• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

FCC is to vote on net neutrality

Azelover

Titanic was called the Ship of Dreams, and it was. It really was.
Government is necessary in some form, but it's best when it's limited.

It's not either get rid of government, or allow a dictatorship to form. Ever notice how polarized people become instantly? Divide and rule..
 

Ke0

Member
To be honest, this doesn't sound like an argument.

Everything about business in a free market is about overcoming barriers. Asking for the government to step in is what becomes the anti-thesis or stifles innovation, because you only maintain a status quo.

Now, I'm not 100% anti-government. I do prefer to meet somewhere in the middle that leads to sensible decisions. I feel like the role of the government should be in upholding the fundamental values of a nation. But other than that, I lean towards being Pro-Corporation, and the government should not interfere with business affairs if its gets in the way of progress.

Sure as long as you ignore the fact that in the free market you so love, corporations get Government hand outs all the time. You're basically arguing that only the current established corporations are deserving of hand outs but new companies need to "overcome barriers"
 

JordanN

Banned
Sure as long as you ignore the fact that in the free market you so love, corporations get Government hand outs all the time. You're basically arguing that only the current established corporations are deserving of hand outs but new companies need to "overcome barriers"

Let me repeat myself for the one thousandths time.

I hate governments handing out hardworking people's money. It doesn't matter if its welfare receiptants, Politicians or even businesses.

The redistribution of money should only be decided by those the labor of it originates from.
 

Ke0

Member
Let me repeat myself for the one thousandths time.

I hate governments handing out hardworking people's money. It doesn't matter if its welfare receiptants, Politicians or even businesses.

The redistribution of money should only be decided by those the labor of it originates from.

I'd recommend moving out of Canada if you hate the government, that and stop using services provided by your government in some form. No more driving on roads, using the internet, etc.

Otherwise you just sound hypocritical
 

JordanN

Banned
I'd recommend moving out of Canada if you hate the government, that and stop using services provided by your government in some form. No more driving on roads, using the internet, etc.

Otherwise you just sound hypocritical

First, I was born here.
Second, the crown government stole this land from the Native Indians. So maybe they should return it first before saying who is a hypocrite?
 

Euphor!a

Banned
First, I was born here.
Second, the crown government stole this land from the Native Indians. So maybe they should return it first before saying who is a hypocrite?

I liked this thread better when you left because you realized you had no idea wtf you were talking about, can we go back to that please? Your stupidity has infected enough threads.
 
Let me repeat myself for the one thousandths time.

I hate governments handing out hardworking people's money. It doesn't matter if its welfare receiptants, Politicians or even businesses.

The redistribution of money should only be decided by those the labor of it originates from.
So hey, we gonna just pretend you haven't made any substantial attempt to respond to anyone knocking your unsubstantiated opinions?

Still waiting to see how this hatred of government handouts applies in any way to enforcement of consumer protections.

Looking forward to it.
 

chaos789

Banned
That's due to government regulations. Stuff like Obamacare prevents businesses from expanding because it requires that companies with 50 or more employees provide them with healthcare, something small businesses cant afford. Also expensive licences and regulations that require exorbitant cash to start a business and get it running makes it difficult for small businesses.

I hope you do know that it's big corporations that tell government to set up all these regulations to reduce competition. Big corporations love big government. They're siamese twins.

Government create monopolies. Monopolies can't exist in a free market.



It's you that has no idea. Government is only needed to ensure our freedom and liberty. Therefore, just police, army and court.

Hmmmm ok. You do realize there is a problem with what you stated here "I hope you do know that it's big corporations that tell government to set up all these regulations to reduce competition. Big corporations love big government. They're siamese twins." Do you know what that problem is?

It is that what you said flies in the face of historical evidence. If big government as you said cohorts with big business as you said, then why does the same multi-national and transnational corporation spend hundreds of millions of dollars on campaign contributions and lobbying to get rid of these very same regulations, if they are the ones who colluded with government to put them in place to begin with? Does not add up.

The reason they give large campaign contributions is to help elect a politican who is more pro-corporation and to get rid of said regulations ,due to the repeling them will increase revenue and consolidation of power.

They spend millions if not billions lobbying to gut regulations (laws) that are put in place by the government, primarily due to public pressure. Do you really think banking corporations were for the establishment of the Credit Protection Bureau? or that Dow Chemical, Exxon or Monsanto were for the Clean Water Act? I know for a fact many in the chemical,oil and gas, and mining industries spent millions in lobbying and advertising to prevent the passing of the Clean Water Act in the 1980's. Or take for instance the banking cartels lobbying to get rid of Glass-Steagall which separated investment banking and commercial banking to prevent another Great Depression, and that lobbying finally played off with the passage of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act.

