And yeah, I get it...they have no sewage! There's traffic problems! Sure, every city has problems...especially in India. And honestly, they do get the sewage out via transportation, and could form a sewage system once it's profitably.
But how can you argue with the fact that so many people in India are eager to move there? It's obviously less of a shithole than all the cities that have a functional government in that country.
It's the same shit with Somalia...Somalia is a shithole, sure...but it's become LESS of a shithole since the government was all but dismantled. That's what people fail to look at...
There are no profitable sewage systems. Some Government is needed.
Pointing to shitholes like Somalia and parts of India and how they may be a little less shitty to live in than their neighbors with the same functioning government doesn't prove anything.
There will indeed need to be some sort of hybrid economy. Capitalism is all based on growth. If it can't grow, it implodes. There are only so many resources on this planet and eventually growth will stop.
Here's the thing, Hyundai. Yes, that city is a bigger shithole than anywhere in America. But a country's type of government is not the biggest determinant of standard of living. Culture, work ethic, habits, problem-solving, ability to obtain resources, etc...those are the things that make up our quality of life.
Just like how that city in India is considered a better place to live than other places in India, America would be a much better place too with a government that has a smaller or non-existent role.
If you like rivers that catch on fire, sewage in the water, terrible smog, no infrastructure, etc.
Shut the fuck up. America is great right now. Seriously, what's so intrusive about the government right now that you can't live your life as you want?
The way you worded your question makes it difficult to answer. It's not about me and what I can do...it's about everyone and what we would all do in the absence of government. It's about free choice/free market/voluntarism (whatever you want to call it) being a more efficient and valuable method of solving problems because there is more accountability and flexibility. If we can solve our problems more efficiently, then we will have capacity to solve other problems, which means more problems overall get solved.
Nobody in America wants any of the things you listed. If government stopped addressing those issues, and didn't place any barriers on people trying to solve problems, then people would go out and solve those problems of their own free will. If nobody attempts to solve a certain problem, then it's either because:
A ) The problem isn't deemed worthy of solving by Americans, which means if government was solving it, then government wasn't doing it's job and reflecting the values of the people.
or
B ) There is not an efficient way to solve the problem or there are more valuable uses of the time and resources required to solve it, which means if government was solving it, then they were being wasteful.
The latter describes the reason there is a lack of problem-solving in countries like India. That's why nobody...not the free market, not the government...can solve some of the problems they face.
America, though, has gobs of resources, talent, and people with excess time and energy. That's why America can solve problems with government. But, it's also why we can solve problems without government.
Government hasn't invented anything, built anything, cleaned anything, or educated anyone. All of that gets done by people. Government just uses threats of (and actual) violence to influence people. So essentially, you're arguing that we need to threaten people with violence to get them to do things that make society better for people. I'm not saying that isn't a method that yields results, but it's less efficient.
Think about it...if the vast majority of Americans want children to get an education and go to school, why the hell would we need to use violence/coercion on everyone to influence them to do specific things (pay taxes, acquire jobs, construct buildings, etc) that result in the current school system we have today?
The point is that just because government takes charge on solving a certain problem, it doesn't mean that it's the only way. For example, we often ignore free market solutions (how many people have taken action to lower their carbon footprint, donate to charity, or clean up a park?). Also, when government steps in to solve a problem, it decreases/eliminates the incentives people have to address the issue of their own free will, sometimes by making it illegal to do so, but almost always by lessening the problem enough that diminishing returns do not make any additional investments worthwhile (sunk cost).
If the government passed a law stating that we all need to start paying 5% more in taxes to give to people to make soap and distribute to everyone, would you then say we shouldn't get rid of the soap tax because otherwise there would be no way for people to obtain soap?
Read the bold parts if TLDR. And before you ask, yes, I do need to get laid.
And yeah, I get it...they have no sewage! There's traffic problems! Sure, every city has problems...especially in India. And honestly, they do get the sewage out via transportation, and could form a sewage system once it's profitably.
But how can you argue with the fact that so many people in India are eager to move there? It's obviously less of a shithole than all the cities that have a functional government in that country.
It's the same shit with Somalia...Somalia is a shithole, sure...but it's become LESS of a shithole since the government was all but dismantled. That's what people fail to look at...
There are no profitable sewage systems. Some Government is needed.
Pointing to shitholes like Somalia and parts of India and how they may be a little less shitty to live in than their neighbors with the same functioning government doesn't prove anything.
There will indeed need to be some sort of hybrid economy. Capitalism is all based on growth. If it can't grow, it implodes. There are only so many resources on this planet and eventually growth will stop.
Sewage systems can absolutely be profitable. Don't want to be responsible for the costs of transporting your sewage off your property? Fine, pay me a flat monthly fee, and I will run some pipes to your house that are connected to a sewage system. If you stop paying that fee, I'll close the pipes off.
It doesn't "prove" anything, but it certainly suggests that government can't improve conditions, and if anything might make things slightly worse. The Somalia example is my favorite because that country went from having a government with a relatively large role, to no government, and the standard of living increased, yet many people who disagree with me like to point out that Somalia is a shithole and has no government, as if it's the no government that makes it a shithole. Obviously there are countless things to consider to draw any conclusions.
Growth is an abstract concept. Growth can occur in many ways and in many directions. And over the course of history, humans have been able to find more efficient means to use resources. For example, look at the MPG on your average car today vs 50 years ago.
Here's the thing, Hyundai. Yes, that city is a bigger shithole than anywhere in America. But a country's type of government is not the biggest determinant of standard of living. Culture, work ethic, habits, problem-solving, ability to obtain resources, etc...those are the things that make up our quality of life.
