Hey Chris, Yes, I agree with that. I find that the US as a whole is quite coercive in its social organization. But the problem I see is that the capitalist edict has gone to the extreme - there is no social compass left in their strategy, it is devoured by greed, and greed runs the private businesses. Moreover, not all services can be privatized under these conditions. Some services are there by necessity, as I pointed out in a prior email, and cannot be patronized upon choice. For instance, I do not have a choice BUT use the highways for my own livelihood (take truckdrivers for example). If our highways were privatized, they'd become the domain of unbridled greed (as we see nowadays around the clock), stifling others in their own pursuit of free enterprise. It becomes a dog eat dog world.
This is what I see. And this is what I am pondering, while sitting behind my spinach salad. Government has become like private businesses that have caved in to greed. Government is nothing but a totally greedy sloth that slurps up taxpayer's money to stuff its own belly, without any regard for the people that put it there. What's to guarantee that private business will be any different? We know that competition does not always persist - insurance companies all hold hands, they know how to uphold revenue by keeping rates similar; gas stations do the same - there really is no competition there, one cent difference is no competition. And, better yet, there really is no differnce between democrats and republicans - they too hold hands to uphold the perks. You see the same in the legal field - no lawyer is going to upset his opponent lawyer, they're in the same business, they're making money off the same conflict. From an undiluted p.o.v, it's true that private services are superior to public ones, but I fear that greed has gotten so deep into the tissues of moral society, that the expected dynamics of competition and supply and demand are no longer reliable. I think we need to be cautious about privatizing services that are a social necessity, versus those that are by choice. I have no choice over a highway that goes from my house to my job. I am a sitting duck, and a greedy owner can therefore charge me up the wazoo for travelling over that highway. As an example, the govt in PA tried to levy tolls on Hwy 80 - a major highway that is used a lot by trucks. Tremendous revenues obviously. What's to stop a private owner of hwy 80 to levy the same tolls or more? Nobody is going to stand in his way. There simply is no other highway that can be chosen. I see no competition here. I'm not saying that the Libertarian p.o.v is therefore not valid, absolutely not, I'm only bringing up concerns based on trends I have observed. And because I believe that we need to address these trends if we want a truly free society where we are not being coerced into paying for mediocrity, or forced to swallow expensive public services that should not be expensive. We can march forward and postulate Libertarian ideologies and expect them to florish, but society may no longer be receptive to it, or capable of sustaining it. I see too many people who just dont give a damn anymore, who are selfish beyond reproach and greedy to the max. Would privatization of public services, including such entities as highway systems, thrive on people who dont give a damn? I am not sure. It may not be any different than what the government we try to get rid of is doing. Not to offend anyone, I too hope that Libertarianism is possible in this country. -M. On Apr 19, 2010, at 8:27 PM, Chris Edes wrote: > Marinza, > > Perhaps I can shed some light. Fundamentally, libertarianism seeks > a society where coercion is never a tool of social organization. > Since taxation isn't voluntary, all public services are funded by > coercion. Whereas you have a choice to patronize a business, or > not do so. Thus, from a moral standpoint, all privately provided > services are superior to public services, because you are not > forced to pay for them. > > This is not an argument which relies on quality of service. While > private enterprise usually provides better services, because the > market anticipates demand and creates supply more efficiently than > government, that's ancillary to the point. > > Chris > >> Just curious, but why is it that the US is so punitive in overall >> social mentality? There are so many prisons, filled to the >> rafters; the military outfits are so ubiquitous, not only here, >> but also in other territories - whereas there are much fewer >> social corner stones such as educational institutions and elderly >> care programs. Not to say that I believe in socialist >> fundamentalism, but it seems that education and the stimulation of >> learning how to *think* would be more useful than the feeding of >> the military machine? An educated population would be more >> inclined to think for itself and therefore be more Libertarian? >> And, when you get old, would you not want a compassionate >> environment where you can sit out your Alzheimers collectively >> with a few other friendly folk? Or is self-euthanasia the answer? >> >> Not sure if it fits in the Libertarian philosophy, but I'm only >> asking. >> >> Insurance companies seem to already have become government, as >> they dictate what you can and cannot do. They obviously follow the >> money trail - their business model has nothing to do with safety >> and the best interest of their customers, but with optimizing a >> return on the product they sell. Is that bad in itself, that a >> privately held organization wants to optimize its bottom line? >> Where do Libertarians draw the line? >> >> How would you propose erecting a competing government? Large >> corporations have this type of structure - departments are >> competing with each other, driving the tip of the pyramid to be >> the most rewarded. From what I've seen, this internal competition >> was not particularly conducive to obtaining excellence. To the >> contrary, it often resulted in mayhem and failure. >> >> Just asking...for the sake of insight. >> >> -M. >> >> >> >> >> On Apr 19, 2010, at 5:24 PM, gary popkin wrote: >> >>> >>> Thank you, Zev, for your thoughtful contribution to this discussion. >>> >>> Even if, as you say, insurance companies become governments, the >>> public would at least have access to competing insurance >>> companies. Companies with money on the line are likely to arrive >>> at better tradeoffs than bureaucrats with nothing to lose. >>> >>> If we had truly competing governments, government might not be as >>> bad as is it. The United States were once competing governments. >>> (Before Lincoln, the United States were referred to in the >>> plural; after, in the singular.) >>> >>> >>> >>> --- On Mon, 4/19/10, Zev Sero <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> The big problem, however, is how to judge when you are recklessly >>> endangering others, and when you are simply taking a rational risk. >>> Who determines this, and by what standards. In the statist model of >>> government it's simple: the government decides, and everyone has to >>> obey its rules, or else. The infallible wisdom of dedicated public >>> servants who were hired by the wise statesmen elected by the >>> majority >>> will always hit on the best balance between risk and liberty, set >>> the >>> most rational standards, and enforce them with scrupulous >>> impartiality. >>> You can stop laughing now. >>> >>> The libertarian approach starts with pointing out how absurd the >>> statist >>> one is. The problem is that it doesn't go much further. What >>> *is* the >>> solution? *Someone* has to set standards, and there will always be >>> people unhappy with them, who will have to be forced -- yes, by >>> force of >>> arms, if necessary -- to abstain from taking what they think is a >>> perfectly acceptable risk. In some versions of anarcho- >>> capitalism, the >>> standards are set by agreement between the insurance companies, and >>> they then enforce them not only on their own clients but also on >>> everyone >>> else, for their clients' safety. Nozick points out that this >>> turns them >>> into a government. >>> >>> >>> >>> >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