Fact of the matter is corporations do not give a shit about the health of you or your family. There are many legal landmark court cases that can prove this point. I would think a basic knowledge of America's Industrial Age or the brutality committed against union activists in the late 19th century and early 20th century for simply wanting some basic rights in the workplace would be sufficient evidence to prove this point. But I guess for pseudo-anarchists(libertarians) who espouse social-darwinism "survival of the fittest" then government would be considered the enemy.

The public does not elect corporations, but it does elect government or to put it more simply "we are the government". I realize corporations continue to try and manipulate government to serve their own interests at the expense of the majority, but that is because the government is a barrier to their gluttony. Now government is not always right especially when one entire party is basically at the very whims of corporations and gets elected to serve their interests and not the average citizen's. And most social progress that has been made started on a grassroots level and it was public pressure that helped insititute a womans right to vote, or the Civil Rights Act or the Clean Air Act or minimium wage or the Wagner Act. But every social struggle that has been made has always had pushback by powerful forces that try and manipulate a segment of the population to go against their own self interests. But what they have accomplished in modern times is some truly amazing propaganda. Then again after WW2, PR firms took note of what Goebbels accomplished with his propaganda and began applying it.

I will never understand people who actually believe that if you get rid of regulations then the world will be better off. Better off for who exactly? I mean personally I'd rather have clean water and air, but I guess some people long to live in a deregulated feudal society that is a polluted hellhole.
 

Ke0

Member
First, I was born here.
Second, the crown government stole this land from the Native Indians. So maybe they should return it first before saying who is a hypocrite?

I didn't ask if you were born the bruv. I'm saying if you're so anti-government, you would do better to move to a country that barely has a functioning Government.

And the land being stolen has nothing to do with my statement of you utilizing government services but complaining about the government creating these services using tax money.

You don't see how hating the government and not wanting it to exist nor for it to use tax money to create services…as you use government services is hypocritical?

Reminds me of zany Americans who hate the government and are anti Government but are on government backed healthcare (Medicare? Medicaid?).
 

JordanN

Banned
I didn't ask if you were born the bruv. I'm saying if you're so anti-government, you would do better to move to a country that barely has a functioning Government.

And the land being stolen has nothing to do with my statement of you utilizing government services but complaining about the government creating these services using tax money.

You don't see how hating the government and not wanting it to exist nor for it to use tax money to create services…as you use government services is hypocritical?

Reminds me of zany Americans who hate the government and are anti Government but are on government backed healthcare (Medicare? Medicaid?).

Don't gotta move anywhere. I have as much right to this land as the government that murdered Indians and settled on top of it.
 

Euphor!a

Banned
Don't gotta move anywhere. I have as much right to this land as the government that murdered Indians and settled on top of it.

You also have a right to use the services they provide you, which of course you ignore and whine like a baby as you use them.
 
Let me repeat myself for the one thousandths time.

I hate governments handing out hardworking people's money. It doesn't matter if its welfare receiptants, Politicians or even businesses.

The redistribution of money should only be decided by those the labor of it originates from.

But... Labor is not going to pick up the tabs for shit that people need to live in a society; sewage, roads, highways, pavement, cables in the ground. There are so many services that labor benefit from, as that they as a result of that benefit pay back to the government. Your taxes are being spend on a lot of stuff under the hood that keeps society afloat.
 

demon

I don't mean to alarm you but you have dogs on your face
But... Labor is not going to pick up the tabs for shit that people need to live in a society; sewage, roads, highways, pavement, cables in the ground. There are so many services that labor benefit from, as that they as a result of that benefit pay back to the government. Your taxes are being spend on a lot of stuff under the hood that keeps society afloat.

Yeah, it's a truly delusional viewpoint that all of the necessary and often crucial elements of a society will be taken care of by the free market and profit incentives. There are certain services and infrastructures that the Invisible Hand will either ignore or will do a terrible job at where maximizing profits leads to poor quality and efficiency (just look at healthcare and insurance). For those things, resources need to be pooled and "redistributed" via some sort of democratic framework. AKA Taxes and government. Saying you don't want government to take care of some of these things reveals a profound ignorance and naivety about how much you benefit it and how much you would lose if those services were left to the whims of free-market capitalism. Saying you don't want the government to use taxes to take care of anything is unquestionably just as extremist and just as stupid as some communist calling for an end to capitalism.
 