Just like how that city in India is considered a better place to live than other places in India, America would be a much better place too with a government that has a smaller or non-existent role.
If you like rivers that catch on fire, sewage in the water, terrible smog, no infrastructure, etc.
Shut the fuck up. America is great right now. Seriously, what's so intrusive about the government right now that you can't live your life as you want?
The way you worded your question makes it difficult to answer. It's not about me and what I can do...it's about everyone and what we would all do in the absence of government. It's about free choice/free market/voluntarism (whatever you want to call it) being a more efficient and valuable method of solving problems because there is more accountability and flexibility. If we can solve our problems more efficiently, then we will have capacity to solve other problems, which means more problems overall get solved.
Nobody in America wants any of the things you listed. If government stopped addressing those issues, and didn't place any barriers on people trying to solve problems, then people would go out and solve those problems of their own free will. If nobody attempts to solve a certain problem, then it's either because:
A ) The problem isn't deemed worthy of solving by Americans, which means if government was solving it, then government wasn't doing it's job and reflecting the values of the people.
or
B ) There is not an efficient way to solve the problem or there are more valuable uses of the time and resources required to solve it, which means if government was solving it, then they were being wasteful.
The latter describes the reason there is a lack of problem-solving in countries like India. That's why nobody...not the free market, not the government...can solve some of the problems they face.
America, though, has gobs of resources, talent, and people with excess time and energy. That's why America can solve problems with government. But, it's also why we can solve problems without government.
Government hasn't invented anything, built anything, cleaned anything, or educated anyone. All of that gets done by people. Government just uses threats of (and actual) violence to influence people. So essentially, you're arguing that we need to threaten people with violence to get them to do things that make society better for people. I'm not saying that isn't a method that yields results, but it's less efficient.
Think about it...if the vast majority of Americans want children to get an education and go to school, why the hell would we need to use violence/coercion on everyone to influence them to do specific things (pay taxes, acquire jobs, construct buildings, etc) that result in the current school system we have today?
The point is that just because government takes charge on solving a certain problem, it doesn't mean that it's the only way. For example, we often ignore free market solutions (how many people have taken action to lower their carbon footprint, donate to charity, or clean up a park?). Also, when government steps in to solve a problem, it decreases/eliminates the incentives people have to address the issue of their own free will, sometimes by making it illegal to do so, but almost always by lessening the problem enough that diminishing returns do not make any additional investments worthwhile (sunk cost).
If the government passed a law stating that we all need to start paying 5% more in taxes to give to people to make soap and distribute to everyone, would you then say we shouldn't get rid of the soap tax because otherwise there would be no way for people to obtain soap?
Read the bold parts if TLDR. And before you ask, yes, I do need to get laid.
I have to keep my word count down so I don't go over the limit. Here is the message, I'll type it slowly so you understand.
If the government doesn't rule the country, then big business will. Big business are not people, my friend. And will rape and pillage the environment and anything else they can to make a profit.
Here's the thing, Hyundai. Yes, that city is a bigger shithole than anywhere in America. But a country's type of government is not the biggest determinant of standard of living. Culture, work ethic, habits, problem-solving, ability to obtain resources, etc...those are the things that make up our quality of life.
Just like how that city in India is considered a better place to live than other places in India, America would be a much better place too with a government that has a smaller or non-existent role.
If you like rivers that catch on fire, sewage in the water, terrible smog, no infrastructure, etc.
Shut the fuck up. America is great right now. Seriously, what's so intrusive about the government right now that you can't live your life as you want?
The way you worded your question makes it difficult to answer. It's not about me and what I can do...it's about everyone and what we would all do in the absence of government. It's about free choice/free market/voluntarism (whatever you want to call it) being a more efficient and valuable method of solving problems because there is more accountability and flexibility. If we can solve our problems more efficiently, then we will have capacity to solve other problems, which means more problems overall get solved.
Nobody in America wants any of the things you listed. If government stopped addressing those issues, and didn't place any barriers on people trying to solve problems, then people would go out and solve those problems of their own free will. If nobody attempts to solve a certain problem, then it's either because:
A ) The problem isn't deemed worthy of solving by Americans, which means if government was solving it, then government wasn't doing it's job and reflecting the values of the people.
or
B ) There is not an efficient way to solve the problem or there are more valuable uses of the time and resources required to solve it, which means if government was solving it, then they were being wasteful.
The latter describes the reason there is a lack of problem-solving in countries like India. That's why nobody...not the free market, not the government...can solve some of the problems they face.
America, though, has gobs of resources, talent, and people with excess time and energy. That's why America can solve problems with government. But, it's also why we can solve problems without government.
Government hasn't invented anything, built anything, cleaned anything, or educated anyone. All of that gets done by people. Government just uses threats of (and actual) violence to influence people. So essentially, you're arguing that we need to threaten people with violence to get them to do things that make society better for people. I'm not saying that isn't a method that yields results, but it's less efficient.
Think about it...if the vast majority of Americans want children to get an education and go to school, why the hell would we need to use violence/coercion on everyone to influence them to do specific things (pay taxes, acquire jobs, construct buildings, etc) that result in the current school system we have today?
The point is that just because government takes charge on solving a certain problem, it doesn't mean that it's the only way. For example, we often ignore free market solutions (how many people have taken action to lower their carbon footprint, donate to charity, or clean up a park?). Also, when government steps in to solve a problem, it decreases/eliminates the incentives people have to address the issue of their own free will, sometimes by making it illegal to do so, but almost always by lessening the problem enough that diminishing returns do not make any additional investments worthwhile (sunk cost).
