Global Food Crisis, overpopulation and Cannibalism

[Michael Hardner]

Laissez-faire does mitigate the catastrophes by the mere fact that "all" sectors of the economy are not generally affected by one sector. Government broadly manages all sectors and any ineptness in it's management skills affects all sectors of the economy.

Okay, but a disaster for one sector often means a disaster for one group over the other. The ineptness you mention can be mitigated.

Government has taken over the creation of money. The tools it uses to attempt to "manage" the economy affect everyone. Interest rates, inflation, fiscal policy, trade policy, taxation and tariffs.

It has also taken over health care in Canada. The fact it is at best a mediocre system affects everyone. A system that ranks 30th in developed nations cannot be touched? No reform is possible and the Government that attempts it is suicidal. We must fund it into oblivion.

Like I said, health care should have another thread if we're going to discuss it in detail.

So when you have a central authority "managing" a whole nation's economy you better hope they understand economics and don't just make policy that secures their revenues and their retention of the seat of government - playing politics instead of managing an economy.

Correct management of the economy would demand too much of the democratic populace to ever tolerate it. Promises must be made to keep their vote. Is catering to those interests for the common good or is it simply vote buying?

There is an argument to be made against the protection of intellectual property rights. If all of humanity can benefit from invention or idea then why should intellectual property rights prevent it especially for monetary reasons.

Ayn Rand believed that all around her were stealing her ideas and came into conflict with many of her closest friends and supporters because of it.

The government went to the people with an election on free trade in 1988. I don't think it's a good idea to negate the democratic populace, as you call it. I do think, though, that they can be encouraged to participate in such a way that the truly informed become local opinion-makers for those who aren't really informed.

[Pliny]

Okay, but a disaster for one sector often means a disaster for one group over the other. The ineptness you mention can be mitigated.

The ineptness can be mitigated if it is understood what the mandate is. One wrong policy affects the Nation not just one group.

That is how ineptness treats everyone.

Like I said, health care should have another thread if we're going to discuss it in detail.

Ok

The government went to the people with an election on free trade in 1988. I don't think it's a good idea to negate the democratic populace, as you call it. I do think, though, that they can be encouraged to participate in such a way that the truly informed become local opinion-makers for those who aren't really informed.

I wasn't negating the democratic populace. They will vote for benefit, it is only human to act in favour of what one considers will improve his life.

Local opinion-makers? Sounds too much like a politician.

In my opinion, certain people should not have votes. We discussed that on an earlier thread.

[Wild Bill]

In the US landowners own the mineral rights. Rockefeller paid the landowners royalties to drill and extract oil. Many people got rich from that, not just Rockefeller.

In Canada we don't own the mineral rights when we buy land. The wealth isn't spread around much because of that "Government" regulation.

Actually, here in Ontario it's worse! You can lose mineral rights retroactively if the Ministry of Resources becomes cosy with a business.

Near my part of Southern Ontario there used to be many commercial gas wells. For the most part, they were dotted all over farm country, particularly in the Haldimand-Norfolk area. As long ago as the 1930's many of these wells were deemed no longer commercially profitable. The companies began a process of capping them but often they simply gave them to the farmer who owned the land. Many, many rural homes have been using this energy for decades. The gas volumes may have been too low for a commercial operation but more than enough for just a farm or two.

This was in the Hamilton Spectator some weeks ago:

http://www.thespec.com/article/699481

January 07, 2010

THE CANADIAN PRESS

The Canadian Press, 2009

SOUTHWEST MIDDLESEX, Ont. - For decades, the Murray family of southern Ontario has lived on a rare luxury - they've heated their household for free.

But a government order is now demanding that the couple in their 70s shut down a 1931 natural gas well on their property, and the two will have to cough up tens of thousands of dollars to cap the historic well.

"We got something we're not paying for so there's no money generated and so they want to close it," said Hector Murray, 73, wearily shrugging off the three-year battle, as he resigned himself to the loss.

"It's as if I've committed a crime and this is the punishment."

In this case, according to Murray, the crime is free fuel.

For some years now, rural residents in that area have been aware of a strange new policy from the Ministry. A farmer will receive a letter asking him to help with Ministry records by informing them of any unregistered gas wells on their property. The implication is that they are trying to make their maps more accurate, since so many wells date back perhaps even before the creation of the Ministry! Most farmers know by now that they would be very foolish to comply! If they do, what will happen is that the Ministry will start a process to shut their well down! There will be excuses, of course. The usual is matters of safety, which is a red herring. Farmers are well aware of how to handle these wells and every town has its own local licenced gas drilling and well servicing operations. Besides, during all these years no one has seen newspaper reports of hundreds of cows being blown into orbit!

At the same time, a commercial gas company will be phoning up offering to be your new source of supply, at their current rates, of course!