JordanN

Banned
But... Labor is not going to pick up the tabs for shit that people need to live in a society; sewage, roads, highways, pavement, cables in the ground.
These all could be privatized. There's nothing about Capitalism that says only the government can pick up garbage. Hell, my seasonal job this year involved cleaning up garbage after we were done cutting grass, and more often than not, it was our company that kept certain areas of the city clean than the government did.

Vigilant Walrus said:
There are so many services that labor benefit from, as that they as a result of that benefit pay back to the government. Your taxes are being spend on a lot of stuff under the hood that keeps society afloat.

So there's no benefit when a CEO pays back his employee for doing a job and increasing overall profitably and success of a company? Are you sure you don't have it the other way around where it's the government that leads to a stagnation in services because there is no incentive to do a better job?

Yeah, it's a truly delusional viewpoint that all of the necessary and often crucial elements of a society will be taken care of by the free market and profit incentives. There are certain services and infrastructures that the Invisible Hand will either ignore or will do a terrible job at where maximizing profits leads to poor quality and efficiency (just look at healthcare and insurance).
Why would the free market ignore a service if there's clearly a demand for it?

demon said:
Saying you don't want the government to use taxes to take care of anything is unquestionably just as extremist and just as stupid as some communist calling for an end to capitalism.
Except Socialism is proven to be a failure and has ended in a lot of deaths when attempted. There is no harm in giving current Capitalist societies even more freedom.
 

gatti-man

Member
These all could be privatized. There's nothing about Capitalism that says only the government can pick up garbage. Hell, my seasonal job this year involved cleaning up garbage after we were done cutting grass, and more often than not, it was our company that kept certain areas of the city clean than the government did.

So there's no benefit when a CEO pays back his employee for doing a job and increasing overall profitably and success of a company? Are you sure you don't have it the other way around where it's the government that leads to a stagnation in services because there is no incentive to do a better job?


Why would the free market ignore a service if there's clearly a demand for it?


Except Socialism is proven to be a failure and has ended in a lot of deaths when attempted. There is no harm in giving current Capitalist societies even more freedom.
Lol I mean where to begin with this post besides lol.

Privatization is not some cure all. In fact in many places it leads to increased costs and suffering especially in monopolistic environments or innelastic goods like medical care. A pure capitalistic society is a society of slaves and elites. Socialist elements are necessary for a stable capitalist society. This is all basic stuff really.

First of all the USA has more medical deaths because of lack of treatment than any modern socialized medical care country like Canada, Australia, Germany, France etc.
 

JordanN

Banned
Lol I mean where to begin with this post besides lol.

Privatization is not some cure all. In fact in many places it leads to increased costs and suffering especially in monopolistic environments or innelastic goods like medical care.
Yet it's Capitalism that is quickly raising third world countries out of poverty....


gatti-man said:
A pure capitalistic society is a society of slaves and elites. Socialist elements are necessary for a stable capitalist society. This is all basic stuff really.
There will always be one group of people who are above everybody else. At least with Capitalism, it makes it possible for anyone to rise above the ranks when they work hard enough for it. Also, you are given choice. If one company treats you like a slave, you can leave and join another company with better labor conditions. The free market would eliminate companies that people deem to be bad for them.

With government/socialism, the elites hold a monopoly that the working class are never allowed to touch.

gatti-man said:
First of all the USA has more medical deaths because of lack of treatment than any modern socialized medical care country like Canada, Australia, Germany, France etc.
I'm not American so I don't know the full story, but that sounds bizarre. Are you saying lack of treatment because there are a lack of hospitals/doctors?

One thing I know about US healthcare is that people from my country (Canada) actually go there to skip the wait times for surgery or any other emergency medical attention.
 

gatti-man

Member
Yet it's Capitalism that is quickly raising third world countries out of poverty....



There will always be one group of people who are above everybody else. At least with Capitalism, it makes it possible for anyone to rise above the ranks when they work hard enough for it. Also, you are given choice. If one company treats you like a slave, you can leave and join another company with better labor conditions. The free market would eliminate companies that people deem to be bad for them.

With government/socialism, the elites hold a monopoly that the working class are never allowed to touch.


I'm not American so I don't know the full story, but that sounds bizarre. Are you saying lack of treatment because there are a lack of hospitals/doctors?

One thing I know about US healthcare is that people from my country (Canada) actually go there to skip the wait times for surgery or any other emergency medical attention.

Well RICH people from Canada would go to America where cash is king yes. That's the exact same reason plenty of people here in the untied states die from lack of treatment. If you don't have the money no one here is forced to treat you so you die. It's really that simple. Not only that medicine in the USA is orders of magnitude more expensive than other countries because our govt doesn't regulate price. For example a bag* of salene solution at a hospital is 1,000. Common stitches to a cut is 2,000. No insurance? No money? You're basically dead unless a charity helps you. Honestly if you don't even know these basic issues alwith a pure capitalist society you should just stop posting because you're in wayyyyy over your head here. This is just the tip of the iceberg.
 
