Topic: If the minimum reason a government exists.... (Read 3653 times)

The population at large, eh?
The libraries in the US expend an estimated 15 billion dollars annually.
There are over 311 million people in the US.
That's less than $50 per person. Even if only half of all people actually use the library, that's only $100.
Do you think the "population at large" cannot afford $10 per month?

I think libraries are nearly defunct. But otherwise, I'd be willing to contribute to a library, far more than my "fair share" since I think they provide(d) a valuable service.

Unfortunately, the local library has turned into a political punching bag between the local government and state government. It's one of those "oh noes, we'll have to raise taxes or you'll lose that you like. Don't bring up all those s that you don't like. Schools! Hospitals! End of the World!"

You appear to be equating a system that possibly worked well for a group of moderately wealthy white men with a system that is functional for the population at large.

You seem to focus on things being "free." I have some bad news. Nothing is free. Cheap is doable. Free is not allowed by physics. Since everything has costs, when you say "I want something for free," what you are really saying is "I want someone else to pay for this." When you say "I want free, tax-supported X," what you are really saying is "I want to force someone else to pay for X."

Libraries have costs, too, of course. Books, salaries, possibly rent. These costs are nothing new, they existed a couple hundred years ago, too. And like so many other problems, the founders figured out a solution for this one, too:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_library#United_States

I'm all for having professionals teach students instead of unskilled parents (I really dislike homeschooling), but library? Are you serious? When was the last time you've been to one? It has been years for me, and I was in school not too long ago. We used PDF articles and study materials on our computers and tablets, and PowerPoint presentations as study guides, and used the internet (even Wikipedia) to do our reading and research. All out-of-copyright classics required for reading in English lit classes are freely available as well.

As for the rest, I'm not saying that's how it will happen, but in an AnCap society, without a centralized government social system dividing us into counties, precincts, and countries, we could have people form social groups themselves. For example, a poor immigrant community might form a tribe of sorts (Neil Stephenson called them phyles), which will want to compete against other groups in the market financially and socially. To do that, they might put social pressure on each other to do well with raising kids, and even have their own dedicated educator that is willing to take poor kids in for free. Remember, they are not competing based on the teacher making a profit, they are competing as a corporation, trying to get their kids to either run more successful businesses than their neighbors, or get into more prestigious positions elsewhere.

Here is one thing a central elected authority would be better than an AnCap type, public safety.  We should not need to volunteer for safety of the public, that is something that should be mandatory.  Without a mandatory 3rd party with all submit too, it would be too easy for companies to find ways to skirt this and harm the public. 

Obviously I know it happens now but because we are talking about theoretical forms of government like AnCap, then I am lending support to a properly run democratic republic and adhered to our Constitution (With almost all amendments) and Bill of Rights.

No don't like emo. More into rock.

"Fuck you, I won't do what you tell me."


But back on topic. I am all for compromises, if they are made voluntarily by all parties involved. That is not the case here. Or as blahblahblah put it: AND SO DO YOU! Sorry bro, but I don't think so.

Where is your compromise? And maybe that's why your world view has not manifested - it's too absence of any type of compromise for it to be accepted. Sucks to be you, man.

Voting is compromise. That's where the compromise is.

Tyranny, or death!

That is exactly my point. You believe that you have the right to enforce your will upon others because that is how YOU prefer to live. Where is the compromise?

This is the core of our differences. I do not agree with your position, but I accept your opinion, your morals and how you prefer to live your life. But you do not accept mine.

Instead you rationalize that you have the right to enforce your will upon others by using violence and force through the leaders you voted for.

I disagree that we should reinforce a class society any more than we do.

Myrkul is correct on his point about "basic education" and what is included in one.  Myrkul now gets a reward:  John Taylor Gatto on Education it has 5 parts over 5 hours and it is worth watching.  I have been collecting many of the source documents to verify, so don't trust him or me.  For subjects like this, do your homework. 

Huh? Do they deny jobs based on the school you went to where you live?


Oh,  I see. So you are just a psychopath. I'm sure I'm not the first to tell you this, but the world doesn't work like this. We aren't all ready to kill or starve each other, or force children to sell their own organs to survive, with the government the only thing keeping us at bay. Seek some psychological help, dude!

What makes you think they would be? If you demonstrate better competency in a skill than someone who was more "educated" (as is often the case, especially in technical careers), why would you not get the job? If you did not get the job, why would you not then go into direct competition with your prospective employer, offering the same service, better, for lower rates? I say again, you're clearly not cut out to be a capitalist.

No, because they don't see that as their job. Does Google make cars? Does government make cell phones? What's your point?


Are you such a horrible person that the only reason you give anything to support those poor, uneducated, retard orphans is because the government is forcing you, and believe thats the only reason everyone else gives to charity, too? Do you not know that mega corporations like Walmart, Target, Mcdonalds, and others give millions to charity every year, despite it going against their profit models, sometimes because they want good publicity for their company, and sometimes because their owners are human beings, too, and feel charitable? You have a pretty bleak view of the world   

First come first serve.

Or even the whole post you quoted?

Sorry. I didn't read the whole thread.

I don't think he ever suggested they would be. Note: "there is a place for capitalism in regard to things with inherent scarcity." such as resources. For things like information, however, a gift economy would work fine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem

How will resources be allocated efficiently in a gift culture?