If the minimum reason a government exists.... - page 2.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: ElectricMucus on December 22, 2012, 04:47:33 PM

You are right, it would work. But I think it would even turn out to be worse for the proletariat (sorry to use that term)
IMO capitalism has no purpose when gift culture could replace it, there is a place for capitalism in regard to things with inherent scarcity.

For instance I am for the full abolishment of copyright and intellectual property since they only depend on artificial scarcity.
Education, obviously would be affected by this as well. Can't buy the hardcopy version? download it.

That would make knowledge free (as in beer). Completely free knowledge, coupled with the other societal changes I advocate, such as the removal of licensing restrictions for entry into professions, would make upward mobility a very easy thing to do, at least to your level of ability in your chosen field.

ElectricMucus

legendary

Activity: 1666

Merit: 1057

Marketing manager - GO MP

You are right, it would work. But I think it would even turn out to be worse for the proletariat (sorry to use that term)
IMO capitalism has no purpose when gift culture could replace it, there is a place for capitalism in regard to things with inherent scarcity.

For instance I am for the full abolishment of copyright and intellectual property since they only depend on artificial scarcity.
Education, obviously would be affected by this as well. Can't buy the hardcopy version? download it.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: ElectricMucus on December 22, 2012, 03:35:37 PM

Quote from: myrkul on December 22, 2012, 03:30:15 PM

Quote from: ElectricMucus on December 22, 2012, 03:26:42 PM

Well for once in order to be low priced it would need to sell the labour of the students to compensate for the lack of other income. I view this as problematic to qualify as good education.

That's one way to generate extra income, but it doesn't address - or even touch upon - the barriers that require the extra income. The service is education. Why can it not be provided at low price?

It can but only at decreased value.

You get what you pay for, in other words, yes?

Do you know what the differences are between a poor man's television and a rich man's television? Bells and whistles. Picture-in-picture, more channels, 3-d, extra pixels. But they're both televisions, and both do the same job. A poor person may not be able to afford the best education for their child. But teaching them how to learn, and giving them the necessary skills to learn is not hard, nor expensive, and asking them "What do you want to be when you grow up," and then pointing them to the knowledge required for that particular profession is not much more added expense. That's basic education. Extra stuff, like social studies, history, etc, can be added if you want, or studied on their own. Learning is best accomplished when you want to learn.

ElectricMucus

legendary

Activity: 1666

Merit: 1057

Marketing manager - GO MP

Quote from: myrkul on December 22, 2012, 03:30:15 PM

Quote from: ElectricMucus on December 22, 2012, 03:26:42 PM

Well for once in order to be low priced it would need to sell the labour of the students to compensate for the lack of other income. I view this as problematic to qualify as good education.

That's one way to generate extra income, but it doesn't address - or even touch upon - the barriers that require the extra income. The service is education. Why can it not be provided at low price?

It can but only at decreased value. In order to be still profitable there would have to be certain things be employed which improve profitability already in use in commerce.
Like overbooking. (there would be more students assigned to a class than there are seats to account for the probability of absence)
Or labour which doesn't improve education. (highly repetitive for instance)

At some point low priced education wouldn't even qualify as education any more. (by my standards)

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: ElectricMucus on December 22, 2012, 03:26:42 PM

Well for once in order to be low priced it would need to sell the labour of the students to compensate for the lack of other income. I view this as problematic to qualify as good education.

That's one way to generate extra income, but it doesn't address - or even touch upon - the barriers that require the extra income. The service is education. Why can it not be provided at low price?

What are the costs that preclude this?

ElectricMucus

legendary

Activity: 1666

Merit: 1057

Marketing manager - GO MP

Well for once in order to be low priced it would need to sell the labour of the students to compensate for the lack of other income. I view this as problematic to qualify as good education.