When pressed, the Ministry will quote technical standards for wells that only apply to commercial operations. The level of complexity (and cost!) of the equipment involved is ridiculous and unnecessary for a tiny private well supplying a house or two. The Ministry's answer is "Wells are wells! Do as you're told!"

And "Do as you're told!" is actually the attitude commonly reported by farmers caught up in this mess!

It's difficult for these rural residents. Long ago riding boundaries began to be redrawn to split up rural acres and merge them into larger urban populations. This sounds like mere efficiency but the real reason is to dilute rural political power. Rural areas have some very different needs and concerns that can conflict with pleasing urban populations. Re-drawing the riding boundaries has meant that there is rarely a large rural voting bloc anymore. You have a few farmer votes lost in a sea of town residents.

We've yet to see the end of this process but one thing's for sure. Few farmers are telling the Ministry about any old gas wells!

[Michael Hardner]

The ineptness can be mitigated if it is understood what the mandate is. One wrong policy affects the Nation not just one group.

Correct, but like insurance the effect is spread out, versus catastrophic effect for the one group. And ineptness should translate as an even smaller percentage of that amount.

So, to recap, if industry X is adversely affected by an economic improvement, it creates disaster for a particular group - however, the collective determines that a percentage of the overall gain should be dedicated to helping that group adjust to the new reality. Poor management of that adjustment would result in an extra percentage of cost, but shouldn't result in those costs equaling or outweighing the overall benefit.

In my opinion, certain people should not have votes. We discussed that on an earlier thread.

But, oddly, that leads to an undemocratic model and those countries tend to be mismanaged - worse than democracies.

[Pliny]

Correct, but like insurance the effect is spread out, versus catastrophic effect for the one group. And ineptness should translate as an even smaller percentage of that amount.

No. It isn't like insurance. It's a catastrophic effect for the nation's populace. The government has no contingency fund other than to run a deficit and increase the debt.

I believe you are saying that paying taxes is like having insurance. Like social security or something. And then when something goes wrong the money is there for you to pick yourself up. Couldn't be further from the truth. Taxes fund current government

programs. the catastrophe is when the economy turns sour and the shrinking revenues can no longer fund those programs. The debt is then paid for by the next generation. But it seems the government never gets out of debt.

So, to recap, if industry X is adversely affected by an economic improvement, it creates disaster for a particular group - however, the collective determines that a percentage of the overall gain should be dedicated to helping that group adjust to the new reality. Poor management of that adjustment would result in an extra percentage of cost, but shouldn't result in those costs equaling or outweighing the overall benefit.

Again, there is no contingency fund for national economic catastrophe.

But, oddly, that leads to an undemocratic model and those countries tend to be mismanaged - worse than democracies.

The power must remain with the people. How is that possible? By vigilantly ensuring the government, above all, respects the sanctity of person and property. It can't demand half my income and claim it is doing it's job of protecting me and my property. It is extorting my property. I no longer have any power as a citizen if it can seize my property and then throw me in jail if I can't or won't relinquish it to them.

The only way a democratic model can be maintained is if our person and property is held sacred. Our current method of taxation is a travesty against that.

It all has to be worked out, Micheal. Convicted criminals should lose their right to vote and their right to govern self. It means the laws must be fair not crimes of unpaid taxes which should be paid out of choice not out of coercion. A sales tax would be a far better option than an income tax.

[Michael Hardner]

No. It isn't like insurance. It's a catastrophic effect for the nation's populace. The government has no contingency fund other than to run a deficit and increase the debt.

I don't agree that that is true across the board, especially since the Liberals and Conservatives moved towards a (pre-recession) balanced budget.

I believe you are saying that paying taxes is like having insurance. Like social security or something. And then when something goes wrong the money is there for you to pick yourself up. Couldn't be further from the truth. Taxes fund current government

That's not what I said at all, I said "like insurance" - comparing one attribute of economic planning to insurance. That is all.

programs. the catastrophe is when the economy turns sour and the shrinking revenues can no longer fund those programs. The debt is then paid for by the next generation. But it seems the government never gets out of debt.

Again, you're taking what I say and moving the conversation towards something you're more comfortable discussing, i.e. taxes in general versus a discussion of how to manage economic improvement, as I have been calling it.

The power must remain with the people. How is that possible? By vigilantly ensuring the government, above all, respects the sanctity of person and property. It can't demand half my income and claim it is doing it's job of protecting me and my property. It is extorting my property. I no longer have any power as a citizen if it can seize my property and then throw me in jail if I can't or won't relinquish it to them.

But if taxes were optional, then the necessary work wouldn't happen because there wouldn't be funding.

Your model was tried in the past, and we moved past it.