If the government passed a law stating that we all need to start paying 5% more in taxes to give to people to make soap and distribute to everyone, would you then say we shouldn't get rid of the soap tax because otherwise there would be no way for people to obtain soap?
Read the bold parts if TLDR. And before you ask, yes, I do need to get laid.
I have to keep my word count down so I don't go over the limit. Here is the message, I'll type it slowly so you understand.
If the government doesn't rule the country, then big business will. Big business are not people, my friend. And will rape and pillage the environment and anything else they can to make a profit.
Governments aren't people either, and they have the (big) guns.
Here's the thing, Hyundai. Yes, that city is a bigger shithole than anywhere in America. But a country's type of government is not the biggest determinant of standard of living. Culture, work ethic, habits, problem-solving, ability to obtain resources, etc...those are the things that make up our quality of life.
Just like how that city in India is considered a better place to live than other places in India, America would be a much better place too with a government that has a smaller or non-existent role.
If you like rivers that catch on fire, sewage in the water, terrible smog, no infrastructure, etc.
Shut the fuck up. America is great right now. Seriously, what's so intrusive about the government right now that you can't live your life as you want?
The way you worded your question makes it difficult to answer. It's not about me and what I can do...it's about everyone and what we would all do in the absence of government. It's about free choice/free market/voluntarism (whatever you want to call it) being a more efficient and valuable method of solving problems because there is more accountability and flexibility. If we can solve our problems more efficiently, then we will have capacity to solve other problems, which means more problems overall get solved.
Nobody in America wants any of the things you listed. If government stopped addressing those issues, and didn't place any barriers on people trying to solve problems, then people would go out and solve those problems of their own free will. If nobody attempts to solve a certain problem, then it's either because:
A ) The problem isn't deemed worthy of solving by Americans, which means if government was solving it, then government wasn't doing it's job and reflecting the values of the people.
or
B ) There is not an efficient way to solve the problem or there are more valuable uses of the time and resources required to solve it, which means if government was solving it, then they were being wasteful.
The latter describes the reason there is a lack of problem-solving in countries like India. That's why nobody...not the free market, not the government...can solve some of the problems they face.
America, though, has gobs of resources, talent, and people with excess time and energy. That's why America can solve problems with government. But, it's also why we can solve problems without government.
Government hasn't invented anything, built anything, cleaned anything, or educated anyone. All of that gets done by people. Government just uses threats of (and actual) violence to influence people. So essentially, you're arguing that we need to threaten people with violence to get them to do things that make society better for people. I'm not saying that isn't a method that yields results, but it's less efficient.
Think about it...if the vast majority of Americans want children to get an education and go to school, why the hell would we need to use violence/coercion on everyone to influence them to do specific things (pay taxes, acquire jobs, construct buildings, etc) that result in the current school system we have today?
The point is that just because government takes charge on solving a certain problem, it doesn't mean that it's the only way. For example, we often ignore free market solutions (how many people have taken action to lower their carbon footprint, donate to charity, or clean up a park?). Also, when government steps in to solve a problem, it decreases/eliminates the incentives people have to address the issue of their own free will, sometimes by making it illegal to do so, but almost always by lessening the problem enough that diminishing returns do not make any additional investments worthwhile (sunk cost).
If the government passed a law stating that we all need to start paying 5% more in taxes to give to people to make soap and distribute to everyone, would you then say we shouldn't get rid of the soap tax because otherwise there would be no way for people to obtain soap?
Read the bold parts if TLDR. And before you ask, yes, I do need to get laid.
I have to keep my word count down so I don't go over the limit. Here is the message, I'll type it slowly so you understand.
If the government doesn't rule the country, then big business will. Big business are not people, my friend. And will rape and pillage the environment and anything else they can to make a profit.
Here's the thing, Hyundai. Yes, that city is a bigger shithole than anywhere in America. But a country's type of government is not the biggest determinant of standard of living. Culture, work ethic, habits, problem-solving, ability to obtain resources, etc...those are the things that make up our quality of life.
Just like how that city in India is considered a better place to live than other places in India, America would be a much better place too with a government that has a smaller or non-existent role.
If you like rivers that catch on fire, sewage in the water, terrible smog, no infrastructure, etc.
Shut the fuck up. America is great right now. Seriously, what's so intrusive about the government right now that you can't live your life as you want?
The way you worded your question makes it difficult to answer. It's not about me and what I can do...it's about everyone and what we would all do in the absence of government. It's about free choice/free market/voluntarism (whatever you want to call it) being a more efficient and valuable method of solving problems because there is more accountability and flexibility. If we can solve our problems more efficiently, then we will have capacity to solve other problems, which means more problems overall get solved.
Nobody in America wants any of the things you listed. If government stopped addressing those issues, and didn't place any barriers on people trying to solve problems, then people would go out and solve those problems of their own free will. If nobody attempts to solve a certain problem, then it's either because:
A ) The problem isn't deemed worthy of solving by Americans, which means if government was solving it, then government wasn't doing it's job and reflecting the values of the people.
or
B ) There is not an efficient way to solve the problem or there are more valuable uses of the time and resources required to solve it, which means if government was solving it, then they were being wasteful.
The latter describes the reason there is a lack of problem-solving in countries like India. That's why nobody...not the free market, not the government...can solve some of the problems they face.
America, though, has gobs of resources, talent, and people with excess time and energy. That's why America can solve problems with government. But, it's also why we can solve problems without government.