How is this thread now about capitalism vs not capitalism?

Jordan N, why don't you answer to any of the points I made that are actually on topic? You know, about Net Neutrality? You've made a habit of saying incorrect or at the least unprovable statements and when you've been called out you switch to some unrelated topic. That's the sign of someone with baseless* opinions.
 

Euphor!a

Banned
How is this thread now about capitalism vs not capitalism?

Jordan N, why don't you answer to any of the points I made that are actually on topic? You know, about Net Neutrality? You've made a habit of saying incorrect or at the least unprovable statements and when you've been called out you switch to some unrelated topic. That's the sign of someone with weak opinions.


I disagree, he seems to have very, very strong opinions. They just seem to be based on a whole lot of nothing.
 

llien

Member
Let me repeat myself for the one thousandths time.

I hate governments handing out hardworking people's money. It doesn't matter if its welfare receiptants, Politicians or even businesses.

The redistribution of money should only be decided by those the labor of it originates from.

Care to name a country where this approach works... let alone, works well?
I can give you examples of redistribution working... great:
Nordic social democracy
 

Ke0

Member
Don't gotta move anywhere. I have as much right to this land as the government that murdered Indians and settled on top of it.

So going by your previous post you're suggesting you don't have any right?

I just find it funny you complain about government services while utilizing a shitton of government services. You basically don't really mean anything you're saying, because if you really did you'd ya know...not use those services.
 

JordanN

Banned
So going by your previous post you're suggesting you don't have any right?

I just find it funny you complain about government services while utilizing a shitton of government services. You basically don't really mean anything you're saying, because if you really did you'd ya know...not use those services.

I didn't know the government was allowed to set up services on stolen land. But I'm the hypocrite.
 
These all could be privatized. There's nothing about Capitalism that says only the government can pick up garbage. Hell, my seasonal job this year involved cleaning up garbage after we were done cutting grass, and more often than not, it was our company that kept certain areas of the city clean than the government did.

How are you going to monetize it? How the fuck is there going to be a free market around spending half a trillion on maintaining pluming, roads and basic infrastructure? Who is going to make money of that? Yeah, they *could* private it, but business is not going to fund anything they cannot make their money back on. That's why the highway trustfund is on the verge of collapse. You're not going to make your money back on the trillions it will cost to repair the 10,000+ decaying roads and bridges. Your ideas of privatizing things like doesn't work, because there is no free market around it- There is no competing income for having having repaired a bridge.

My theory is that even if you had a society that you propose, companies would eventually make their own company that they would pay a fee for (as a service) to take care of infrastructure needs that make society float.
Companies would just make a government again. Society would not function without it.




So there's no benefit when a CEO pays back his employee for doing a job and increasing overall profitably and success of a company? Are you sure you don't have it the other way around where it's the government that leads to a stagnation in services because there is no incentive to do a better job?

I never said anything remotely like that. I said that labor wouldn't be able to exist without the goverment. Labor didn't pay to educate the workforce. labor didn't pay for the roads. Labor didn't pay for the safety of society. the police, the hospitals, the electricity. All these things cost trillions and labor just set up shop and and act fucking entitled. Put them on a mountain and let them pay for everything. Let labor build their own city and society from scratch without a government, and see how that goes. You'll quickly see they don't want to do it.

They don't give a shit about anything other than making a profit. That's their basis for understanding. Humans are a non factor and they can go fuck themselves from the point of view of a corporation. It's not that corporation or capitalism is evil, but it's futile to think that somehow everything that matters is money.

Government are supposed to keep corporations in check, because corporations are not fit or invested in the well being of people or the enviornment. The XL Pipeline is a great example of a company that does what it does. Not because it's evil, but because it is its job to make as much as possible within the confines of the laws. Obama fought for sensible regulations due to the risk of leaks. Risks that was of no concern to a company where a 100 million dollars is chump change. From their point of view, it's just another black mark on the native americans.



I don't think anyone here are saying that we don't believe in capitalism. I'm a capitalist. I believe its our only current working system. But I am not with you at all, that money is all that matters or that the free market is competing. As mentioned earlier- Larger corporations galloping the small fry have reduced competition. Many people have predicted that capitalism have a end date- when corporations become to big to fail, and when you cannot have new players.

