Signals.Cpl Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 we still need it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 So, about that F-35 don't need them, too expensive, if the super hornet is good enough for the US Navy and Australia they're good enough for us... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 Learn the difference between anarchy and free market capitalism. You're arguing against anarchy. I am not in support of anarchy. Learn the difference. And what is the difference? I’ll bite (for now) on your pseudo free market mantra……….What were both Adam Smith’s and Milton Freidman’s stance on a standing, professional military? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 (edited) But since the Super Hornet is going to be shown to cost the same amount...and since both the US Navy and Australia are also buying the F-35, you don't seem to have a point. Edited December 10, 2012 by Smallc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 don't need them, too expensive, if the super hornet is good enough for the US Navy and Australia they're good enough for us... They won't be post ~2030. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 we cannot defend ourselves against super powers....those we can defend ourselves against don't have the capability to invade us... We depend on other powers to help defend us which means we should at least to make an effort to defend ourselves. You know, around the world, this country is regarded as one of the best on the planet to live. I never cease to be amazed at the number of its citizens who put so little value on its security. Now back to the F-35. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kward Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 My point is your fantasy does not exist because it is not viable, soon enough someone will gather enough strength and take power and our government will be powerless to do anything. That's funny because the current way of doing things isn't viable, and yet here we are. The scenario of someone gathering "enough" strength and taking power from our government could theoretically happen at anytime under any political system. Spending billions on jets won't change that. So what's your point? Government can't regulate when it cannot enforce those regulations. The government shouldn't be in the business of regulating, period. Your version of the "free market capitalism" resembles anarchy, essentially arming groups of citizens and letting them enforce the law, no professional standers expected and the guy with the most money/things controls them while the government remains powerless to do anything. That's your paraphrasing talking, not what I'm actually saying. I'm not saying citizens should enforce the law. The government can have a role in enforcing property rights, and other laws through a system of courts. But it has to be kept a minimal as possible. The government's function should be to protect liberty, and not much else. Of course professional standards can be maintained and upheld, we just don't need a bureaucratic, inefficient government body to do it. In a free market economy, the playing field is leveled, and you gain power, you don't lose it. Gee I wonder what happened in Germany then? They had a set of ethics and principles, they just happened to not align with ours and most others. What's your point? You don't need all the people to throw away their principles, you need enough of them to do so and those few will rule the many. So how would this work? When they form their own police organizations what happens when someone decides they want to benefit from it so they use their power to abuse, who is above them? The people paying them. Even if that means a government-operated police service paid for through something other than an income tax. See all of Africa. Yes, Africa is home to many nations that practice free market capitalism. What? Doesn't fit your theory so you ignore it? It has happened in Africa, it has happened in Asia, and it has happened in Europe. You remove the law and people form their own little groups to enforce the law, now think about the gangs that demand "protection money" are they not controlling the supply of whatever they choose? They demand more money from someone and that person charges more for their service or goods since they need to live, if they choose not to play along they lose because the other guys have the power. Again, you're talking about anarchy. And they are doing much better with the funds of the country than if we handed the reins of the country to the likes of the G8/G20 protestors or the protestors in Quebec. The reins? You want to wear reins like common livestock? Not me. Those protesters are people. They protest because there is currently not a level playing field for everyone. A free market economy is the answer to that. I am the leader of a gang, I demand 10,000 dollars from every business in the neighbourhood/city/area, suddenly their expenses rise and they pass it off to the customer. If the population becomes unruly I withhold food and medicine and people have no choice, support me and get something or don't support me and die... how about that for a choice. You're arguing with yourself. You keep bringing up examples of anarchy, which is not what I advocate. And generally people will not strive for the high standards demanded today and will instead offer low standard care, If a business owner offers low quality, they don't win customers. A business owner unwilling to satisfy market demand of affordability combined with quality is out of business in a free market. You need to understand how market forces work, and how the profit incentive benefits us all. You definitely need to understand how the free market works instead of constantly using examples that can only happen under the current system of subsidy and protectionism. the rich/affluent will be able to get the best because they will get the few while the poor will get a choice between bad bad and worse. The more you make, sure the more you can afford the top level care. Nothing is free, you have to earn it. But does that mean people with less money will have poor quality care