The only way a democratic model can be maintained is if our person and property is held sacred. Our current method of taxation is a travesty against that.

I say that the overall well being should be sacred, not property. And certainly not property belonging to non-persons. If I'm dying of thirst and you own all the lakes, I'm sorry but your property likely will not be sacred to me.

It all has to be worked out, Micheal. Convicted criminals should lose their right to vote and their right to govern self. It means the laws must be fair not crimes of unpaid taxes which should be paid out of choice not out of coercion. A sales tax would be a far better option than an income tax.

We don't even force negligent businesses and corporations to go out of business, so first things first.

I understand the philosophical purity of this no-income tax idea, but you're in a minority.

[Pliny]

I don't agree that that is true across the board, especially since the Liberals and Conservatives moved towards a (pre-recession) balanced budget.

Easily said in boom times.

That's not what I said at all, I said "like insurance" - comparing one attribute of economic planning to insurance. That is all.

Ok.

Again, you're taking what I say and moving the conversation towards something you're more comfortable discussing, i.e. taxes in general versus a discussion of how to manage economic improvement, as I have been calling it.

Am I correct in saying that economic improvement to you means when wealth is distributed equitably?

But if taxes were optional, then the necessary work wouldn't happen because there wouldn't be funding.

What "necessary" work wouldn't happen? If it were necessary it would happen and the funding would be there to make it happen. I stipulate only one caveat to that statement and that is as long as some wealth exists in the society.

Government takes surplus out of the economy for the most part and that is the only way it can collect funds without setting off a revolution. That surplus removes from society the ability to fund iwhat it deems necessary and funds what government deems necessary. Government; however, is not about solutions, it is about holding up victims so that it can justify extorting the surplus out of the economy. when there is little surplus, as in bust times, such as the burst of the housing bubble, they become very anxious because their revenues plummet. They can't create jobs. All they do is make it easy or hard for the private sector to be able to create jobs.

All this talk of Obama creating jobs? What a laugh!

Your model was tried in the past, and we moved past it.

Why are you bothering to have this conversation?

I say that the overall well being should be sacred, not property. And certainly not property belonging to non-persons. If I'm dying of thirst and you own all the lakes, I'm sorry but your property likely will not be sacred to me.

If you are dying of thirst and I own all the lakes I would expect you would at least let me know you are dying of thirst. This story is out of the old robber baron days.

Overall well-being can only be achieved if person and property are held sacred. A person's body is his property. What he owns is his means of survival. Take what he owns away and you are talking about diminishing his ability to survive or maintain a standard of living to which he is accustomed and has earned. Provide for him and you make him your slave.

I think you only look at it from one aspect - the person who receives. you don't look at it from the other aspect - the person who gives. I think you believe people will not give unless they are forced. Haiti dispels that myth. If there is necessity people will give.

We don't even force negligent businesses and corporations to go out of business, so first things first.

Nor should they be "forced" to go out of business. they should be allowed to go out of business, not propped up and bailed out.

I understand the philosophical purity of this no-income tax idea, but you're in a minority.

I know I am in a minority. I am well aware of that.

Income tax is entirely punitive to production and redistributively rewards non-production. Production is discouraged and non-production encouraged. Even the most feeble-minded should be encouraged to produce, and they generally are, and keep his reward for doing so. We wouldn't take surplus from his meagre production. Why should we then take from anyone's production?

Would it were that we could all receive for non-production - it would be the attainment of heaven or nirvana. I know, that is what we all want, heaven on earth.

[Michael Hardner]

Am I correct in saying that economic improvement to you means when wealth is distributed equitably?

No you're not. In fact that's such a gross misunderstanding that it makes me wonder if this entire conversation has been futile.

What "necessary" work wouldn't happen? If it were necessary it would happen and the funding would be there to make it happen. I stipulate only one caveat to that statement and that is as long as some wealth exists in the society.

I think that America without these taxes would look like the 19th century.

Why are you bothering to have this conversation?

Libertarianism is very logical, but I think it falls apart in certain extreme cases. I do want to learn about it, and I learn by Q&A.

If you are dying of thirst and I own all the lakes I would expect you would at least let me know you are dying of thirst. This story is out of the old robber baron days.

And ?

Overall well-being can only be achieved if person and property are held sacred. A person's body is his property. What he owns is his means of survival. Take what he owns away and you are talking about diminishing his ability to survive or maintain a standard of living to which he is accustomed and has earned. Provide for him and you make him your slave.

I think you only look at it from one aspect - the person who receives. you don't look at it from the other aspect - the person who gives. I think you believe people will not give unless they are forced. Haiti dispels that myth. If there is necessity people will give.

They will give something, but it's not enough.

Would it were that we could all receive for non-production - it would be the attainment of heaven or nirvana. I know, that is what we all want, heaven on earth.