Government hasn't invented anything, built anything, cleaned anything, or educated anyone. All of that gets done by people. Government just uses threats of (and actual) violence to influence people. So essentially, you're arguing that we need to threaten people with violence to get them to do things that make society better for people. I'm not saying that isn't a method that yields results, but it's less efficient.
Think about it...if the vast majority of Americans want children to get an education and go to school, why the hell would we need to use violence/coercion on everyone to influence them to do specific things (pay taxes, acquire jobs, construct buildings, etc) that result in the current school system we have today?
The point is that just because government takes charge on solving a certain problem, it doesn't mean that it's the only way. For example, we often ignore free market solutions (how many people have taken action to lower their carbon footprint, donate to charity, or clean up a park?). Also, when government steps in to solve a problem, it decreases/eliminates the incentives people have to address the issue of their own free will, sometimes by making it illegal to do so, but almost always by lessening the problem enough that diminishing returns do not make any additional investments worthwhile (sunk cost).
If the government passed a law stating that we all need to start paying 5% more in taxes to give to people to make soap and distribute to everyone, would you then say we shouldn't get rid of the soap tax because otherwise there would be no way for people to obtain soap?
Read the bold parts if TLDR. And before you ask, yes, I do need to get laid.
I have to keep my word count down so I don't go over the limit. Here is the message, I'll type it slowly so you understand.
If the government doesn't rule the country, then big business will. Big business are not people, my friend. And will rape and pillage the environment and anything else they can to make a profit.
Governments aren't people either, and they have the (big) guns.
Here's the thing, Hyundai. Yes, that city is a bigger shithole than anywhere in America. But a country's type of government is not the biggest determinant of standard of living. Culture, work ethic, habits, problem-solving, ability to obtain resources, etc...those are the things that make up our quality of life.
Just like how that city in India is considered a better place to live than other places in India, America would be a much better place too with a government that has a smaller or non-existent role.
If you like rivers that catch on fire, sewage in the water, terrible smog, no infrastructure, etc.
Shut the fuck up. America is great right now. Seriously, what's so intrusive about the government right now that you can't live your life as you want?
The way you worded your question makes it difficult to answer. It's not about me and what I can do...it's about everyone and what we would all do in the absence of government. It's about free choice/free market/voluntarism (whatever you want to call it) being a more efficient and valuable method of solving problems because there is more accountability and flexibility. If we can solve our problems more efficiently, then we will have capacity to solve other problems, which means more problems overall get solved.
Nobody in America wants any of the things you listed. If government stopped addressing those issues, and didn't place any barriers on people trying to solve problems, then people would go out and solve those problems of their own free will. If nobody attempts to solve a certain problem, then it's either because:
A ) The problem isn't deemed worthy of solving by Americans, which means if government was solving it, then government wasn't doing it's job and reflecting the values of the people.
or
B ) There is not an efficient way to solve the problem or there are more valuable uses of the time and resources required to solve it, which means if government was solving it, then they were being wasteful.
The latter describes the reason there is a lack of problem-solving in countries like India. That's why nobody...not the free market, not the government...can solve some of the problems they face.
America, though, has gobs of resources, talent, and people with excess time and energy. That's why America can solve problems with government. But, it's also why we can solve problems without government.
Government hasn't invented anything, built anything, cleaned anything, or educated anyone. All of that gets done by people. Government just uses threats of (and actual) violence to influence people. So essentially, you're arguing that we need to threaten people with violence to get them to do things that make society better for people. I'm not saying that isn't a method that yields results, but it's less efficient.
Think about it...if the vast majority of Americans want children to get an education and go to school, why the hell would we need to use violence/coercion on everyone to influence them to do specific things (pay taxes, acquire jobs, construct buildings, etc) that result in the current school system we have today?
The point is that just because government takes charge on solving a certain problem, it doesn't mean that it's the only way. For example, we often ignore free market solutions (how many people have taken action to lower their carbon footprint, donate to charity, or clean up a park?). Also, when government steps in to solve a problem, it decreases/eliminates the incentives people have to address the issue of their own free will, sometimes by making it illegal to do so, but almost always by lessening the problem enough that diminishing returns do not make any additional investments worthwhile (sunk cost).
If the government passed a law stating that we all need to start paying 5% more in taxes to give to people to make soap and distribute to everyone, would you then say we shouldn't get rid of the soap tax because otherwise there would be no way for people to obtain soap?
Read the bold parts if TLDR. And before you ask, yes, I do need to get laid.
I have to keep my word count down so I don't go over the limit. Here is the message, I'll type it slowly so you understand.
If the government doesn't rule the country, then big business will. Big business are not people, my friend. And will rape and pillage the environment and anything else they can to make a profit.
Here's the thing, Hyundai. Yes, that city is a bigger shithole than anywhere in America. But a country's type of government is not the biggest determinant of standard of living. Culture, work ethic, habits, problem-solving, ability to obtain resources, etc...those are the things that make up our quality of life.
Just like how that city in India is considered a better place to live than other places in India, America would be a much better place too with a government that has a smaller or non-existent role.
If you like rivers that catch on fire, sewage in the water, terrible smog, no infrastructure, etc.
Shut the fuck up. America is great right now. Seriously, what's so intrusive about the government right now that you can't live your life as you want?
The way you worded your question makes it difficult to answer. It's not about me and what I can do...it's about everyone and what we would all do in the absence of government. It's about free choice/free market/voluntarism (whatever you want to call it) being a more efficient and valuable method of solving problems because there is more accountability and flexibility. If we can solve our problems more efficiently, then we will have capacity to solve other problems, which means more problems overall get solved.