The next thing is education would be very specific early on, depending on which employees the shareholders think to need in to future for their other companies. For instance it might not be a requirement for industry to hire people with decent language skills. And finally at some point not only the school but also the housing (of their workforce) would be owned by the same shareholders putting people who are in the system very dependent on it.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: TheButterZone on December 22, 2012, 03:09:55 PM

Quote from: myrkul on December 22, 2012, 02:56:10 PM

Quote from: ElectricMucus on December 22, 2012, 02:37:39 PM

Quote from: myrkul on December 22, 2012, 02:28:09 PM

Quote from: ElectricMucus on December 22, 2012, 02:16:15 PM

Well, most charities and organisations are per definition non-profiting. (Hence not-for-profit)

But saying that they could be profitable is splitting hairs: They would be structured very differently if so.

Yes, but he's saying that those services can not be provided profitably at a low price. Which is, as TBZ points out, arrogant stupidity (a specialty of wawahwah's). And even if they were provided on a charitable basis, private charity is 233% more efficient than government programs. Which makes sense, since they're competing for charity dollars, instead of stealing tax dollars.

I would counter that they could not be provided to the poor, or in detail they wouldn't be able to provide services at a negative income.

So, you're basically saying the same thing: that they could not be made to turn a profit at low prices. Why? What barriers do you see to, say, low price schooling?

The government itself. Namely, taxation and regulation.

Well, yes, that's my stance, but I'm more interested in his.

TheButterZone

legendary

Activity: 3038

Merit: 1032

RIP Mommy

Quote from: myrkul on December 22, 2012, 02:56:10 PM

Quote from: ElectricMucus on December 22, 2012, 02:37:39 PM

Quote from: myrkul on December 22, 2012, 02:28:09 PM

Quote from: ElectricMucus on December 22, 2012, 02:16:15 PM

Well, most charities and organisations are per definition non-profiting. (Hence not-for-profit)

But saying that they could be profitable is splitting hairs: They would be structured very differently if so.

Yes, but he's saying that those services can not be provided profitably at a low price. Which is, as TBZ points out, arrogant stupidity (a specialty of wawahwah's). And even if they were provided on a charitable basis, private charity is 233% more efficient than government programs. Which makes sense, since they're competing for charity dollars, instead of stealing tax dollars.

I would counter that they could not be provided to the poor, or in detail they wouldn't be able to provide services at a negative income.

So, you're basically saying the same thing: that they could not be made to turn a profit at low prices. Why? What barriers do you see to, say, low price schooling?

The government itself. Namely, taxation and regulation.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: ElectricMucus on December 22, 2012, 02:37:39 PM

Quote from: myrkul on December 22, 2012, 02:28:09 PM

Quote from: ElectricMucus on December 22, 2012, 02:16:15 PM

Well, most charities and organisations are per definition non-profiting. (Hence not-for-profit)

But saying that they could be profitable is splitting hairs: They would be structured very differently if so.

Yes, but he's saying that those services can not be provided profitably at a low price. Which is, as TBZ points out, arrogant stupidity (a specialty of wawahwah's). And even if they were provided on a charitable basis, private charity is 233% more efficient than government programs. Which makes sense, since they're competing for charity dollars, instead of stealing tax dollars.

I would counter that they could not be provided to the poor, or in detail they wouldn't be able to provide services at a negative income.

So, you're basically saying the same thing: that they could not be made to turn a profit at low prices. Why? What barriers do you see to, say, low price schooling?

ElectricMucus

legendary

Activity: 1666

Merit: 1057

Marketing manager - GO MP

Quote from: myrkul on December 22, 2012, 02:28:09 PM

Quote from: ElectricMucus on December 22, 2012, 02:16:15 PM

Well, most charities and organisations are per definition non-profiting. (Hence not-for-profit)

But saying that they could be profitable is splitting hairs: They would be structured very differently if so.

Yes, but he's saying that those services can not be provided profitably at a low price. Which is, as TBZ points out, arrogant stupidity (a specialty of wawahwah's). And even if they were provided on a charitable basis, private charity is 233% more efficient than government programs. Which makes sense, since they're competing for charity dollars, instead of stealing tax dollars.