We're coming to a point in history when production will be done with a minimal amount of human effort. What then ?

[bloodyminded]

They will give something, but it's not enough.

This is such an elementary truism--since it's based on the entire history of human civilization--that it's a shame you have to point it out. But here we are.

Haiti was a catastrophe--a terrible, humanitarian, corpse-riddled crisis--before the quake occurred. The quake only made things that much worse, and focused our attention.

So the contention here that "if there is a necessity people will give" is flatly untrue. Totally false.

Edited January 30, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Michael Hardner]

This is such an elementary truism--since it's based on the entire history of human civilization--that it's a shame you have to point it out. But here we are.

Haiti was a catastrophe--a terrible, humanitarian, corpse-riddled crisis--before the quake occurred. The quake only made things that much worse, and focused our attention.

So the contention here that "if there is a necessity people will give" is flatly untrue. Totally false.

Yes, that has never been true and it's only natural: we tend to understate the problems of others.

[Pliny]

No you're not. In fact that's such a gross misunderstanding that it makes me wonder if this entire conversation has been futile.

Ok I think you are interested in a different point of view hoping to create more of a synthesis of your own. I am definitely decided against social engineering and government intervention in the economy at the national level.

I think that America without these taxes would look like the 19th century.

It would definitely look different than it is. I doubt it would look like the nineteenth century. You are talking like a conservative.

Libertarianism is very logical, but I think it falls apart in certain extreme cases. I do want to learn about it, and I learn by Q&A.

I still have some unresolved social issues with Libertarianism but economically the free market must prevail.

And ?

The whole history of the robber barons has not been told. The politically correct version is what is broad knowledge.

As an example of how ill-informed I was regarding American history I thought the civil war was about emancipation of slaves up until a few years ago.

We rarely hear what government is doing at specific times in history. We hear the social issues of the day and what people are doing and some very superficial facts about Presidents and Parliaments but little regarding their contribution to the creation of the economic and social scenes.

Robber barons existed because of government regulation. They granted certain privileges to certain interests that gave them property rights for building railroads and trounced competition by regulating transportation costs. Only railroads that could operate without making a profit could survive. There was no profit in the rails. The profit was in the privilege to determine land use and claim resources.

They will give something, but it's not enough.

When will taxes ever provide enough? I see no reduction in poverty as the result of government welfare programs. Because our standard of living is greater than before is a tribute to our productivity not the granitng of largesse form government coffers. As long as our productivity is rewarding to us as individuals and as a society we will remain productive.

We're coming to a point in history when production will be done with a minimal amount of human effort. What then ?

Human effort and production are not equivalent. There will always be something to strive for to improve our lives. Eliminating work is not necessarily an improvement.

There will always be a need for plumbers, electricians, doctors, but maybe not lawyers, in the future.

Families 50 years ago were much larger than today. My Father had 14 brothers and sisters and that was not uncommon. It was necessary because the average lifespan was much lower many people died at an early age. Today two is a large family. If you have more children than that then you will struggle financially. Unless you are a single mother that doesn't work and the more kids you have the more benefits you get. You aren't going to get rich and it's a struggle but what alternative is available to you? None.

I am saying that we naturally have curbed our birth rate as we have improved our standard of living. Planned parenthood, as much as it would like to claim, is not a factor. I know of very few couples who would consider having more than a few children.

It is in times of stress and duress that the population will rise because there is a necessity to replace ourselves but under peace and prosperity we not feel the necessity to reproduce. The species is not threatened and individuals are comfortable with the future.

Government is supposed to guarantee the security of our person and property so that we can produce and enjoy the fruits of our labour. It cannot provide us with surpluses for our comfort and safety. It only does it's jobe because of surpluses created when it is providing us an atmosphere in which we can produce.

China has engineered it's population and men outnumber women now by quite a margin. The imabalance they created will prove to be a social problem, I'm sure. Now corrections will have to be made and probably with as much anguish as the original laws created.

Edited January 30, 2010 by Pliny

[Pliny]

This is such an elementary truism--since it's based on the entire history of human civilization--that it's a shame you have to point it out. But here we are.

Haiti was a catastrophe--a terrible, humanitarian, corpse-riddled crisis--before the quake occurred. The quake only made things that much worse, and focused our attention.

So the contention here that "if there is a necessity people will give" is flatly untrue. Totally false.

Will you please tell me what system ever provides enough?

I will reiterate my caveat that if there is surplus people will give. Government cares not if there is surplus or not. It takes from the economy at the level it has reached, relinquishes nothing and indebts future generations with it's deficits.

[bloodyminded]

Will you please tell me what system ever provides enough?

I don't know, but that's not the point to which I was objecting. You claimed that people will give when there is a necessity. The fact that (and this is a conservative number) 20 000 children die each day of starvation profoundly suggests otherwise.