Nobody in America wants any of the things you listed. If government stopped addressing those issues, and didn't place any barriers on people trying to solve problems, then people would go out and solve those problems of their own free will. If nobody attempts to solve a certain problem, then it's either because:
A ) The problem isn't deemed worthy of solving by Americans, which means if government was solving it, then government wasn't doing it's job and reflecting the values of the people.
or
B ) There is not an efficient way to solve the problem or there are more valuable uses of the time and resources required to solve it, which means if government was solving it, then they were being wasteful.
The latter describes the reason there is a lack of problem-solving in countries like India. That's why nobody...not the free market, not the government...can solve some of the problems they face.
America, though, has gobs of resources, talent, and people with excess time and energy. That's why America can solve problems with government. But, it's also why we can solve problems without government.
Government hasn't invented anything, built anything, cleaned anything, or educated anyone. All of that gets done by people. Government just uses threats of (and actual) violence to influence people. So essentially, you're arguing that we need to threaten people with violence to get them to do things that make society better for people. I'm not saying that isn't a method that yields results, but it's less efficient.
Think about it...if the vast majority of Americans want children to get an education and go to school, why the hell would we need to use violence/coercion on everyone to influence them to do specific things (pay taxes, acquire jobs, construct buildings, etc) that result in the current school system we have today?
The point is that just because government takes charge on solving a certain problem, it doesn't mean that it's the only way. For example, we often ignore free market solutions (how many people have taken action to lower their carbon footprint, donate to charity, or clean up a park?). Also, when government steps in to solve a problem, it decreases/eliminates the incentives people have to address the issue of their own free will, sometimes by making it illegal to do so, but almost always by lessening the problem enough that diminishing returns do not make any additional investments worthwhile (sunk cost).
If the government passed a law stating that we all need to start paying 5% more in taxes to give to people to make soap and distribute to everyone, would you then say we shouldn't get rid of the soap tax because otherwise there would be no way for people to obtain soap?
Read the bold parts if TLDR. And before you ask, yes, I do need to get laid.
I have to keep my word count down so I don't go over the limit. Here is the message, I'll type it slowly so you understand.
If the government doesn't rule the country, then big business will. Big business are not people, my friend. And will rape and pillage the environment and anything else they can to make a profit.
Holy Berniebro...
So you disagree that, if given the opportunity, corporations won't rape and pillage? Corporations need free will to invent, improve, etc. But they also need to be provided some rules or they will take advantage of everything and let the country rot. Basically like India.
Here's the thing, Hyundai. Yes, that city is a bigger shithole than anywhere in America. But a country's type of government is not the biggest determinant of standard of living. Culture, work ethic, habits, problem-solving, ability to obtain resources, etc...those are the things that make up our quality of life.
Just like how that city in India is considered a better place to live than other places in India, America would be a much better place too with a government that has a smaller or non-existent role.
If you like rivers that catch on fire, sewage in the water, terrible smog, no infrastructure, etc.
Shut the fuck up. America is great right now. Seriously, what's so intrusive about the government right now that you can't live your life as you want?
The way you worded your question makes it difficult to answer. It's not about me and what I can do...it's about everyone and what we would all do in the absence of government. It's about free choice/free market/voluntarism (whatever you want to call it) being a more efficient and valuable method of solving problems because there is more accountability and flexibility. If we can solve our problems more efficiently, then we will have capacity to solve other problems, which means more problems overall get solved.
Nobody in America wants any of the things you listed. If government stopped addressing those issues, and didn't place any barriers on people trying to solve problems, then people would go out and solve those problems of their own free will. If nobody attempts to solve a certain problem, then it's either because:
A ) The problem isn't deemed worthy of solving by Americans, which means if government was solving it, then government wasn't doing it's job and reflecting the values of the people.
or
B ) There is not an efficient way to solve the problem or there are more valuable uses of the time and resources required to solve it, which means if government was solving it, then they were being wasteful.
The latter describes the reason there is a lack of problem-solving in countries like India. That's why nobody...not the free market, not the government...can solve some of the problems they face.
America, though, has gobs of resources, talent, and people with excess time and energy. That's why America can solve problems with government. But, it's also why we can solve problems without government.
Government hasn't invented anything, built anything, cleaned anything, or educated anyone. All of that gets done by people. Government just uses threats of (and actual) violence to influence people. So essentially, you're arguing that we need to threaten people with violence to get them to do things that make society better for people. I'm not saying that isn't a method that yields results, but it's less efficient.
Think about it...if the vast majority of Americans want children to get an education and go to school, why the hell would we need to use violence/coercion on everyone to influence them to do specific things (pay taxes, acquire jobs, construct buildings, etc) that result in the current school system we have today?
The point is that just because government takes charge on solving a certain problem, it doesn't mean that it's the only way. For example, we often ignore free market solutions (how many people have taken action to lower their carbon footprint, donate to charity, or clean up a park?). Also, when government steps in to solve a problem, it decreases/eliminates the incentives people have to address the issue of their own free will, sometimes by making it illegal to do so, but almost always by lessening the problem enough that diminishing returns do not make any additional investments worthwhile (sunk cost).
If the government passed a law stating that we all need to start paying 5% more in taxes to give to people to make soap and distribute to everyone, would you then say we shouldn't get rid of the soap tax because otherwise there would be no way for people to obtain soap?
Read the bold parts if TLDR. And before you ask, yes, I do need to get laid.
I have to keep my word count down so I don't go over the limit. Here is the message, I'll type it slowly so you understand.