They've rigged and manipulated the system. Disney is a good example of someone who'se spend hundreds of millions to change laws of intellectual property to keep their franchises from going freeware. Mickey Mouse being more than a hundred years old is supposed to be the property of everyone.
Capitalists of previous generations recognized that there needed to be some systemic tools to always allow for new competitiors. Because when nobody is competing, capitalism fails. And nobody is competing when it comes to ISPs- Hench this discussion. AT&T and Warner and Verizon are staying off each others turf, so they wont have to engage in a price war.

As a result, the product becomes more expensive, and there is less incentive for innovation. Consumers won't have a choice because they need internet, and when they live in a state where there is just one option, and not any players to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to dig up pavement to put in their own system, you begin to see how the system only favors less than less.

The US is the foremost hyper capitalistic society in the world. It has fewer regulations than most other developed nations, and with that comes instability. A lot of people are hurting. A lot of people are caught in the middle; people who cannot pay for health care, people who cannot pay for their own lawyers. The system of hyper capitalism has been so in favor of corporations, that the government has failed the people.

I challange you to look at the correlation between nations that have more regulations and protections; If you look, you'll see that these nations with good regulations often have less crime, less extremely poor people, less income inequality, more opportunity, less violence, less corruption (political or otherwise), and a general better quality of life for all people.



There are many incompetent governments in the world. In the US the government spends billions on senseless things. But that's not the government in itself that is the problem- its the incompetent people running it.
It's the exact same argument that communists and socialists on the other side says about against corporations. They will highlight truly awful corporations and then conclude that all corporations are evil. That is also nonsense.



Government serves a really important purpose.
 

HStallion

Now what's the next step in your master plan?
I didn't know the government was allowed to set up services on stolen land. But I'm the hypocrite.

No you just keep deflecting to the terrible treatment of the natives in an argument about government services. It's such a disingenuous tactic that is just making light of a terrible part of American history.
 

JordanN

Banned
You're not going to make your money back on the trillions it will cost to repair the 10,000+ decaying roads and bridges.
Who let it get to that point in the first place?

Vigilant Walrus said:
There is no competing income for having having repaired a bridge.
Who repairs cars? Or even buildings?

Vigilant Walrus said:
Companies would just make a government again. Society would not function without it.
But it's not government if anyone can start their own business and offer competing services. A government only maintains a monopoly that taxpayers can't opt out from.

Vigilant Walrus said:
I said that labor wouldn't be able to exist without the goverment.
According to who?

Vigilant Walrus said:
Labor didn't pay to educate the workforce
So just ignore private schools exist?

Vigilant Walrus said:
Labor didn't pay for the safety of society
"Safety of society"
Remind me how police forces can shoot anyone at will?

Vigilant Walrus said:
. All these things cost trillions and labor just set up shop and and act fucking entitled.
You haven't explained how all these services are exclusive to the government. "Costing a lot of money" is not an argument.

Vigilant Walrus said:
They don't give a shit about anything other than making a profit.
Because the government is so humanely and cares for its people right? They're not possibly money hungry either hence why taxes continue to go up and up?

Vigilant Walrus said:
Humans are a non factor and they can go fuck themselves from the point of view of a corporation.
I say the same about the government. Why should I trust my life with a group of people who already have their lives made and have no real incentive to care for me other than when voting season comes around in which case, they can just lie till the election is over.

Vigilant Walrus said:
It's not that corporation or capitalism is evil, but it's futile to think that somehow everything that matters is money.
So explain why does the government needs taxes then?

Vigilant Walrus said:
government are supposed to keep corporations in check, because corporations are not fit or invested in the well being of people or the enviornment.
The Socialist republic of China has horrible looking environments. The people there are always suppressed from speaking their minds. But remind me how it's corporations, who clearly need to respect the customer to continue to earn a living, are the bad ones?

Vigilant Walrus said:
From their point of view, it's just another black mark on the native americans.
Remind me of the history the U.S government's attitudes towards the Native Americans again. Maybe explain what the reservation system is about?

Vigilant Walrus said:
Many people have predicted that capitalism have a end date- when corporations become to big to fail, and when you cannot have new players.
Why worry about the end date? When that happens it happens. For now, it is the only system that works.

Vigilant Walrus said:
I challange you to look at the correlation between nations that have more regulations and protections; I
I'll look into to this how, although the reasons you listed shouldn't theoretically be because of free markets/capitalism.

Crime for example, that could refer to the mafia or drugs, because the government banned those even though an underground market will always exist.

Vigilant Walrus said:
Government serves a really important purpose.

I believe government has a purpose, but only when it comes to upholding certain rights. But I do not believe the government should heavily profit off of private business success because that's exactly how the government is free to take other peoples money and waste it.
 