[blueblood]

I don't know, but that's not the point to which I was objecting. You claimed that people will give when there is a necessity. The fact that (and this is a conservative number) 20 000 children die each day of starvation profoundly suggests otherwise.

Necessity is subjective. Haiti was a gong show before the earthquake and people weren't helping much, now with this earthquake people are not only helping with tax dollars, they are making donations. $10 dollar increase on your phone bill to red cross anyone? Where were those telethons prior to the earthquake?

[bloodyminded]

Necessity is subjective. Haiti was a gong show before the earthquake and people weren't helping much, now with this earthquake people are not only helping with tax dollars, they are making donations. $10 dollar increase on your phone bill to red cross anyone? Where were those telethons prior to the earthquake?

This is a complete change of subject. The claim to which I responded said, very clearly, very explictly, that people will help if necessity arises.

Sure, "necessity is subjective." We can have a subjective opinion that 20 000 children starving to death every single day is only "subjectively" a necessity for help.but of course, all else is instantly rendered meaningless if we do so.

Your question, "where were those telethons prior to the earthquake?" doesn't undermine my point: it underlines it.

[Michael Hardner]

It would definitely look different than it is. I doubt it would look like the nineteenth century. You are talking like a conservative.

I don't understand what that comment about sounding like a conservative means. Why wouldn't it look like the 19th century, or in other countries where there is anarchy, or social disarray ?

I still have some unresolved social issues with Libertarianism but economically the free market must prevail.

So your view is a moderated free market is the best current alternative. Which is what my view is. We just draw the line at different points.

The whole history of the robber barons has not been told. The politically correct version is what is broad knowledge.

As an example of how ill-informed I was regarding American history I thought the civil war was about emancipation of slaves up until a few years ago.

We rarely hear what government is doing at specific times in history. We hear the social issues of the day and what people are doing and some very superficial facts about Presidents and Parliaments but little regarding their contribution to the creation of the economic and social scenes.

Robber barons existed because of government regulation. They granted certain privileges to certain interests that gave them property rights for building railroads and trounced competition by regulating transportation costs. Only railroads that could operate without making a profit could survive. There was no profit in the rails. The profit was in the privilege to determine land use and claim resources.

The railroads were one example of government and capitalism working together poorly, but you can't use that example to say government causes monopoly, as has been stated on these boards. Power and wealth accumulate, and not always in the best way.

When will taxes ever provide enough? I see no reduction in poverty as the result of government welfare programs. Because our standard of living is greater than before is a tribute to our productivity not the granitng of largesse form government coffers. As long as our productivity is rewarding to us as individuals and as a society we will remain productive.

There are definitely more options for those caught at the bottom as a result of our social net.

When discussing poverty, you need to clarify whether you mean absolute or relative poverty.

Human effort and production are not equivalent. There will always be something to strive for to improve our lives. Eliminating work is not necessarily an improvement.

There will always be a need for plumbers, electricians, doctors, but maybe not lawyers, in the future.

When is eliminating work not an improvement ?

Families 50 years ago were much larger than today. My Father had 14 brothers and sisters and that was not uncommon. It was necessary because the average lifespan was much lower many people died at an early age. Today two is a large family. If you have more children than that then you will struggle financially. Unless you are a single mother that doesn't work and the more kids you have the more benefits you get. You aren't going to get rich and it's a struggle but what alternative is available to you? None.

I am saying that we naturally have curbed our birth rate as we have improved our standard of living. Planned parenthood, as much as it would like to claim, is not a factor. I know of very few couples who would consider having more than a few children.

Really. Birth control and planned parenthood is NOT a factor in the smaller families we're seeing today ? Really.

I will need to see some kind of cite for that one.

It is in times of stress and duress that the population will rise because there is a necessity to replace ourselves but under peace and prosperity we not feel the necessity to reproduce. The species is not threatened and individuals are comfortable with the future.

Government is supposed to guarantee the security of our person and property so that we can produce and enjoy the fruits of our labour. It cannot provide us with surpluses for our comfort and safety. It only does it's jobe because of surpluses created when it is providing us an atmosphere in which we can produce.

China has engineered it's population and men outnumber women now by quite a margin. The imabalance they created will prove to be a social problem, I'm sure. Now corrections will have to be made and probably with as much anguish as the original laws created.

Government is supposed to allow for people to pursue happiness. Guarantees of security and property are goals that come out of that prime objective.

[Pliny]

Your question, "where were those telethons prior to the earthquake?" doesn't undermine my point: it underlines it.

Where have you been?

Do you know how much aid went to Haiti before the Earthquake? It was not insignificant.

A personal friend of mine went every year for the last four years to work at one of the orphanages there. And adopted one of them.