If the government doesn't rule the country, then big business will. Big business are not people, my friend. And will rape and pillage the environment and anything else they can to make a profit.
Here's the thing, Hyundai. Yes, that city is a bigger shithole than anywhere in America. But a country's type of government is not the biggest determinant of standard of living. Culture, work ethic, habits, problem-solving, ability to obtain resources, etc...those are the things that make up our quality of life.
Just like how that city in India is considered a better place to live than other places in India, America would be a much better place too with a government that has a smaller or non-existent role.
If you like rivers that catch on fire, sewage in the water, terrible smog, no infrastructure, etc.
Shut the fuck up. America is great right now. Seriously, what's so intrusive about the government right now that you can't live your life as you want?
The way you worded your question makes it difficult to answer. It's not about me and what I can do...it's about everyone and what we would all do in the absence of government. It's about free choice/free market/voluntarism (whatever you want to call it) being a more efficient and valuable method of solving problems because there is more accountability and flexibility. If we can solve our problems more efficiently, then we will have capacity to solve other problems, which means more problems overall get solved.
Nobody in America wants any of the things you listed. If government stopped addressing those issues, and didn't place any barriers on people trying to solve problems, then people would go out and solve those problems of their own free will. If nobody attempts to solve a certain problem, then it's either because:
A ) The problem isn't deemed worthy of solving by Americans, which means if government was solving it, then government wasn't doing it's job and reflecting the values of the people.
or
B ) There is not an efficient way to solve the problem or there are more valuable uses of the time and resources required to solve it, which means if government was solving it, then they were being wasteful.
The latter describes the reason there is a lack of problem-solving in countries like India. That's why nobody...not the free market, not the government...can solve some of the problems they face.
America, though, has gobs of resources, talent, and people with excess time and energy. That's why America can solve problems with government. But, it's also why we can solve problems without government.
Government hasn't invented anything, built anything, cleaned anything, or educated anyone. All of that gets done by people. Government just uses threats of (and actual) violence to influence people. So essentially, you're arguing that we need to threaten people with violence to get them to do things that make society better for people. I'm not saying that isn't a method that yields results, but it's less efficient.
Think about it...if the vast majority of Americans want children to get an education and go to school, why the hell would we need to use violence/coercion on everyone to influence them to do specific things (pay taxes, acquire jobs, construct buildings, etc) that result in the current school system we have today?
The point is that just because government takes charge on solving a certain problem, it doesn't mean that it's the only way. For example, we often ignore free market solutions (how many people have taken action to lower their carbon footprint, donate to charity, or clean up a park?). Also, when government steps in to solve a problem, it decreases/eliminates the incentives people have to address the issue of their own free will, sometimes by making it illegal to do so, but almost always by lessening the problem enough that diminishing returns do not make any additional investments worthwhile (sunk cost).
If the government passed a law stating that we all need to start paying 5% more in taxes to give to people to make soap and distribute to everyone, would you then say we shouldn't get rid of the soap tax because otherwise there would be no way for people to obtain soap?
Read the bold parts if TLDR. And before you ask, yes, I do need to get laid.
I have to keep my word count down so I don't go over the limit. Here is the message, I'll type it slowly so you understand.
If the government doesn't rule the country, then big business will. Big business are not people, my friend. And will rape and pillage the environment and anything else they can to make a profit.
Holy Berniebro...
So you disagree that, if given the opportunity, corporations won't rape and pillage? Corporations need free will to invent, improve, etc. But they also need to be provided some rules or they will take advantage of everything and let the country rot. Basically like India.
Until another company comes in and decides to get their piece of the pie which in turn lowers prices and margins. Funny how that works.
Here's the thing, Hyundai. Yes, that city is a bigger shithole than anywhere in America. But a country's type of government is not the biggest determinant of standard of living. Culture, work ethic, habits, problem-solving, ability to obtain resources, etc...those are the things that make up our quality of life.
Just like how that city in India is considered a better place to live than other places in India, America would be a much better place too with a government that has a smaller or non-existent role.
If you like rivers that catch on fire, sewage in the water, terrible smog, no infrastructure, etc.
Shut the fuck up. America is great right now. Seriously, what's so intrusive about the government right now that you can't live your life as you want?
The way you worded your question makes it difficult to answer. It's not about me and what I can do...it's about everyone and what we would all do in the absence of government. It's about free choice/free market/voluntarism (whatever you want to call it) being a more efficient and valuable method of solving problems because there is more accountability and flexibility. If we can solve our problems more efficiently, then we will have capacity to solve other problems, which means more problems overall get solved.
Nobody in America wants any of the things you listed. If government stopped addressing those issues, and didn't place any barriers on people trying to solve problems, then people would go out and solve those problems of their own free will. If nobody attempts to solve a certain problem, then it's either because:
A ) The problem isn't deemed worthy of solving by Americans, which means if government was solving it, then government wasn't doing it's job and reflecting the values of the people.
or
B ) There is not an efficient way to solve the problem or there are more valuable uses of the time and resources required to solve it, which means if government was solving it, then they were being wasteful.
The latter describes the reason there is a lack of problem-solving in countries like India. That's why nobody...not the free market, not the government...can solve some of the problems they face.
America, though, has gobs of resources, talent, and people with excess time and energy. That's why America can solve problems with government. But, it's also why we can solve problems without government.
Government hasn't invented anything, built anything, cleaned anything, or educated anyone. All of that gets done by people. Government just uses threats of (and actual) violence to influence people. So essentially, you're arguing that we need to threaten people with violence to get them to do things that make society better for people. I'm not saying that isn't a method that yields results, but it's less efficient.
