carrying packages. but first class mail...is a government monopoly. if you want to use first class letter service, you have no choice but the post office.

 

What about bike messengers? I carried plenty of #10 envelopes during my stint. Sure, it costs more, but there's your free market in practice

[Smart]

I'm not sorry. Fuck you Ilotsmybrain. I stick by my original assertion that you made a stupis ass circumlocutive statement and you flopped. PERIOD. Take your politics out of this. It's all about fail and laugh. Guess where I stand.

[angelofdeath]

Of course! It's called measurements. Of course one company's 14mm nut is going to be the same size as another company's 14mm nut. That really has nothing to do with standardization. We also have adjustable wrenches as well that fit any head. Speaking from experience, there is no such "standardization when it comes to nuts, bolts, rivets, nails, etc. That's why you buy adjustable wrenches, different size hammers, etc.

 

the question is how is the measurement of a 14mm nut determined?

any nut labeled 14mm around the world, will fit a 14mm socket. according to your theory, if the free market runs rampant, every company would label their 14mm nuts '14mm' yet they would all use a different scale to measure the 14mm. so ones 14 might technically be 15 by another companies scale.

its absurd.

adjustable wrenches arent in existence because evil private companies dont know how to label a 14mm nut. they are exist to fill the market for people who dont want to buy an entire wrench set or socket set, in different drive sizes to try to do a job. different size nuts and bolts serve different purposes. if i am reading your post right, you are saying the market isnt 'standardized' in the nut and bolt sector because different size bolts and nuts exist. they exist, in all sizes and shapes and metals to serve different purposes.

 

on a side note, if you are not familiar with working with your hands and tools and working with nuts, bolts and fasteners you will quickly learn that adjustable tools just wont cut it if you get beyond being a home handyman.

 

the point i am making, i'll say it again, is if one company makes a 14mm 1.25 fine pitched bolt, the other company making the 14mm 1.25 fine pitched bolt will be the exact same size and thread pitch as the first. this is standardization.

 

 

 

No, but it is necessary. And we can't put our faith in how traffic signs are placed based on what a manager "thinks" or "feels". They have to abide by a certain GOVERNMENT rulebook when doing so. And for good reason. There could be lawsuits against the owners if someone's hit by a car because there were no stop signs when there should've been.

 

so wait. we cant trust property owners to put up stop signs properly, to think for themselves and to determine what works best in their own situation, but we can trust a handful of bureaucrats hundreds of miles away in a state capital room to tell us where to put them. got ya.

if these law suits happen because a private property owned misplaced a sign, dont you think this would concern only the parties involved? dont you think the property owner would in effect lose money because of his stupidity?

 

if this is the case, and governments are always right, why cant i sue a government for misplacing a stop sign if i get hit, because of sign 'misplacement?'

 

A private system would be worse, is what I'm saying. Again, the motivation behind capitalism is profit. An area with lower profit for the corporation would also mean degraded funding. A "socialist" government road system does not thrive on profit, but for fulfilling needs of the people.

 

so according to you people would all be dead if we allow capitalists to profit off of peoples hunger and supply groceries? sure the motivation is profit. what reason do you work? you seek to profit off your employer! you dont work for free do you? do you place value in your labor? well, then by god you are profiting off of your employer! there is nothing wrong with this, it is great!

 

sure, an area with lower profit would mean degraded funding. just like how the state determines that poor rural people dont need nice improved roads with year round snow removal.

 

a socialist road system doesnt thrive on the needs of the people, it thrives on what bureaucrats needs are. there is no pricing system, so how can you monitor efficiency? socialism cannot calculate.

if government roads were perfect and great, there would be very few road deaths (much much much less than 40K a year) and there would be no traffic congestion in cities. i have yet to hear of one person who likes to wait in traffic.

until they solve this, i will denounce socialist roads.

 

I didn't say it was "shitty". A country road should look like a country road. I don't expect a road in the middle of a forest in Kentucky to look like Broadway Avenue in Manhattan. Different roads have their place in different areas. An example of a "shitty" road in the country would be something filled with potholes, or some muddy road that blends in with swamp with dangerous boulders in the middle. A simple dirt path or a gravel road near a farm is not shitty.

 

why not let the market determine this?

some people on country roads who are poor, on welfare might have to walk to a store 20 miles away, isnt this an injustice? by golly, we need to improve these roads for these poor people! right? why is it that the inner city poor are the only people you want to focus on?

 

you are right, a road where there are no people, will not be in the same shape or quality, as a road in manhattan. since you acknowledge there isnt much wrong with this, why are you so mad that a road in a poor neighborhood is worse than a road in a rich neighborhood? they are like this now! so whats the big deal?

 

 

It would be worse. Don't believe me? Look at the "private" homes built in the ghetto and the "private" homes built in a wealthy suburb. The contrast is far greater than the difference between public roads in both neighborhoods.

 

so why not apply this logic to more things than just roads?

poor people dont dress, eat, travel, live or have the same belongings as rich people. how do you want to battle this injustice? will you now be calling for socialist food distribution because the rich are eating better than the poor? will you be calling for socialist housing distribution housing because floyd mayweather has a bigger house than the poor black guy in the ghetto? do you also support socialist distribution of clothing, because rich people dress better than poor people? i mean for shits sake, we cant have a private post office! i mean, the post office is so profitable and efficient and all, there is no way a private letter carrier could ever compete with them, right? besides, the poor would get bad service and no one would be able to receive packages in the ghetto because they are all black and capitalists are racist and they charge way more to deliver to these areas and the poor cant afford it!

due to a few loopholes in some 19th century postal laws protecting the post office from competition in letter carrying, we can all see that UPS and FED EX are much better at delivering things. if they werent any good at it, they would go out of business, unlike the post office. they are only around today because of the laws protecting their monopoly and from gov subsidies, exemption from taxes, etc.

 

what other point is there of being rich than to get better service??

these are the facts of life.

lets face some more facts. the poor are much richer than any of the caesars, kings or rulers of the past. they all have indoor running water, air conditioning, internet, tv, cable, cellphones, cars, (sometimes a few cars). you can thank capitalism for all of this.

 

roads might be worse, in poorer areas, they might not. how do you really know? the poor dont eat caviar and 1000 dollar bottles of wine and they probably dont drive on roads that are as good as a road in a rich neighborhood. poor rural folk probably dont drive on roads as good as rich folks either (but hey, these people dont count to you, anyway)