The atmosphere there was very insecure. She needed armed escorts going to and from her hotel room. This is what occurs with an unstable and dictatorial government that cannot protect the property rights of it's citizens and the citizens can only live day to day.

You cannot plan a future with such instability.

The respect for person and property must start with government that can provide justice and where it itself respects the sanctity of person and property.

[bloodyminded]

Where have you been?

Do you know how much aid went to Haiti before the Earthquake? It was not insignificant.

A personal friend of mine went every year for the last four years to work at one of the orphanages there. And adopted one of them.

The atmosphere there was very insecure. She needed armed escorts going to and from her hotel room. This is what occurs with an unstable and dictatorial government that cannot protect the property rights of it's citizens and the citizens can only live day to day.

You cannot plan a future with such instability.

The respect for person and property must start with government that can provide justice and where it itself respects the sanctity of person and property.

I don't think i disagree with a single word you posted here.

Which begs the question: to what, exactly, are you responding?

[Pliny]

I don't understand what that comment about sounding like a conservative means. Why wouldn't it look like the 19th century, or in other countries where there is anarchy, or social disarray ?

"Conserve". A conservative conserves. It preserves the status quo. A conservative would tend to keep things the same making the nineteenth century move through time.

We have religious fundamentalists who you could call conservative. They are in Iran, Afghanistan, the middle east and it is having a hard time moving out of the 12th century.

The middle east has very strong forms of government.

I don't know of any countries where there is anarchy. Perhaps Somalia is the closest to that but there is a governmental structure. I can't say if the strife and unrest in Somalia isn't the result of the continuous struggle to impose a central government both internally and externally. I don't have an in depth knowledge of Somalia and it's history or it's current affairs but from what I do know there is resistance to the centralization of authority. All other nations have a central government and there is pressure to establish that in Somalia.

Why wouldn't it look like the nineteenth century still? Because where there is trade there is invention and innovation and progress. It is only when trade is restricted that strife occurs. Government does have a role and it is about providing justice and the maintenance of the sanctity of person and property. Some Libertarians may disagree with me and say that even those basic responsibilities of government can be provided better by the private sector but I am not convinced of that - yet.

So your view is a moderated free market is the best current alternative. Which is what my view is. We just draw the line at different points.

You are certainly more favourable to government than I. I am of the opinion it must be vigilantly scrutinized with a jaundiced eye. I like George Washington's comparison of it to a fire that must be constantly watched. It's progressive encroachment upon society is the danger and democracy, unless we understand it is for all of our benefit and not intended to benefit some over others, fosters the socialist progressivism that encourages government to become a bloated bureaucratic parasitic nightmare that finally destroys the society it is entrusted to preserve freedom and liberty for the individual and the State is the only entity with any freedom.

The railroads were one example of government and capitalism working together poorly, but you can't use that example to say government causes monopoly, as has been stated on these boards. Power and wealth accumulate, and not always in the best way.

A natural monopoly is much harder to create than one fostered by government and has a tendency to disappear unless protected by government.

Power can accumulate with wealth. Obviously more can be accomplished with wealth than without. But then one must spend his wealth to accomplish his ideals. It is when he uses his wealth to persuade government to use it's resources to accomplish his ideals. It is much cheaper for him to do that and he can persuade government to grant him privileges in the process. That is power his wealth should not be able to buy.

There are definitely more options for those caught at the bottom as a result of our social net.

There is "an" option that was not available before. Does it aid or ensnare?

When discussing poverty, you need to clarify whether you mean absolute or relative poverty.

I suppose you suggest that by having a social safety net absolute poverty is eliminated?

When is eliminating work not an improvement ?

I enjoy my work and I enjoy providing what other people feel makes their lives better.

Without that I have nothing. Work must be seen as a service to your fellowman. It isn't just labour. If you can make your work easier then I see no problem with that but you must still feel you are contributing to the improvement of the lives of others. Then it is mutually beneficial.

I suppose you have to define work. Work has to be the production of benefit to self and others and a general improvement to life and living standards.

The elimination of work and establishment of permanent vacations is a vacuous and morally bankrupt concept.

Really. Birth control and planned parenthood is NOT a factor in the smaller families we're seeing today ? Really.

Not much of a factor. Really! Moving away from an agrarian society to a more civic society plays a greater role. It is our necessities that have changed. Most of us are able to create and keep enough of our wealth to provide for ourselves to our grave. WE are not dependent upon our children to look after us in old age or to do all the physical labour necessary to an agrarian life.

I will need to see some kind of cite for that one.

Margaret Sanger was the founder of Planned Parenthood. You should read about her.

She was interested in ensuring poor people, who were obviously poor because they were stupid, didn't procreate. Besides being an early proponent of forced sterilization laws, she encouraged abortion for the purposes of population control, not because she thought women should have choice, but there were too many people in the world.

