A New Way Forward for Canada

[MapleLeafAlliance]

meanwhile if my neighbour is a rich sob he can devalue my property, bankrupt me with legal costs and so there will be no recourse through the courts...my only protection is government regulation of property use...good luck finding another landowner who agrees with your weird concepts...

libertarianism as you define it equals anarchy...

Government regulation is coercive, and presupposes that someone other than you knows best on how to spend the money you've earned, which is ridiculous.

In a free market legal representation would be inexpensive - as would real estate. As for finding other landowner who agrees with my view...there are many libertarians in this country - they just don't get as much coverage in our isolationist, and highly protective media culture here in Canada.

[Michael Hardner]

The people who give knee-jerk reactions to libertarian views are the ones who haven't thought things through...the logic is sound, should you care to look beneath the surface or past your own pre conceived short-sightedness. Stop clinging to the status quo as though it was based on reason, when the opposite is true.

The logic is sound, and yet no nation has done this.

No, the government shouldn't be building roads, power plants, or hospitals...the private sector can handle those tasks in a timelier, more efficient, and cost effective manner than can any bureaucracy. And the market place can determine when any of the above ought or ought not to be built through simple supply and demand.

The government doesn't build those things, they contract private agencies to do it. Bureaucracy isn't a function of government, it's a necessity for large/complex tasks.

You are your own person, capable of making your own decisions...stop trying to be the government's pet. Only you own you.

Also, my slave owner can own me... after he buys me that is.

[MapleLeafAlliance]

The logic is sound, and yet no nation has done this.

Yet.

The government doesn't build those things, they contract private agencies to do it. Bureaucracy isn't a function of government, it's a necessity for large/complex tasks.

You make a disingenuous argument here...the government is the one footing the bill, therefore it is a government project even if technically the bureaucrats aren't the ones out there doing the paving and masonry work.

And you have it backwards, bureaucracy is not necessary for the completion of large/complex tasks, rather tasks are made "large/complex" by bureaucrats.

Every project requires a certain amount of people to see it through to completion. In the private sector, and especially in a free market economy, companies who take it upon themselves to complete large projects will do so with the profit incentive prevalent in their minds meaning the amount of people/bureaucracy involved in completing tasks will be kept to a minimum, and likewise costs. A private company has an incentive to construct quickly so as not to bleed money.

In government, where the well seems constantly full there is no incentive to reduce costs, and minimize the amount of people involved in any given project...thus a project like building a hospital takes a decade (see: Montreal's hospital boondoggle) and involves thousands of cooks spoiling the broth.

Also, my slave owner can own me... after he buys me that is.

Where's your paycheque from government? No one's paying us to be a ward of the state, just the opposite.

[Michael Hardner]

Yet.

When ?

You make a disingenuous argument here...the government is the one footing the bill, therefore it is a government project even if technically the bureaucrats aren't the ones out there doing the paving and masonry work.

Are you implying that the altruistic and helpful private companies are - gasp - charging too much to the government for their services ?

And you have it backwards, bureaucracy is not necessary for the completion of large/complex tasks, rather tasks are made "large/complex" by bureaucrats.

Bureaucracy is necessary for the completion of large and complex tasks. That is just obvious.

Every project requires a certain amount of people to see it through to completion. In the private sector, and especially in a free market economy, companies who take it upon themselves to complete large projects will do so with the profit incentive prevalent in their minds meaning the amount of people/bureaucracy involved in completing tasks will be kept to a minimum, and likewise costs. A private company has an incentive to construct quickly so as not to bleed money.

It's still bureaucracy. It could be a minimum, but it could involve hundreds of people. Do you work for the government ?

In government, where the well seems constantly full there is no incentive to reduce costs, and minimize the amount of people involved in any given project...thus a project like building a hospital takes a decade (see: Montreal's hospital boondoggle) and involves thousands of cooks spoiling the broth.

Where's your paycheque from government? No one's paying us to be a ward of the state, just the opposite.

[MapleLeafAlliance]

When ?

I'm not psychic. How about...as soon as possible?

Are you implying that the altruistic and helpful private companies are - gasp - charging too much to the government for their services ?

Again with the disingenuous argument. Obviously private companies look out for themselves, and they're after profit. Of course in an economy that is heavily regulated and subsidized companies can get away with gouging. In a free market however, with no government involvement in the economy, it would be sink or swim, you either keep customers or you go out of business. No company will risk going out of business by overcharging, or providing substandard work. The government doesn't work without a safety net, and thus cannot make the same claims.

In a free market we won't need private companies to be altruistic or helpful, we will expect them to offer good work at a fair price, and if they don't we take our business elsewhere...and in a sink or swim economy no business will want to risk that.

Bureaucracy is necessary for the completion of large and complex tasks. That is just obvious.

It's that kind of blanket statement that keeps politicians in office robbing us blind while they waste money left and right to get anything done. A private company working in a free market economy could complete projects with far fewer workers, far less money spent, and at a much greater speed than could the government in our current economic condition. That too is obvious.

It's still bureaucracy. It could be a minimum, but it could involve hundreds of people. Do you work for the government?

Sure, a private company operating within a free market economy may require hundreds of people to complete a given project, but since they'd be bent on turning a profit and delivering value you can bet the number of workers would be a reflection of the minimum required, same can be said for the costs involved. Compare that with the current system, and a project the private sector could do for millions of dollars and hundreds of workers would require billions of dollars, and thousands of people involved to see the thing through.

Remove the profit incentive, and there's no limit as to how high costs could go, nor a time limit on completion.

[M.Dancer]

Right, because I'm sure you'd rather live in a country where the government can dictate to you, what you can and cannot do on/with your own private property?

Yes. I am opposed to people setting their own houses on fire because they don't like the window treatments.