taxes v privaized

It amuses me, that his little economic theory doesn't account human nature into the equation.

For most of my life while being aware of politics I would regard myself as a social democrat but over the last couple of years I have been finding myself sliding first towards libertarianism and now an-cap. Government is coercion and in my previous belief I justified it with "it needs to be for the common good" but now I think coercion can not be justified.

Wow. Just wow. Private armies? Sounds like one of the worst ideas for national defense imaginable!

I can think of a great example where this is working just boffo: Afghanistan. Yeah, the whole war-lord model is just fantastic!

We really should give this a try, I mean when I look at Afghanistan or Somalia I see the kind of country I want to live in!

What is this madness?

ReardenSteel said:

No. A private military does not answer to any one entity. In an anarchist society there is no authority figure. If you assume there is any type of authority figure, whether or not it is called government, then you are not talking about anarchy but something else.

Click to expand...

Not to quibble but a purely anarchic, no-authority-figure-model seems like an awful concept for a MILITARY.

So is the idea that the military itself will have a chain of command but that chain of command isn't responsible to any given non-military authority?

Now as much as I like our men and women in uniform I'm afraid that if you put enough of them out there with big guns and no EXTERNAL authority that they might wish to do something. And, of course, we see how that is working in Egypt.

Military tends to thrive on order, and if the people they are "serving" are disordered it might be kind of like putting a herd of disorganized sheep in front of a sheepdog...the sheepdog is going to want to impose some order.

But hey, this whole imaginary world of societies without order is probably going to employ only a friendly unicorn army anyway, so my point is probably moot.

ReardenSteel said:

I want to have whatever I can afford. Blackwater/Academi is not a true private defense agency because they are government contractors.

Click to expand...

Ummm, isn't that a form of PRIVATIZED DEFENSE? Unless we first dissolve the government there is really no way to "model" your ideal of privatized defense in a modern society.

So unless you can provide us with a better model it will have to be met with severe skepticism.

TemperateSeaIsland said:

For most of my life while being aware of politics I would regard myself as a social democrat but over the last couple of years I have been finding myself sliding first towards libertarianism and now an-cap. Government is coercion and in my previous belief I justified it with "it needs to be for the common good" but now I think coercion can not be justified.

Click to expand...

I've never been able to comprehend how a modern society could survive without some sort of organized government.

Lucy Stulz said:

ALLorNOTHINGatall4CHRIST said:

Defense is about the ONLY thing I feel should not be privatized.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Why not? Why everything else but not defense? Why does it get to be excluded?

ALLorNOTHINGatall4CHRIST said:

Defense is about the ONLY thing I feel should not be privatized.

Click to expand...

Seriously, you need to spend some quality time studying the history of the US. That's what I'm doing right now and I'm learning "new" stuff all the time that proves that privatization is the very worst thing for us.

Let's take one simple example. Fire departments. How would they work as a private service? What company would ever want to do that? Someone has to pay the bill. Who pays? If your house is burning, do you look in the Yellow Pages under "Fire Dousing" and start calling for quotes? No. And if the government (I talked about this on the other thread a few minutes ago) subsidized the private fire department, then the government is still paying. And probably paying more. It's always more expensive to have a middle-man.

I work in state government. The times we have tried to get around paying more by using private contractors, we always end up spending more money and going back to doing things internally...like we were before. Government service is just that. Service. A for-profit company doesn't want to provide service just because. It wants to make money, period.

ALLorNOTHINGatall4CHRIST said:

Fire departments do it this way either have volunteer departments at least five in my county OR require people to pay yearly ( the city my mother works for does that) If a family/person does not pay the yearly fee then if their house any property is burning the fire department has the OPTION of putting it out or not.

Click to expand...

I know some places do it like that now. Having people's homes burn because they can't pay is unconscionable. Now imagine if the whole country was like that. And with police and EMS too. Only those with money would get those critical services.

Some places have their priorities really backwards.

Yeah, who needs government.....

super animator said:

It amuses me, that his little economic theory doesn't account human nature into the equation.

Click to expand...

And what exactly is "human nature" supposed to be?

Redac said:

And what exactly is "human nature" supposed to be?

Click to expand...

Selfishness, irrationality, hunger for power. There is much more of course, but those 3 kill any hope for an anarcho-capitalist society that is more free or more pleasant than the one we have now.

Mystman said:

Selfishness, irrationality, hunger for power. There is much more of course, but those 3 kill any hope for an anarcho-capitalist society that is more free or more pleasant than the one we have now.

Click to expand...

So it appears to be essentially the old "humans are naturally greedy and selfish" trope that shows up fairly often. I don't buy it. We're way too complex and socially-influenced to boil down "human nature" to something as simple as just "greedy and irrational".

I have my own issues with AnCap nonsense, but I don't buy human nature arguments. That might be an issue for another thread though.

ALLorNOTHINGatall4CHRIST said:

Defense is about the ONLY thing I feel should not be privatized.

WalksWithChrist said:

Seriously, you need to spend some quality time studying the history of the US. That's what I'm doing right now and I'm learning "new" stuff all the time that proves that privatization is the very worst thing for us.

Let's take one simple example. Fire departments. How would they work as a private service? What company would ever want to do that? Someone has to pay the bill. Who pays? If your house is burning, do you look in the Yellow Pages under "Fire Dousing" and start calling for quotes? No. And if the government (I talked about this on the other thread a few minutes ago) subsidized the private fire department, then the government is still paying. And probably paying more. It's always more expensive to have a middle-man.