If you haven't noticed any posts that mention the European and white races disappearing or not being able to replace themselves and needing immigration to provide necessary economic growth to sustain their societies then you have missed a few things. Do you think that to be true and if so why do you suppose it is so?

Government is supposed to allow for people to pursue happiness. Guarantees of security and property are goals that come out of that prime objective.

Agreed.

Why would you have government legitimize theft?

If held to it's mandate government would not be too costly and taxation could be done without the threat of violence against person and property. If you think the threat of jail and loss of property isn't violent then you have justified a reason for violence.

I would like to think that if I need to save in order to cover some cost that I can do so. I do not like the idea that whatever I can produce must be shared equally with the various levels of government. I must have the ability to chose to pay taxes. I do somewhat with a VAT because I then determine if I wish to buy something or not. I have no choice with an income tax. If I face a devastating situation I would like to have all the resources of my production to hand in order to get out of the situation.

Gotta go! Have a glorious day!

[Pliny]

I don't think i disagree with a single word you posted here.

Which begs the question: to what, exactly, are you responding?

The telethons were always there, in some form.

I feel blueblood shouldn't have perhaps asked that question. And therefore your point is undermined not underlined.

[Michael Hardner]

"Conserve". A conservative conserves. It preserves the status quo. A conservative would tend to keep things the same making the nineteenth century move through time.

By that definition, yes I am conservative.

Not to say that there isn`t a better way of doing things than the American democratic model. Maybe the intellectuals that will come out of the introduction of the web much as the American model arose from philosophers of the Renaissance.

I don't know of any countries where there is anarchy. Perhaps Somalia is the closest to that but there is a governmental structure. I can't say if the strife and unrest in Somalia isn't the result of the continuous struggle to impose a central government both internally and externally. I don't have an in depth knowledge of Somalia and it's history or it's current affairs but from what I do know there is resistance to the centralization of authority. All other nations have a central government and there is pressure to establish that in Somalia.

There are other examples. Liberia, until recently, was like that.

Why wouldn't it look like the nineteenth century still? Because where there is trade there is invention and innovation and progress. It is only when trade is restricted that strife occurs. Government does have a role and it is about providing justice and the maintenance of the sanctity of person and property. Some Libertarians may disagree with me and say that even those basic responsibilities of government can be provided better by the private sector but I am not convinced of that - yet.

What unmitigated doesn`t provide is general well being or sharing of benefits beyond those involved directly in the enterprise.

You are certainly more favourable to government than I. I am of the opinion it must be vigilantly scrutinized with a jaundiced eye. I like George Washington's comparison of it to a fire that must be constantly watched. It's progressive encroachment upon society is the danger and democracy, unless we understand it is for all of our benefit and not intended to benefit some over others, fosters the socialist progressivism that encourages government to become a bloated bureaucratic parasitic nightmare that finally destroys the society it is entrusted to preserve freedom and liberty for the individual and the State is the only entity with any freedom.

And democracy ensures that that balance will be kept.

A natural monopoly is much harder to create than one fostered by government and has a tendency to disappear unless protected by government.

They all have a tendency to disappear. Monopolys are just one example, oligopolies and the general accumulation of privilege needs to be monitored.

Power can accumulate with wealth. Obviously more can be accomplished with wealth than without. But then one must spend his wealth to accomplish his ideals. It is when he uses his wealth to persuade government to use it's resources to accomplish his ideals. It is much cheaper for him to do that and he can persuade government to grant him privileges in the process. That is power his wealth should not be able to buy.

To accomplish ideals or futher other objectives - business objectives ? Those aren't ideals, they are just goals.

In each of your examples you talk about the problems with government today, but seem to propose systems similar to those that led to the situation we have today. That's a step backwards, not forwards.

My suspicion is that our information environment may have opened up the possibility for new hybrids of government, but we're too focused on past solutions to consider them.

There is "an" option that was not available before. Does it aid or ensnare?

I would say it aids. How many people who have been on EI or Welfare are still there years later ? How many are now paying taxes ?

I suppose you suggest that by having a social safety net absolute poverty is eliminated?

Yes, depending on how you define absolute poverty. In the 18th century, starvation and destitution were a real threat to working people. No so today.

I enjoy my work and I enjoy providing what other people feel makes their lives better.

Without that I have nothing. Work must be seen as a service to your fellowman. It isn't just labour. If you can make your work easier then I see no problem with that but you must still feel you are contributing to the improvement of the lives of others. Then it is mutually beneficial.

But you still must be paid for it. If your work is so pleasurable to you that you would do it for free, then it is not labour. However useful you are, if your labour can be done for less it will be an improvement for the economy.