Euphor!a

Banned
This is all just ignoring the fundamental point that corporations can be successful because they benefit from the backbone of society created by the government. "Oh, corporations would handle it better" is not a response based on any kind of evidence and is even sillier when you consider the fact you are in a thread about the internet and ISPs.
 

JordanN

Banned
I look at Socialist countries to see how government run services are worse.

Actually, not even that. Since people keep calling me for being Canadian, I don't see my own government being effective. If I want the best service, it's not the government providing it, it's the many private businesses that actually care about me as both a customer and human being.

Government only works when the people in control are not liars and leeches. But since they're not, it's the government who demand money while offering broken service.
 
Only thing I agree on about the free market domestically is that governments shouldn't be courting companies to set up shop quid quo pro. Now internationally that's another matter, but domestically it's kinda fucked on the extreme side. Companies should choose and get little help for it.
 

Euphor!a

Banned
I look at Socialist countries to see how government run services are worse.

Actually, not even that. Since people keep calling me for being Canadian, I don't see my own government being effective. If I want the best service, it's not the government providing it, it's the many private businesses that actually care about me as both a customer and human being.

Care about you as a human being... what?

Sorry, no. No corporation does that. The second you stop paying them is the second they stop caring.

And again, this still ignores the point.
 

JordanN

Banned
Care about you as a human being... what?

Sorry, no. No corporation does that. The second you stop paying them is the second they stop caring.

And again, this still ignores the point.

I'm good friends with some businesses in my city and they sometimes offer me free gifts just because they know I'm a good person who doesn't mean any harm. It's also a great way to make connections. Not everything is about money. If I have something they want, I'm willing to help them for free.

If I go to the government for just one small request, they'll instantly tell me "that's not my job. You have to go through 1712176712671 channels and contact the person in charge of 171276712 division who , if you're lucky, might look into your concerns. After they're done taking their 3 week vacation of course."

The government knows when taxes pay for everything, they don't have to care about the very people it comes from, because they have it made. Nobody is going to tell them otherwise unless they get voted out.
 

HStallion

Now what's the next step in your master plan?
I'm friends with Netflix and they even give me movies and TV shows every month for a small friendly monthly payment.
 
The derail is complete. Good job Jordan. No one is talking about NN anymore.

Hope you get a taste of the brew your corporate buddies are preparing for ya.
 

Euphor!a

Banned
I'm good friends with some businesses in my city and they sometimes offer me free gifts just because they know I'm a good person who doesn't mean any harm. It's also a great way to make connections. Not everything is about money. If I have something they want, I'm willing to help them for free.

If I go to the government for just one small request, they'll instantly tell me "that's not my job. You have to go through 1712176712671 channels and contact the person in charge of 171276712 division who , if you're lucky, might look into your concerns. After they're done taking their 3 week vacation of course."

The government knows when taxes pay for everything, they don't have to care about the very people it comes from, because they have it made. Nobody is going to tell them otherwise unless they get voted out.

Yes, the "free" gifts that you get because they know you will keep giving them money. Like, do you seriously not even see that? Stop paying them and your "free" gifts will suddenly and inexplicably disappear.
 

Euphor!a

Banned
The derail is complete. Good job Jordan. No one is talking about NN anymore.

Hope you get a taste of the brew your corporate buddies are preparing for ya.

In all fairness there is nothing to talk about. Net neutrality is good, killing it is bad. He realized that like 2 pages ago which is why he started to ignore it.
 
I think you guys are getting trolled.

Any way there is actually a thread on the other forum as to what can be done to save net neutrality -- lot of protests seem to be planned as well.
 
Who let it get to that point in the first place?

Voters who tuned out due to laziness, indifference and apathy. The governments policy in a free representative democracy usually follows the needs of the people or the next government usurps them.


Who repairs cars? Or even buildings?

What does a car or a building have to do with repairing a bridge? I'm talking about infrastructure, not the small stuff.




But it's not government if anyone can start their own business and offer competing services. A government only maintains a monopoly that taxpayers can't opt out from.

No, that's wrong. Taxpayers can opt out by moving away. Your taxes pay for access to infrastructure. You can go to Antarctica and set up shop there. The people who who want to use the services that government builds (like roads, highways, internet, pavement, technology) pay for that with their taxes. Don't need those? Fine- you don't have to. You can just move away and live in a faraway country with no stable infrastructure, no actual functioning government.




According to who?

According to all of human history post the dawn of agriculture. In all major societies, the pattern has been the same. I wager on history being the massive burden of proof for the validity and essentialness of government. Historically, and currently.
Maybe in the future, but the way our way of life or technology is right now, I see no government as a disaster.