that costs too much? Compared to now? No...in fact, good quality care at an affordable price would be available to all in a free market. Why? Because the profit incentive coupled with no barrier to entry for any startup and no limits on competition will always keep prices low. Business owners want to stay in business. I would much prefer to know if the guy is qualified before he cuts me up rather than find out that oops he doesn't know a thing right after he cripples me for life. Right, that's why you do your research before you put down your hard-earned money. People do it when they buy expensive appliances, or digital cameras, or automobiles...so why would you be hasty in deciding on a health care practitioner? And I have a gun here that will blow your little daughters head off if you don't tell people I am good at what I do Yes, very realistic. Also, an example of anarchism. Nice solution... we lower the standard we get more people in People get what they pay for. A lower standard will be cheaper yes. But a higher standard will still be affordable. Why? Because the demand for it will be there. Again what happens when someone or a group of people control the doctors through force? Anarchy, not free market capitalism. Unless I desperately need it and go to your house and take your money or just force the doctor to do the operation...remember no one is there to make sure that I treat him/her fairly. Anarchy. The poor get the worst, the rich get the best. Incentive for the "poor" to try and get rich. And they'll make others rich in the process, and so on and so on, and so on... What you propose is to lower the standards so low that any witch doctor can practice medicine Anyone should be able to practice medicine and charge for it. Luckily, only the ones providing a high standard care at an affordable price will be the ones who stay in business. and when the supply of good doctors is low and the supply of bad doctors is higher Bad doctors don't stay in business without help. In a free market they're on their own. There is no government subsidy that allows them to keep doing a poor job. If they're bad at what they do, no one will pay them to provide care. only a select few get the good while everyone else has no choice but to go with the bad. No choice is a product of a government controlled marketplace. A free market is not government controlled, businesses only stay in business if they win customers. If they provide bad service or charge too much or both, they don't stay in business. There's always room in a free market for businesses that provide value for the money. Only the best survive. The consumers have all the power. The reason such a society does not exist is because the current powers that be do not want consumers to have the power. They don't want a level playing field. They use scare tactics like comparing a free market to anarchy, which it is not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kward Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 You are so narrow minded that to you its either black or white, either we have a many state or anarchy no in-between. Right now Canada has a good system going, not perfect but its good and what you are advocating is to give it up and leave it in the hands of the people willing to use force against anyone and everyone else... apparently you cannot see past your nose. For the last time! I do not advocate anarchy. Do not. Get it? Yes, right now we have the nanny state that takes care of everyone from cradle to grave, or tries. I don't advocate we give up the status quo for anarchy. How many different ways can I say this? Apparently, you haven't read about the difference between free market capitalism and anarchy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 For the last time! I do not advocate anarchy. Do not. Get it? Yes, right now we have the nanny state that takes care of everyone from cradle to grave, or tries. I don't advocate we give up the status quo for anarchy. How many different ways can I say this? Apparently, you haven't read about the difference between free market capitalism and anarchy. Nor would it seem have you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kward Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 Why buy them when you can just take them. Why pay 15 billion for Nexen when they know we are just a bunch of pussies who won't and can't do anything if they just come and take it and the rest of the oil sands. Yes, with their giant dumptruck that can drive across the Pacific. Or, their huge helicopters who will swoop in and carry the oil sands away...better break out the buckets. Give me a break. A bunch of pussies? This is economics. This is business...not the UFC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted December 10, 2012 Author Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 The reins? You want to wear reins like common livestock? Not me. Those protesters are people. They protest because there is currently not a level playing field for everyone. A free market economy is the answer to that. It's fairly clear you're not much of a student of history. It's funny, because from your brief posting history here you're like...the stereotypical small-town Albertan libertarian. Your naive fantasies are pretty charming. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 And what is the difference? I’ll bite (for now) on your pseudo free market mantra……….What were both Adam Smith’s and Milton Freidman’s stance on a standing, professional military? Still waiting kward Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Signals.Cpl Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 That's funny because the current way of doing things isn't viable, and yet here we are. The scenario of someone gathering "enough" strength and taking power from our government could theoretically happen at anytime under any political system. Spending billions on jets won't change that. So what's your point? It is a lot less likely if there is the military as well as professional police forces to stop that, the likelihood of someone gathering enough strength to overthrow the government rises exponentially when you let them arm themselves and you disarm the government. At this moment the government has a monopoly on heavy weapons and a well trained force remove that and arm some petty dictator and things get interesting. The government shouldn't be in the business of regulating, period. Thats why they let the banks regulate themselves right? And it turns out they aren't too good at it. That's your paraphrasing talking, not what I'm actually saying. Different name same garbage. You are promoting anarchy learn its meaning. I'm not saying citizens should enforce the law. They should form their own police right? Gee why am I even arguing you flip and then you flop so much its hard to keep your bullshit straight. The government can have a role in enforcing property rights, and other laws through a system of courts. No police, no military no enforcement = laws are useless. The government's function should be to protect liberty, and not much else. Protect the liberty how? With very very strong language? Of course professional standards can be maintained and upheld, we just don't need a bureaucratic, inefficient government body to do it. In a free market economy, the playing field is leveled, and you gain power, you don't lose it. No, a small group gain power and everyone loses power. They had a set of ethics and principles, they just happened to not align with ours and most others. What's your point? Yeah because the holocaust was ethical right? The people paying them. Even if that means a government-operated police service paid for through something other than an income tax. Yeah and when they figure out that they can get their funds from somewhere else and call their own shots? Yes, Africa is home to many nations that practice free market capitalism. Yes Africa is a good example to show how your anarchy solution leads to petty dictators and warlords controlling the supply and hence the people. Again, you're talking about anarchy. No you are talking about anarchy, you have made no distinction in anything but name. The reins? You want to wear reins like common livestock? Not me. Those protesters are people. They protest because there is currently not a level playing field for everyone. A free market economy is the answer to that. They protest because they don't agree with something, they cause violence and destruction wherever they go and I would prefer that there is something between them and my family, if it is not the police or the military it would be a rifle and myself. If a business owner offers low quality, they don't win customers. A business owner unwilling to satisfy market demand of affordability combined with quality is out of business in a free market. You need to understand how market forces work, and how the profit incentive benefits us all. You definitely need to understand how the free market works instead of constantly using examples that can only happen under the current system of subsidy and protectionism. I am paid to form a police force, I eliminate those pesky little things like standards(bureaucracy) and realize that I have a monopoly of armed man in my city so I decide that the federal government can try to call the shots but I will tax the people in my town or city and fund my own operation. I introduce a tax to every business and that automatically increase the cost and then tax the people to decrease available funds. I control the supply and I control the people, My family and close friends/allies get top notch healthcare everyone else gets the left over. The more you make, sure the more you can afford the top level care. Nothing is free, you have to earn it. But does that mean people with less money will have poor quality care that costs too much? Compared to now? No...in fact, good quality care at an affordable price would be available to all in a free market. Why? Because the profit incentive coupled with no barrier to entry for any startup and no limits on competition will always keep prices low. Business owners want to stay in business. See Above. Right, that's why you do your research before you put down your hard-earned money. People do it when they buy expensive appliances, or digital cameras, or automobiles...so why would you be hasty in deciding on a health care practitioner? See above. Yes, very realistic. Also, an example of anarchism. so you think it has never happened? When you remove the law and place law enforcement in the hands of private citizens this cannot happen? People get what they pay for. A lower standard will be cheaper yes. But a higher standard will still be affordable. Why? Because the demand for it will be there. I control the standard because I have the guns, you want to get good healthcare you have to be useful to me, you are not useful you get what everyone else gets... Anarchy, not free market capitalism. The way you are proposing it, it is the exact same thing in a different name. Incentive for the "poor" to try and get rich. And they'll make others rich in the process, and so on and so on, and so on... 10,000 years of history and not one example of success? Anyone should be able to practice medicine and charge for it. Luckily, only the ones providing a high standard care at an affordable price will be the ones who stay in business. See above. Bad doctors don't stay in business without help. I have the guns and I help the bad doctors stay in business, loyalty to the local warlord leads to better treatment while the common people get nothing. In a free market they're on their own. For about 5 minuets before someone takes over. There is no government subsidy that allows them to keep doing a poor job. If they're bad at what they do, no one will pay them to provide care. See above. No choice is a product of a government controlled marketplace. A free market is not government controlled, businesses only stay in business if they win customers. If they provide bad service or charge too much or both, they don't stay in business. There's always room in a free market for businesses that provide value for the money. Only the best survive. The consumers have all the power. See above! The reason such a society does not exist is because the current powers that be do not want consumers to have the power. They