I suppose you have to define work. Work has to be the production of benefit to self and others and a general improvement to life and living standards.

The elimination of work and establishment of permanent vacations is a vacuous and morally bankrupt concept.

How Protestant of you. Unfortunately, though, "work" is going to be more and more unrecognizable as time marches on. My grandfather worked in a factory, but today he might have applied to a position as a "project facilitator".

Not much of a factor. Really! Moving away from an agrarian society to a more civic society plays a greater role. It is our necessities that have changed. Most of us are able to create and keep enough of our wealth to provide for ourselves to our grave. WE are not dependent upon our children to look after us in old age or to do all the physical labour necessary to an agrarian life.

Margaret Sanger was the founder of Planned Parenthood. You should read about her.

She was interested in ensuring poor people, who were obviously poor because they were stupid, didn't procreate. Besides being an early proponent of forced sterilization laws, she encouraged abortion for the purposes of population control, not because she thought women should have choice, but there were too many people in the world.

If you haven't noticed any posts that mention the European and white races disappearing or not being able to replace themselves and needing immigration to provide necessary economic growth to sustain their societies then you have missed a few things. Do you think that to be true and if so why do you suppose it is so?

Birth control gives options to women. Look at the birth rate drop in the mid 1960s. It's not like people realized that they were economically well off in such a short timespan.

Agreed.

Why would you have government legitimize theft?

If held to it's mandate government would not be too costly and taxation could be done without the threat of violence against person and property. If you think the threat of jail and loss of property isn't violent then you have justified a reason for violence.

I would like to think that if I need to save in order to cover some cost that I can do so. I do not like the idea that whatever I can produce must be shared equally with the various levels of government. I must have the ability to chose to pay taxes. I do somewhat with a VAT because I then determine if I wish to buy something or not. I have no choice with an income tax. If I face a devastating situation I would like to have all the resources of my production to hand in order to get out of the situation.

Gotta go! Have a glorious day!

The threat of violence is a societal tool that is used in all aspects of living, if you want to talk in absolutes. The threat of violence makes you park your car properly.

I wouldn't categorize taxation as theft, because we collectively agree to the system. Think of it as tithes. You can have the ability to choose to pay taxes if you move somewhere where that is the law of the land. Alternately, you can try to do so here and risk violence as you call it. Or you can promote your ideas peacefully and try to convince people as you have done.

This is a good conversation, but we have again drifted from the idea of management of economic improvement which you still don't seem to understand, and gone back to Libertarianism.

How about this - would you have the government declare free and open trade, and open the borders for immigration, provided immigrants receive security clearance ? That seems libertarian to me - an open labour market.

[Oleg Bach]

My father was a cultured and civlized man - he said one thing when it comes to food or money - "Remember, there are others" - we are pigs without empathy.

[Michael Hardner]

My father was a cultured and civlized man - he said one thing when it comes to food or money - "Remember, there are others" - we are pigs without empathy.

That is, I believe, an ambiguous modifier.

Do you mean to say "We are pigs that have no empathy." or "Without empathy, we would be pigs."

I can't tell from your post.

[Pliny]

I wouldn't categorize taxation as theft, because we collectively agree to the system. Think of it as tithes. You can have the ability to choose to pay taxes if you move somewhere where that is the law of the land. Alternately, you can try to do so here and risk violence as you call it. Or you can promote your ideas peacefully and try to convince people as you have done.

An interesting article on taxation.

Is it theft?

This is a good conversation, but we have again drifted from the idea of management of economic improvement which you still don't seem to understand, and gone back to Libertarianism.

You see, management of economic improvement implies that someone understands the value judgments of other individuals and can thus manage the economy accordingly since he knows what others want and assign value to.

The other aspect of this is that an ideal must be held in order to manage an economy. What is best for the good of all society must be agreed upon in order for their to be a consensus that the economy has improved. therefore manging an economy does not take into account any innovations or inventions not considered before the ideal was formulated. It may indeed refuse to recognize innovation and/or invention if it detract from the preconceived notions that a managed economy strives to achieve regardless of whether those things may be more beneficial.

I am of the opinion that the ideal has not yet been dreamt of nor could it be possibly concieved what the ideal should be. Until all innovation and invention has been exhausted, something that would be impossible, only then could we have a managed economy.

How about this - would you have the government declare free and open trade, and open the borders for immigration, provided immigrants receive security clearance ? That seems libertarian to me - an open labour market.

Libertarians would agree with that but we would not be able to provide or extend government programs to new immigrants. Therefore we should not have government provided social services. We should have a respect for the sanctity of person and property, and the upholding of that concept, in my view, is the proper role of government. Immigrants would flock here in great numbers if that were the sole benefit, and it would be no burden to society as long as those new immigrants held that very same concept of the sanctity of person and property.