So just ignore private schools exist?

Private schools are established through the government- many of them get subsidizing, tax reductions, quotas. Private schools move into facilities built and run by government. Private schools use water, electricity, heat, parking spaces made by the government. Private schools vast majority of students and teachers and staff are totally dependent on the government.



"Safety of society"
Remind me how police forces can shoot anyone at will?

That the police can shoot anyone at will doesn't disprove or discredit the idea that all civil societies need an effective law enforcement for society to remain civil. The brutality and misconduct of police are in minority.

If you honestly are arguing that we don't need police, I am beginning to think that you're more of an anarchist than a libetarian in your arguments. Or a mix of both.



You haven't explained how all these services are exclusive to the government. "Costing a lot of money" is not an argument.

No, that's not what I am saying. I am saying that, there are services people need to make their lives work, that you cannot monetize. And if you cannot monetize it effectively, corporations are not going to build it or make it. Thus, nobody wants to build something because there is no way to make money of it.

Let's say that you want to build new street signs, street lamps, parking spaces, new roads. You put it out on the free market? You know it will cost upwards 500 million dollars. Which companies are going to bid on that? How are you going to make street lamps for the public and make money of that? How are you going to fix pavement every year on roads everyone uses and make money of doing that?

The point is that, not everything we need as a collective society can be outsourced to corporations. They live on the incentive to make money. They take risk to make money. But nobody is going to build or do something that won't let them make back their money.



Because the government is so humanely and cares for its people right? They're not possibly money hungry either hence why taxes continue to go up and up?

In many countries successful governments are elected due to pushing taxes down. At the expense of the quality of the rest of society.
No, governments are self interested, but in free representative democracies, elections can decide who they want and vote out a government. So if the people care about taxes, the politicians care about taxes so they can win.

In that way, single issues that have caught in the public have caused politicians to change their tune.




I say the same about the government. Why should I trust my life with a group of people who already have their lives made and have no real incentive to care for me other than when voting season comes around in which case, they can just lie till the election is over.

Have you ever worked for the government? Many government jobs in the public sector are not glamerous or well paid. Often you can make more in private hospitals, private schools and private institutions.
But I have family who are public doctors and school teachers because they actually care, and became those professions to make a difference to ordinary people.

Secondly, in a well functioning democracy, governments and parties are punished for going back on their word (usually). But politicians sell dreams, and have ambitions. Some of the time they follow through on those promises they make. And some of the time, people who lied, get punished by the voters.



So explain why does the government needs taxes then?

To pay for the services labor cannot make money off. 100 million to for telephone poles, 500 million repair dams and bridges, 200 million to fix the sewers.
These services, this infrastructure, this nurting constantly needs to be fixed, updated and maintained.


The Socialist republic of China has horrible looking environments. The people there are always suppressed from speaking their minds. But remind me how it's corporations, who clearly need to respect the customer to continue to earn a living, are the bad ones?

China is not an example of a good democracy which is what we're talking about. I dont think anyone here is looking at china as someone to model a government after.
But they are extremely capitalistic and treat their corporations better than people in some places.


Remind me of the history the U.S government's attitudes towards the Native Americans again. Maybe explain what the reservation system is about?

Institutional racism as a product of colonialism. The persecution of the native indians began long before there ever was a government of the united states. The government is not at fault for the mistreatment. It's the people who ran it that you can blame. A government is just a tool to help logistically make things work when you have lots of people.



Why worry about the end date? When that happens it happens. For now, it is the only system that works.

Because it's not good to be short sighted. "when that happens it happens" is not wisdom. You should look to people who try to steer the ship away from disaster. Particularly when disaster is avoidable, if people think about the long term rather than saving 1,5% on their paycheck every month.


I believe government has a purpose, but only when it comes to upholding certain rights. But I do not believe the government should heavily profit off of private business success because that's exactly how the government is free to take other peoples money and waste it.

What you think is waste is your opinion. What you think is only yours, and everyone else has a different idea of what is waste. Everyone has things and causes they think should not be spent on.
Democracy follows the logic that the majority is right. That's not always true. But through democracy, democratic government are incentivized to act in accordance with what the majority of people want, and through that the population are supposed to get what they want. Sometimes that's not always good, but that is the best system we have.
 

JordanN

Banned
Voters who tuned out due to laziness, indifference and apathy. The governments policy in a free representative democracy usually follows the needs of the people or the next government usurps them.
So in other words, it was the government.