don't want a level playing field. They use scare tactics like comparing a free market to anarchy, which it is not. Again, 10,000 years and not one viable example... I think this proves that in all of human history this idiotic idea has never survived for long as someone always comes on top and no one is there to stop him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Signals.Cpl Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 For the last time! I do not advocate anarchy. Do not. Get it? Yes, right now we have the nanny state that takes care of everyone from cradle to grave, or tries. I don't advocate we give up the status quo for anarchy. How many different ways can I say this? Apparently, you haven't read about the difference between free market capitalism and anarchy. You advocate a system that has not succeeded in thousands of years of human history because it is so completely idiotic it is not even funny. The idea you are proposing will survive for about a month before someone takes power, no central power means that neighbourhoods will fight until someone wins over the entire city, which leads to city states and potentially decades of warfare to form countries which lead to even more warfare to form larger countries and in a few hundred years we would be the same place as now only with hundreds of years of warfare, billions of lives lost and a standard of living to rival 12th century europe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Signals.Cpl Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 (edited) Yes, with their giant dumptruck that can drive across the Pacific. Or, their huge helicopters who will swoop in and carry the oil sands away...better break out the buckets. Give me a break. A bunch of pussies? This is economics. This is business...not the UFC. Go in to the most gang infested neighbourhood and flash a few thousand dollars while sitting by a nice car and try your brand of diplomacy... Edited December 10, 2012 by Signals.Cpl Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kward Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 No, because the guys with the biggest and most guns make the rules and they will dictate what constitutes a free market, not you and you can bet your ass such a market will only be free for them. In an anarchic state, yes you're right. That's not what I'm advocating. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 But that is the result of what you're advocating. There's a reason that your utopia doesn't exist in the real world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kward Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 How are you going to stop anarchy with no means of enforcing your utopia? A free market is free of coercion, but in a free market capitalist society you still have the rule of law, and you still have some kind of defense. It wouldn't mean throwing billions down a rat hole in an endless attempt at providing 'x' amount of fighter jets or anything else. But there would be some role for a minimal and very limited government to play in terms of protecting liberty. My argument continues to be, you need to use diplomacy before thinking about wasting money on war machines. Of course something there just in case makes sense. Spending needlessly with no end in sight does not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Signals.Cpl Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 A free market is free of coercion, but in a free market capitalist society you still have the rule of law, and you still have some kind of defense. It wouldn't mean throwing billions down a rat hole in an endless attempt at providing 'x' amount of fighter jets or anything else. But there would be some role for a minimal and very limited government to play in terms of protecting liberty. My argument continues to be, you need to use diplomacy before thinking about wasting money on war machines. Of course something there just in case makes sense. Spending needlessly with no end in sight does not. Go in to the most gang infested neighbourhood and flash a few thousand dollars while sitting by a nice car and try your brand of diplomacy... If your diplomacy cannot stop a smalltime gangster from beating you and taking your money, your diplomacy will not work on a warlord, a terrorist or a dictator(see Rwanda). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kward Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 I am talking about you and your simpleminded idea to remove police and expect people to behave themselves and police themselves which will not happen. Remove inefficient bureaucratic policing yes. Remove any kind of policing no. See the difference? You are proposing anarchy under a different name. I'm not proposing anarchy at all. How many times do I have to say that government has a role, albeit as limited as possible? Turn off your selective sight. Whoa there boy, nanny state remember no regulation. Contract enforcement is necessary at a government level, otherwise we take a step toward anarchy...which if you've been paying attention, is not what I advocate. That is a role they cannot sustain because someone will figure out that they can do as they please and the court cannot do anything about it, Hold on...why can't they do anything about it? you want funds you "tax" the people under your control, Not via an income tax you don't. That's essentially theft. But not all taxation is bad, taxing consumption is a viable option. Tariffs are another. you enforce laws you want rather than laws some lame government with no ability to enforce tells you to enforce. People who want to do away with all government are anarchists. For the millionth time...I do not advocate zero government. I recognize it has a function, but it should be kept to a minimum. Well stop suggesting anarchy under a free market capitalism guise. If you knew the difference you wouldn't say that. There is no difference in the way you are suggesting it except that we end up with a short period of anarchy before different warlords take over and form city states and start wars to expand their empires. I have not suggested anarchy, i.e. no government...not once. I'm not sure