Of course it’s theft, you’re making demands backed up by violence.
That’s all government does by supplying healthcare, it forces you to use the “service” they provide. If I put a gun to your head and ordered you to eat whatever piece of food I gave you and then charged you for it, is that not theft?
Or perhaps it’s because they cover most of their costs through taxes?
You’re applying your values to things and assuming everyone else has the same values. If people were upset enough with S&W and Ruger to stop buying their guns, they’d be out of business before you could say “bang”. That they’re still in business is evidence that people weren’t very upset at all, not that “ostracism doesn’t work”. A small number of upset people make a lot of noise, but (one of) the nice thing(s) about the economic system, as opposed to the political system, is that it’s truly democratic: a small number of people making a lot of noise only have only a small effect on the economic system (S&W and Ruger probably lost a few sales) - the silent majority have a correspondingly large effect; in politics, the small noisy group dominates.
Why the strawmen then? I’ve never claimed such things. Although, Another solution is for the people living along the road to get together and buy it and maintain it themselves. The point is they could organise a boycott of their road with their neighbours using each others land (driveways) to get to the end of it.
No it wouldn’t organised boycotts of the road and other forms of ostracism. Not to mention if you had a problem with it than you and your neighbours could buy them out. If they refused to sell it you at any price (not likely) who are you to force them, provided they don’t violate anybody’s property rights you have no justification for forcing them to sell it or to provide a better service. If they’re willing to forego the monetary profits that would come from selling the road for the psychic profits that come from being an asshole they have every right to.
That doesn’t matter though, because I doubt the situation would arise, you have plenty of ways to avoid using this road and if all else fails you could simply get together with your neighbours and buy it.
That’s sort of the whole point of is “free market” thing, you don’t sound so keen on it.
It’s obvious why. The “Mayo Clinic” is one provider of health care.
You mean, like the bailout?
Imagine you go to the movie theatre to see the latest blockbuster. Midway through the movie, the ushers come in, lock all the doors, then announce that they will not allow anyone to leave the room unless they pay a thousand dollars each.
You would of course pay them their thousand dollars and leave, passing the line of people waiting to see the next showing by announcing that it was a pretty good movie?
Utter nonsense/pure assertion. There is nothing that requires a “government”. A government cannot calculate, it can do nothing but violate preferences to acquire its funding. It can override the preferences of some to serve the whims of others.
Because there is really no such thing as a “public” good. It’s an arbitrary classification made by economists injecting their personal biases into their analyses.
No, I expected you to either be familiar with it or ask for it.
Lose the irreverent, childish tone when addressing me. All you are doing is arguing for theft, so do not be surprised when I treat such arguments no better than I treat those of any advocate of aggression.
-Jon
Don’t worru about reconciling with Wikipedia.
Not exactly what I said. Minimalist believe we still need a little government and anarchists/freedom movement thinks we can do without the little bit too. We are in agreement that less is better.
I would welcome cooperation. There are lots of opportunities in the LC for investment and involvement.
I have already gone to a foreign country and essentially learned the language and survived once. I have confidence in myself that I can do it again.
Why am I required to pay for services I do not want? Do you think that someone can provide you a service whether you like it or not and you should then have to pay whatever they think the service you don’t want is worth? I think whether or not you want the service is the relevant question.
So your arguement is that the government gives beneficial treatment to its own activity and subsidizes it with tax-payer money but it provides a service you like so you think its better. The government is providing a subsidy for this activity which means that if you had to pay the complete cost yourself the service wouldn’t exist. So what you are really saying is your glad other people are paying for you to be able to send a letter cheaply.
So your glad the government is taking money by force from other people so you can have this particular service. How about we take all of your money so someone else can live in a nicer house? Same idea.
I actually think there’s a problem with the way this debate is being carried out in regards to the road owner who isn’t maintaining the road. Danno is asking the question “How can we over come this?” and concluding (wrongly) that we can’t and therefore require the state. However this assumes that a road owner who refuses to sell or maintaing his road purely for the psychic profit that comes with being an asshole to the home owners is imcompatible with libertarianism, it isn’t.
Is he aware that HOAs are most likely to own neighborhood roads BTW?
-Jon
You know it’s obvious that he doesn’t believe in private ownership of land and is therefore a communist, not a minarchist.
This does not fit the situations I have observed. Smith & Wesson did have a few lean years, but had police/military contracts that got them through the ostracization that happened in the private owner market. Walmart has some people so upset with them that they often have protesters who spend time in their parking lot (or just outside), passing out pamphlets to discourage their customers. They show no signs of being put out of business by these people.
You’re right, of course - the noisy minority (or even slim majority) has very little political effect in the marketplace. If a company can find enough customers to remain viable, those who despise it will not be able to harm it. But that’s exactly the point I was making - that ostracism does not work as a deterrent in the marketplace. I’ve listed examples of where it’s failed to put a company out of business - can you give examples of where it has worked (outside of government intervention) as you claim it can?
Danno, who is surrounded by people annoyed enough to campaign against businesses, and who has always seen them be ineffective.
Well minarchism is socialism. [:D]
-Jon
Good point. Perhaps we cannot expect our fellow citizens to object strenuously to anything that the Federal Government (or any of the different agencies that are part of it) will do, and we’re lost. Come to think of it, the freedom lovers aren’t even holding the line - they’re losing ground on most fronts on a regular basis. Browne was probably right when he asserted that one’s personal freedom was enhanced when one ignored ‘burning issues’, and just muddled through, rather than try to tackle the leviathan.
This does not mean, however, that I’ve been convinced that anarchy is a workable alternative to statism. It’s been noted before that government, like fire, is a dangerous servant and an awful master. This does not prevent me from cautiously using fire for the purposes of heating my home, or believing that I can do without fire at all.
Danno, contemplating a hot, relaxing shower.
What?
Of course they will, you’re looking in black and white. The options are not “go out of buisness” or “stay in buisness”, there are degrees as to how well it does and all other things being equal a company (or more correctly the individuals that make up the buisness) will aim to maximise monetary profit.
This is pure assertion - spoken like a True Believer.
Oh - that explains it. Thanks for clearing that up.
Oh, yes, massah.
Danno, admittedly having been guilty of hubris on occasion himself.