Re: [Libertarian] Re: [ManhattanLibertarians] Re: [LPQC] Re: Driving Rules and insurance companies

2010-04-21 Thread Marinza
 From Ma Ni:
 -
 Then I guess we better turn all production and distribution of
 food and shelter and clothing over to government.


 From Marinza:

READ what I wrote, Ma Ni. Clothes are definitely essential - but the  
market is flooded by clothes. You have lots of choice, there is lots  
of competition in clothes, you can buy whatever you want, or not.  
Food is also essential, but there's also lots of competition in the  
food industry. You don't have to stand in line for half a day for a  
loaf of bread.

But whereas a road is also an essential item, the market is NOT  
flooded with roads. Can you see the entire State or US paved over  
with roads so as to offer competition? Block does not say much about  
it. All I pointed out that with certain essential items privatization  
may not work so well, and I pointed that out for the sake of  
DISCUSSION. It was strictly an opinion.

I also NEVER suggested in my opinions that the production of stuff  
should be turned over to the government. Those are YOUR words that  
you put in MY mouth. Don't do that. I totally dislike that, as you  
would too. I ONLY brought up some points for the sake of discussion -  
merely pondering the workability of certain concepts and ideas. NEVER  
did I state or suggest that the government should take over.


 From Ma Ni:

 Water IS privatized. In fact, the only reason the private owner
 IS getting rich selling one of the most abundant natural
 resources is because government-supplied water is typically of
 such lousy quality. Every day millions choose to buy bottled
 drinking water rather than drink the dank stuff that comes from
 their faucets. And considering that the government-supplied water
 is typically high in unhealthy and nasty-tasting things like TDSs
 and chlorine and bone-rotting fluoride, it is over-priced.
 Speaking of going thirsty... the success of bottled water and
 soft drinks is proof that people would rather go thirsty than
 drink city water.
 -

 From Marinza:

The government you want to get rid of is helping you do good  
business. (I'm being sarcastic, Ma Ni, in case you did not catch that.)











[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



RE: [Libertarian] Re: [ManhattanLibertarians] Re: [LPQC] Re: Driving Rules and insurance companies

2010-04-20 Thread ma ni

one has to be careful not to privatize those services that are an
absolute necessity for any person's pursuit of livelihood and
success. 

if a system calls for a continuum of sorts, as well as an
essential need, then it becomes a dangerous proposition to
surrender it to privatization, 

-
Then I guess we better turn all production and distribution of
food and shelter and clothing over to government.
-

If water were to be privatized, we'd all be thirsty as hell.
Unless  
we want to pay the private owner who is making a pile of money on

this privatized essential need that nobody can live without.

-
Water IS privatized. In fact, the only reason the private owner
IS getting rich selling one of the most abundant natural
resources is because government-supplied water is typically of
such lousy quality. Every day millions choose to buy bottled
drinking water rather than drink the dank stuff that comes from
their faucets. And considering that the government-supplied water
is typically high in unhealthy and nasty-tasting things like TDSs
and chlorine and bone-rotting fluoride, it is over-priced.
Speaking of going thirsty... the success of bottled water and
soft drinks is proof that people would rather go thirsty than
drink city water.
-