I work in state government. The times we have tried to get around paying more by using private contractors, we always end up spending more money and going back to doing things internally...like we were before. Government service is just that. Service. A for-profit company doesn't want to provide service just because. It wants to make money, period.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Exactly. In the 1990s Britain started privatizing British Rail, the nation's passenger rail network that had been nationalized in 1948. It ended up needing more subsidy than when it was completely run by the government.

But defense would be about the worst thing we could privatize. Private-run prisons already have a terrible reputation.

Oafman said:

Yeah, who needs government.....

Click to expand...

Yes. Thank you tax dollars for bringing us...The Internet!

ALLorNOTHINGatall4CHRIST said:

Honest question I agree that those are critical services, BUT are also proposing that people should have their city water paid for? That is another thing mother sends out water bills each month if you do not pay your water bill they cut your water off. I would say that that service is more important than ANY of the others simply because you only need the others if certain things are happening you HAVE to have water to live no matter how safe your community is no matter if you live in a fire-prone area not matter how healthy you are you MUST have water to live. Let me asks you too if you are renting or still paying your house off if you fall on hard times will the landlord/bank say that is OK do not worry about it OR will they service you with an eviction notice you and I both know the answer to that question.

I will be gone for a few days in a couple of hours, but if you reply I will get back to it when I get back.
P.S. Remember I said the fire department had the OPTION if they choose to put the fire out great but it is NOT mandated.

Click to expand...

Water is important, but not critical. You can get a drink of water at any public water fountain...that is paid for by taxes. You can even shower at certain places like the YMCA if you have to. And some places have you pay a water bill, others roll it into your rent. It varies. Basically, if your water was cut off right now, you'd have options. Someone breaks into your house or it's on fire, that's immediate and critical. Good question.

We own our house and pay the note monthly. I think I see what you're getting at with the housing thing. There are various options for places to live. I know people that have lived in their cars and slept on people's couches for more than just a few days. This kind of a complex topic. As far as taxes and should they pay for housing (to keep this on topic), I believe that if someone is truly poor, they should have some sort of affordable housing option subsidized by the government. I've known a good many people who have had to do that and it helps. I've lived like that too...it's called base housing.
(military brat here)

AceHero said:

Exactly. In the 1990s Britain started privatizing British Rail, the nation's passenger rail network that had been nationalized in 1948. It ended up needing more subsidy than when it was completely run by the government.

But defense would be about the worst thing we could privatize. Private-run prisons already have a terrible reputation.

Click to expand...

Good examples.

Also, if something is private...what happens in the company goes under? Or decides (I believe this happened in FL with Child Services...basically Lockheed suddenly decided, "yikes, we can't make a buck helping poor kids...forget this...we're outta here...FL...it's your show again...thus wasting *tons* of taxpayer $$s in the process of going back to public from private) they don't want to renew a contract? Governments tend to stick around. This is another reason why certain things should fall within the government's purview.

I work for the court system. No way could a private company make money off running courts. As it is, courts are strapped and services are being cut all the time. There's no money to be made in this sort of thing, so no company would want to take a contract to administer court operations. Courts provide an essential, and timely, service to the public. If courts were private, they'd be much more expensive to fluff out the company's bottom line, which is profit. And the people using the court's service would have to foot the inflated bill.

AceHero said:

Exactly. In the 1990s Britain started privatizing British Rail, the nation's passenger rail network that had been nationalized in 1948. It ended up needing more subsidy than when it was completely run by the government.

But defense would be about the worst thing we could privatize. Private-run prisons already have a terrible reputation.

WalksWithChrist said:

Good examples.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

There have also been proposals to privatize Britain's highways. I'm sure they'd have the same results.

WalksWithChrist said:

Also, if something is private...what happens in the company goes under? Or decides (I believe this happened in FL with Child Services...basically Lockheed suddenly decided, "yikes, we can't make a buck helping poor kids...forget this...we're outta here...FL...it's your show again...thus wasting *tons* of taxpayer $$s in the process of going back to public from private) they don't want to renew a contract? Governments tend to stick around. This is another reason why certain things should fall within the government's purview.

Click to expand...

Things are great when the economy is good and private companies are able to make money, but what happens during a recession? The problem with private companies running civil defense, public safety, prisons, and transportation infrastructure is that they need to make a profit in order to stay in business. They are constantly at risk of failing, which is especially bad when they're replacing something that is supposed to be a government program.

AceHero said:

There have also been proposals to privatize Britain's highways. I'm sure they'd have the same results.



Things are great when the economy is good and private companies are able to make money, but what happens during a recession? The problem with private companies running civil defense, public safety, prisons, and transportation infrastructure is that they need to make a profit in order to stay in business. They are constantly at risk of failing, which is especially bad when they're replacing something that is supposed to be a government program.

Click to expand...

And when there's conflict between government and a contractor? Lawsuits start flying and work grinds to a screeching halt. For a very long time.

WalksWithChrist said:

And when there's conflict between government and a contractor? Lawsuits start flying and work grinds to a screeching halt. For a very long time.

Click to expand...

Government contractors are just as bad as government itself. The end result is the same. Either way taxpayers pay for it and a good or service is created that there was no market demand for.