Think about it...if the vast majority of Americans want children to get an education and go to school, why the hell would we need to use violence/coercion on everyone to influence them to do specific things (pay taxes, acquire jobs, construct buildings, etc) that result in the current school system we have today?
The point is that just because government takes charge on solving a certain problem, it doesn't mean that it's the only way. For example, we often ignore free market solutions (how many people have taken action to lower their carbon footprint, donate to charity, or clean up a park?). Also, when government steps in to solve a problem, it decreases/eliminates the incentives people have to address the issue of their own free will, sometimes by making it illegal to do so, but almost always by lessening the problem enough that diminishing returns do not make any additional investments worthwhile (sunk cost).
If the government passed a law stating that we all need to start paying 5% more in taxes to give to people to make soap and distribute to everyone, would you then say we shouldn't get rid of the soap tax because otherwise there would be no way for people to obtain soap?
Read the bold parts if TLDR. And before you ask, yes, I do need to get laid.
I have to keep my word count down so I don't go over the limit. Here is the message, I'll type it slowly so you understand.
If the government doesn't rule the country, then big business will. Big business are not people, my friend. And will rape and pillage the environment and anything else they can to make a profit.
Holy Berniebro...
So you disagree that, if given the opportunity, corporations won't rape and pillage? Corporations need free will to invent, improve, etc. But they also need to be provided some rules or they will take advantage of everything and let the country rot. Basically like India.
Until another company comes in and decides to get their piece of the pie which in turn lowers prices and margins. Funny how that works.
And destroy the environment to provide lower prices. Funny how that works.
Businesses have to earn their customers. Government doesnt. Businesses have competition. Government doesn't. Which one is more likely to rape and pillage again?
If people value a rape and pillage free society, they will just not do business with people who rape and pillage.
Here's the thing, Hyundai. Yes, that city is a bigger shithole than anywhere in America. But a country's type of government is not the biggest determinant of standard of living. Culture, work ethic, habits, problem-solving, ability to obtain resources, etc...those are the things that make up our quality of life.
Just like how that city in India is considered a better place to live than other places in India, America would be a much better place too with a government that has a smaller or non-existent role.
If you like rivers that catch on fire, sewage in the water, terrible smog, no infrastructure, etc.
Shut the fuck up. America is great right now. Seriously, what's so intrusive about the government right now that you can't live your life as you want?
The way you worded your question makes it difficult to answer. It's not about me and what I can do...it's about everyone and what we would all do in the absence of government. It's about free choice/free market/voluntarism (whatever you want to call it) being a more efficient and valuable method of solving problems because there is more accountability and flexibility. If we can solve our problems more efficiently, then we will have capacity to solve other problems, which means more problems overall get solved.
Nobody in America wants any of the things you listed. If government stopped addressing those issues, and didn't place any barriers on people trying to solve problems, then people would go out and solve those problems of their own free will. If nobody attempts to solve a certain problem, then it's either because:
A ) The problem isn't deemed worthy of solving by Americans, which means if government was solving it, then government wasn't doing it's job and reflecting the values of the people.
or
B ) There is not an efficient way to solve the problem or there are more valuable uses of the time and resources required to solve it, which means if government was solving it, then they were being wasteful.
The latter describes the reason there is a lack of problem-solving in countries like India. That's why nobody...not the free market, not the government...can solve some of the problems they face.
America, though, has gobs of resources, talent, and people with excess time and energy. That's why America can solve problems with government. But, it's also why we can solve problems without government.
Government hasn't invented anything, built anything, cleaned anything, or educated anyone. All of that gets done by people. Government just uses threats of (and actual) violence to influence people. So essentially, you're arguing that we need to threaten people with violence to get them to do things that make society better for people. I'm not saying that isn't a method that yields results, but it's less efficient.
Think about it...if the vast majority of Americans want children to get an education and go to school, why the hell would we need to use violence/coercion on everyone to influence them to do specific things (pay taxes, acquire jobs, construct buildings, etc) that result in the current school system we have today?
The point is that just because government takes charge on solving a certain problem, it doesn't mean that it's the only way. For example, we often ignore free market solutions (how many people have taken action to lower their carbon footprint, donate to charity, or clean up a park?). Also, when government steps in to solve a problem, it decreases/eliminates the incentives people have to address the issue of their own free will, sometimes by making it illegal to do so, but almost always by lessening the problem enough that diminishing returns do not make any additional investments worthwhile (sunk cost).
If the government passed a law stating that we all need to start paying 5% more in taxes to give to people to make soap and distribute to everyone, would you then say we shouldn't get rid of the soap tax because otherwise there would be no way for people to obtain soap?
Read the bold parts if TLDR. And before you ask, yes, I do need to get laid.
I have to keep my word count down so I don't go over the limit. Here is the message, I'll type it slowly so you understand.
If the government doesn't rule the country, then big business will. Big business are not people, my friend. And will rape and pillage the environment and anything else they can to make a profit.
Holy Berniebro...
So you disagree that, if given the opportunity, corporations won't rape and pillage? Corporations need free will to invent, improve, etc. But they also need to be provided some rules or they will take advantage of everything and let the country rot. Basically like India.
Until another company comes in and decides to get their piece of the pie which in turn lowers prices and margins. Funny how that works.
I once had some dipshit liberal tell me that if businesses went unregulated by government, that eventually one company would have a monopoly on everything and would be able to do and charge whatever they want. No joke.
Businesses have to earn their customers. Government doesnt. Businesses have competition. Government doesn't. Which one is more likely to rape and pillage again?