Vigilant Walrus said:
What does a car or a building have to do with repairing a bridge? I'm talking about infrastructure, not the small stuff.
So it's impossible for a bridge repair company to exist? I pointed to cars and buildings because the private sector already takes care of them.


Vigilant Walrus said:
No, that's wrong. Taxpayers can opt out by moving away.
Do you not see the obvious problem? Dissatisfied taxpayers leave a city, infrastructure rots even further, city cares less because they have even less income to tax from or the people who stay behind are ok with run down facilities.

What I'm saying is with Capitalism, no such scenario exists. Ironically, no one would have to leave, it would be other companies who move in and offer better services to clean up a city when the previous company failed to.


Vigilant Walrus said:
According to all of human history post the dawn of agriculture. In all major societies, the pattern has been the same.
Yet I found all my jobs on my own instead of getting help from the government. I wager for a lot of people, they too got into their jobs through networking, applying directly, or starting own. Not waiting for the government to hand them one.

Vigilant Walrus said:
Private schools use water, electricity, heat, parking spaces made by the government.
They have no other choice like any other business that resides in a country. That doesn't mean it's the government that created them.

Vigilant Walrus said:
The brutality and misconduct of police are in minority.
That's an interesting response. I'm going to save that for the future.

Vigilant Walrus said:
If you honestly are arguing that we don't need police, I am beginning to think that you're more of an anarchist than a libetarian in your arguments. Or a mix of both.
I believe in police, just not ones that are clearly owned by the government and are allowed to be corrupt. Like in my example from the above. Police guns down innocent civilian, government run court says cop is free to go or offers "paid leave".

In a scenario where police are privatized, there is incentive to keep certain areas or cities safe. They also can't just randomly gun down citizens without risk of of their services being removed or replaced by another company.

Vigilant Walrus said:
No, that's not what I am saying. I am saying that, there are services people need to make their lives work, that you cannot monetize
Supermarkets exist because people eat food in their every day lives. Doesn't mean we need the government to control every single one. There's no reason the same doesn't apply to every other service you believe the government is necessary for it to happen.


Vigilant Walrus said:
Let's say that you want to build new street signs, street lamps, parking spaces, new roads. You put it out on the free market? You know it will cost upwards 500 million dollars. Which companies are going to bid on that? How are you going to make street lamps for the public and make money of that?
Offer a subscription model that includes street signs, lamps and parking spaces as apart of using the main road service.

Vigilant Walrus said:
In many countries successful governments are elected due to pushing taxes down. At the expense of the quality of the rest of society.
No, governments are self interested, but in free representative democracies, elections can decide who they want and vote out a government. So if the people care about taxes, the politicians care about taxes so they can win.

In that way, single issues that have caught in the public have caused politicians to change their tune. .
Politicians are liars though. Just look at how Trump can change his tune everyday and gets away with it. The government only cares about itself

Vigilant Walrus said:
Have you ever worked for the government?
I've worked side by side them.

I often did more work that went beyond what my contract stated. For the government, they just had to punch in, say they were at a certain location, and then go home.

Vigilant Walrus said:
To pay for the services labor cannot make money off.
Even though said money comes from labor from the private sector who are generating the profits the government needs to do their job(or lack of)...

Vigilant Walrus said:
China is not an example of a good democracy which is what we're talking about
Don't matter if they're a democracy. Why should they be? It was in reply to what you said

"government are supposed to keep corporations in check"

China is a government and they clearly don't care. The Soviet Union as well, did tremendous damage to the environment and that was all government.

If you're going to blame corporate for not caring about the environment, governments are not innocent either. At least with corporations, we do see an incentive by them to offer eco-friendly products.

Vigilant Walrus said:
The government is not at fault for the mistreatment.
I can tell you right now, the government is directly responsible for destroying the lives of native indians. No way around it. Don't blame it on racism. The government is full of racist people who thanks to their monopolistic power, were able to subject the native people to horror with no one to oppose them.

Vigilant Walrus said:
Because it's not good to be short sighted. "when that happens it happens" is not wisdom.
There is no and probably wont be another system that's better than capitalism for the foreseeable future. It's not short sighed when the other option is what?

Socialism? That doesn't work.
Agrarian? Very primitive and outdated. The majority of people who enjoy their current luxuries wouldn't go back to it.


Vigilant Walrus said:
What you think is waste is your opinion.
So it's my opinion when these politicians sit around doing nothing but clap and scream in Parliament, while the rest of the country continues to see little improvement but they still continue to suck my tax dollars while raising it more and more?
 

Euphor!a

Banned
I so can't wait until your capitalism utopia happens and I have to pay a monthly subscription for each individual road I want to use.
 
Top Bottom