why you cling to the belief that I support anarchy. Maybe because you've realized the virtues of a free market capitalist society, but you just don't want to admit it out of some point of pride? I don't know. Just a guess. Otherwise why would you continue to mischaracterize what I am saying as being something else? Perhaps you still don't understand the difference? And what happens when they can't enforce a thing? Why wouldn't they be able to enforce? So you are for property owners to field their own militaries while you are against property owners fielding their own private military? No, I am for property owners arming themselves if they'd like. But I think building a widespread form of defense is probably best left to the government - albeit, it'd have to keep spending as low as it could. Billions wasted on fighter jets would be too much. Why waste the money? Keeping a thousand soldiers is not going to change the situation one way or another. What situation? Keeping a thousand jets doesn't do anything either. And not once have I said the government should employ "a thousand soldiers". It'd have to be more than that. It's a big country. According to you government does nothing but pass laws that no one will listen to and that they cannot enforce. Why can't they enforce them? Why won't anyone listen to them? You know if you move to the woods you can have the freedom you so desire and the rest of us can live in a democracy rather than anarchy turned dictatorship. A democracy is mob rule, and a terrible way to run a society. Move to the woods? Why? Freedom is worth fighting for...no need to remove myself from society. No progress is made there. And freedom is not anarchy. And anarchy is not what I propose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kward Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 You are presenting zero difference between the two. Anarchy is no government. I propose minimal government. Under what I'm proposing there is still a government. See the difference? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kward Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 Removing all regulation, privatizing police and the military as well as medical and firefighting services will lead to people grabbing power and fighting to become the next dictator. Those are examples I gave of alternatives to having everything regulated by the state. Removing government regulation is good, and there may be some merit to privatizing all of the above. But as I've said, time and again, the best solution is to have a free market, and a minimal sized government that can provide an efficient, relatively red-tape free system of courts, contract enforcement, and defense. Protecting liberty would be job one. If the will of the people in the free market decided to have the government provide firefighting and police force...so be it, but it would not be the expensive over the top model we have right now. Ways to reduce those costs are to have people take responsibility for themselves. Protecting your property is important - be it from theft, trespassing, or from threats like fire. If people took more responsibility for themselves and felt less entitled to everyone else's money, maybe the government could play a role in policing and fire protection while keeping the bureaucratic waste in check. THEN, we'd be getting somewhere. Medical service under government control is not the way to go. You hold a belief that if we were to eliminate government people will suddenly start being charitable to each other all the while ignoring thousands of years of history and facts proving otherwise... I don't advocate eliminating government. I advocate minimal government. How you cannot see the difference is beyond me. In one scenario there is no government, in the other there IS a government. Do you understand yet? I have way too much to do to waste my time with some child who has no concept of the real world and is probably in mommies basement advocating anarchy under a different name... Cop out. You don't have a valid argument against free market capitalism, so your idea is to try and label me an anarchist and argue against that instead. The only problem is, you're arguing against yourself...I don't want anarchy either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 Still waiting kward Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kward Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 There is short examples of relatively free markets, the problem is that inevitably authorities emerge so this will always just be a temporary condition. We have seen various scenarios where these authorities were privately ran... dictatorships, autocracies, land ownership councils etc. People like elected governments more because of the partly true illusion that they control them, and can fire them. That's fine, and I will continue to tell them they're wrong, and they don't have the control or the freedom they think they do. Of course, some people learn the hard way. Not enough have yet though to embrace freedom. That may change once currencies collapse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kward Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 France was Germanys biggest trading partner before the war started and they sure as hell tried diplomacy. Soviet Union was sending resources to Germany, in fact the trains with resources were going to Germany when the German Army was moving in to the Soviet Union.... trade, diplomacy and such sure helped them am I right? At the end of the day, if someone wants to invade, they'll invade. No matter how many billions you waste on fighter jets this is true. So why waste the money. Diplomacy and trade work. There are lots of reasons the Nazis invaded the USSR - your broad brush only illustrates the point that at the end of the day you can only do so much. If someone is determined enough to try and attack...then attack they will. You think buying 'x' amount of fighter jets and wasting everyone's money in the process makes that less of a reality? I'm here to say it doesn't. I can't help it if people do not want to listen to reason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.