I would counter that they could not be provided to the poor, or in detail they wouldn't be able to provide services at a negative income.
I say: Today's non-profiting organisations do not need the Government. But if they were to rely on capitalism that would raise some issues when aiming for a class-free society.
They should rely on gift culture instead.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: ElectricMucus on December 22, 2012, 02:16:15 PM

Well, most charities and organisations are per definition non-profiting. (Hence not-for-profit)

But saying that they could be profitable is splitting hairs: They would be structured very differently if so.

Yes, but he's saying that those services can not be provided profitably at a low price. Which is, as TBZ points out, arrogant stupidity (a specialty of wawahwah's). And even if they were provided on a charitable basis, private charity is 233% more efficient than government programs. Which makes sense, since they're competing for charity dollars, instead of stealing tax dollars.

ElectricMucus

legendary

Activity: 1666

Merit: 1057

Marketing manager - GO MP

Well, most charities and organisations are per definition non-profiting. (Hence not-for-profit)

But saying that they could be profitable is splitting hairs: They would be structured very differently if so.

TheButterZone

legendary

Activity: 3038

Merit: 1032

RIP Mommy

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: myrkul on December 22, 2012, 10:47:49 AM

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: CountSparkle on December 22, 2012, 02:03:54 AM

The OP is giving the Mafia a bad name. They don't break legs, they provide black market jobs for those who need them (making wallets, purses, counterfit clothing, and things like that), and keep neighborhoods clean and safe. Go visit southern Italy some time. Not even drug pushers on the street, because the Mafia has a very dim view of anyone trying to sell drugs to bambini.

Do they also provide schools(1) for normal children whose parents don't have enough money for "home schooling"? What about hospitals(2) for normal non-rich people? Orphanages(3) for normal kids without huge inheritances? Asylums(4) for crazy people without rich relatives, and all those other unprofitable things that Capitalism is unable to provide?

If I had all day, I could probably come up with at least one hundred unique services that governments do but Capitalists won't do, even in a political vacuum, because they're inherently unprofitable. Well, I suppose one could, theoretically donate to 100 different charities, individually inspect their operations and finances, and kindly volunteer to pay extra because of all the other people who don't want to... But I thought Capitalism was supposed to be so much more efficient than a mixed system with some Capitalism and some Socialism -- what gives??

First off, you haven't come up with one service that capitalists wouldn't provide, much less one hundred. If you can't think of a way to make something profitable, you're not cut out to be a capitalist. Get a job working for one.

I already listed four. Furthermore, those are mostly umbrella terms covering a variety of more specific non-profit services. The onus is on you to debunk, if you can. Why must you be so arrogant and stupid?

Blablahblah: "If I can't think of a way to make these general services profitable, THEN NOBODY CAN!"

That is the height of arrogant stupidity.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: myrkul on December 22, 2012, 10:47:49 AM

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: CountSparkle on December 22, 2012, 02:03:54 AM

The OP is giving the Mafia a bad name. They don't break legs, they provide black market jobs for those who need them (making wallets, purses, counterfit clothing, and things like that), and keep neighborhoods clean and safe. Go visit southern Italy some time. Not even drug pushers on the street, because the Mafia has a very dim view of anyone trying to sell drugs to bambini.

Do they also provide schools(1) for normal children whose parents don't have enough money for "home schooling"? What about hospitals(2) for normal non-rich people? Orphanages(3) for normal kids without huge inheritances? Asylums(4) for crazy people without rich relatives, and all those other unprofitable things that Capitalism is unable to provide?

If I had all day, I could probably come up with at least one hundred unique services that governments do but Capitalists won't do, even in a political vacuum, because they're inherently unprofitable. Well, I suppose one could, theoretically donate to 100 different charities, individually inspect their operations and finances, and kindly volunteer to pay extra because of all the other people who don't want to... But I thought Capitalism was supposed to be so much more efficient than a mixed system with some Capitalism and some Socialism -- what gives??