If people value a rape and pillage free society, they will just not do business with people who rape and pillage.
Cause no one shops at Walmart, right? The vast majority of people will just buy the cheapest shit. Then complain that the corporations destroyed the environment.
And yes government is different than corporations. When was the last time a government dumped raw sewage in the water in the name of profit?
Businesses have to earn their customers. Government doesnt. Businesses have competition. Government doesn't. Which one is more likely to rape and pillage again?
If people value a rape and pillage free society, they will just not do business with people who rape and pillage.
Cause no one shops at Walmart, right? The vast majority of people will just buy the cheapest shit. Then complain that the corporations destroyed the environment.
And yes government is different than corporations. When was the last time a government dumped raw sewage in the water in the name of profit?
The greatest part is that your environmental problems is a philosophical illustration of the problem of collective (SOCIALIST!!1) ownership. But you'll never see it.
Businesses have to earn their customers. Government doesnt. Businesses have competition. Government doesn't. Which one is more likely to rape and pillage again?
If people value a rape and pillage free society, they will just not do business with people who rape and pillage.
Cause no one shops at Walmart, right? The vast majority of people will just buy the cheapest shit. Then complain that the corporations destroyed the environment.
And yes government is different than corporations. When was the last time a government dumped raw sewage in the water in the name of profit?
Businesses have to earn their customers. Government doesnt. Businesses have competition. Government doesn't. Which one is more likely to rape and pillage again?
If people value a rape and pillage free society, they will just not do business with people who rape and pillage.
Cause no one shops at Walmart, right? The vast majority of people will just buy the cheapest shit. Then complain that the corporations destroyed the environment.
And yes government is different than corporations. When was the last time a government dumped raw sewage in the water in the name of profit?
Businesses have to earn their customers. Government doesnt. Businesses have competition. Government doesn't. Which one is more likely to rape and pillage again?
If people value a rape and pillage free society, they will just not do business with people who rape and pillage.
Cause no one shops at Walmart, right? The vast majority of people will just buy the cheapest shit. Then complain that the corporations destroyed the environment.
And yes government is different than corporations. When was the last time a government dumped raw sewage in the water in the name of profit?
Comments
Pointing to shitholes like Somalia and parts of India and how they may be a little less shitty to live in than their neighbors with the same functioning government doesn't prove anything.
There will indeed need to be some sort of hybrid economy. Capitalism is all based on growth. If it can't grow, it implodes. There are only so many resources on this planet and eventually growth will stop.
Nobody in America wants any of the things you listed. If government stopped addressing those issues, and didn't place any barriers on people trying to solve problems, then people would go out and solve those problems of their own free will. If nobody attempts to solve a certain problem, then it's either because:
A ) The problem isn't deemed worthy of solving by Americans, which means if government was solving it, then government wasn't doing it's job and reflecting the values of the people.
or
B ) There is not an efficient way to solve the problem or there are more valuable uses of the time and resources required to solve it, which means if government was solving it, then they were being wasteful.
The latter describes the reason there is a lack of problem-solving in countries like India. That's why nobody...not the free market, not the government...can solve some of the problems they face.
America, though, has gobs of resources, talent, and people with excess time and energy. That's why America can solve problems with government. But, it's also why we can solve problems without government.
Government hasn't invented anything, built anything, cleaned anything, or educated anyone. All of that gets done by people. Government just uses threats of (and actual) violence to influence people. So essentially, you're arguing that we need to threaten people with violence to get them to do things that make society better for people. I'm not saying that isn't a method that yields results, but it's less efficient.
Think about it...if the vast majority of Americans want children to get an education and go to school, why the hell would we need to use violence/coercion on everyone to influence them to do specific things (pay taxes, acquire jobs, construct buildings, etc) that result in the current school system we have today?
The point is that just because government takes charge on solving a certain problem, it doesn't mean that it's the only way. For example, we often ignore free market solutions (how many people have taken action to lower their carbon footprint, donate to charity, or clean up a park?). Also, when government steps in to solve a problem, it decreases/eliminates the incentives people have to address the issue of their own free will, sometimes by making it illegal to do so, but almost always by lessening the problem enough that diminishing returns do not make any additional investments worthwhile (sunk cost).
If the government passed a law stating that we all need to start paying 5% more in taxes to give to people to make soap and distribute to everyone, would you then say we shouldn't get rid of the soap tax because otherwise there would be no way for people to obtain soap?
Read the bold parts if TLDR. And before you ask, yes, I do need to get laid.
It doesn't "prove" anything, but it certainly suggests that government can't improve conditions, and if anything might make things slightly worse. The Somalia example is my favorite because that country went from having a government with a relatively large role, to no government, and the standard of living increased, yet many people who disagree with me like to point out that Somalia is a shithole and has no government, as if it's the no government that makes it a shithole. Obviously there are countless things to consider to draw any conclusions.
Growth is an abstract concept. Growth can occur in many ways and in many directions. And over the course of history, humans have been able to find more efficient means to use resources. For example, look at the MPG on your average car today vs 50 years ago.
If the government doesn't rule the country, then big business will. Big business are not people, my friend. And will rape and pillage the environment and anything else they can to make a profit.
You know what that means.
I'm good with all things Vikings.
Businesses have to earn their customers. Government doesnt. Businesses have competition. Government doesn't. Which one is more likely to rape and pillage again?
If people value a rape and pillage free society, they will just not do business with people who rape and pillage.
And yes government is different than corporations. When was the last time a government dumped raw sewage in the water in the name of profit?