First off, you haven't come up with one service that capitalists wouldn't provide, much less one hundred. If you can't think of a way to make something profitable, you're not cut out to be a capitalist. Get a job working for one.

I already listed four. Furthermore, those are mostly umbrella terms covering a variety of more specific non-profit services. The onus is on you to debunk, if you can. Why must you be so arrogant and stupid?

No, you listed four services which you think cannot be made profitable. I say again: If you can't think of a way to make something profitable, you're not cut out to be a capitalist. Get a job working for one.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: CountSparkle on December 22, 2012, 02:03:54 AM

The OP is giving the Mafia a bad name. They don't break legs, they provide black market jobs for those who need them (making wallets, purses, counterfit clothing, and things like that), and keep neighborhoods clean and safe. Go visit southern Italy some time. Not even drug pushers on the street, because the Mafia has a very dim view of anyone trying to sell drugs to bambini.

Do they also provide schools for normal children whose parents don't have enough money for "home schooling"? What about hospitals for normal non-rich people? Orphanages for normal kids without huge inheritances? Asylums for crazy people without rich relatives, and all those other unprofitable things that Capitalism is unable to provide?

If I had all day, I could probably come up with at least one hundred unique services that governments do but Capitalists won't do, even in a political vacuum, because they're inherently unprofitable. Well, I suppose one could, theoretically donate to 100 different charities, individually inspect their operations and finances, and kindly volunteer to pay extra because of all the other people who don't want to... But I thought Capitalism was supposed to be so much more efficient than a mixed system with some Capitalism and some Socialism -- what gives??

First off, you haven't come up with one service that capitalists wouldn't provide, much less one hundred. If you can't think of a way to make something profitable, you're not cut out to be a capitalist. Get a job working for one.

Secondly, why the need for one person donating to 100 individual charities? Couldn't 100 people, each donating to a charity, provide the same benefit, more efficiently, as 100 people each donating to 100 charities? Seriously. The box. You are stuck inside it.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: CountSparkle on December 22, 2012, 02:03:54 AM

The OP is giving the Mafia a bad name. They don't break legs, they provide black market jobs for those who need them (making wallets, purses, counterfit clothing, and things like that), and keep neighborhoods clean and safe. Go visit southern Italy some time. Not even drug pushers on the street, because the Mafia has a very dim view of anyone trying to sell drugs to bambini.

The Mafia do the same things governments do, and they're typically politer about it when they do.

CountSparkle

member

Activity: 78

Merit: 10

The OP is giving the Mafia a bad name. They don't break legs, they provide black market jobs for those who need them (making wallets, purses, counterfit clothing, and things like that), and keep neighborhoods clean and safe. Go visit southern Italy some time. Not even drug pushers on the street, because the Mafia has a very dim view of anyone trying to sell drugs to bambini.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: Richy_T on December 22, 2012, 12:15:55 AM

The reason for the existence of government is that some people want to tell others what to do and profit off the fruit of their labor. Anything else is post-hoc rationalization. This is why some of the founding fathers attempted to defang the government as much as possible and why they had so much trouble doing so.

And why they failed so miserably.

Richy_T

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 2373

1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k

The reason for the existence of government is that some people want to tell others what to do and profit off the fruit of their labor. Anything else is post-hoc rationalization. This is why some of the founding fathers attempted to defang the government as much as possible and why they had so much trouble doing so.

tbdunamis

newbie

Activity: 33

Merit: 0

Who says that the reason for a government to exist is the protection of property? From what I've learned, the reason for the existence of government is the protection of people from those people who seek to cause harm. If people would come to the place of agreement that telling the truth resolves everything, while causing harm resolves nothing, then government would become obsolete. Of course, those who take offense at the truth tend to interpret that as being harmed by it, and respond with harmful retaliation to the messenger. This in turn not only justifies the existence of government, but creates the conditions for it to proliferate in the varying aspects of people's life.

Topic: If the minimum reason a government exists.... - page 2. (Read 3653 times)