The Free Market

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Rothbard is my ideological mentor... and you know, Lysander Spooner was an Anarchist too. I see you have one of his quotes.

And I don't worry about National Defense. There is no need for a "Nation" in the first place. I'm more concerned with personal defense.

Yes, I'm aware Lysander Spooner was an anarchist. Ignoring national defense is not a good idea, in my opinion. There's no telling when another nation may feel it's good to invade the nation with no government or armed forces. I think a strong national defense is still necessary, as opposed to fighting a guerilla war.

Private Business has shown time and time again that it is superior to beauracratic management in every way (practically and ethically). So why wouldn't that apply to defense?

It's not often I get to argue against the market on here, in fact I'm not sure it's ever happened. At any rate, it seems illogical to me that the market would be able to raise anything more than what amounts to a guerrilla army that operates under a war of attrition. While that may be fine for some third world countries, I think the United States is better off having a top of the line national defense, and I don't see the market supplying that on its own.

 

[Elutherian]

Yes, I'm aware Lysander Spooner was an anarchist. Ignoring national defense is not a good idea, in my opinion. There's no telling when another nation may feel it's good to invade the nation with no government or armed forces. I think a strong national defense is still necessary, as opposed to fighting a guerilla war.

Private Business has shown time and time again that it is superior to beauracratic management in every way (practically and ethically). So why wouldn't that apply to defense?

It's not often I get to argue against the market on here, in fact I'm not sure it's ever happened. At any rate, it seems illogical to me that the market would be able to raise anything more than what amounts to a guerrilla army that operates under a war of attrition. While that may be fine for some third world countries, I think the United States is better off having a top of the line national defense, and I don't see the market supplying that on its own.

Well that's where you and I are going to disagree. I am consistent in supporting the free market... Socialized Defense ain't no better than Socialized Health Care.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Private Business has shown time and time again that it is superior to beauracratic management in every way (practically and ethically). So why wouldn't that apply to defense?

It's not often I get to argue against the market on here, in fact I'm not sure it's ever happened. At any rate, it seems illogical to me that the market would be able to raise anything more than what amounts to a guerrilla army that operates under a war of attrition. While that may be fine for some third world countries, I think the United States is better off having a top of the line national defense, and I don't see the market supplying that on its own.

Well that's where you and I are going to disagree. I am consistent in supporting the free market... Socialized Defense ain't no better than Socialized Health Care.

That's fine. Though I would say that's about the only thing I disagree with Rothbard on, at least that I've found, as far as the market is concerned.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Rothbard is my ideological mentor... and you know, Lysander Spooner was an Anarchist too. I see you have one of his quotes.

And I don't worry about National Defense. There is no need for a "Nation" in the first place. I'm more concerned with personal defense.

Yes, I'm aware Lysander Spooner was an anarchist. Ignoring national defense is not a good idea, in my opinion. There's no telling when another nation may feel it's good to invade the nation with no government or armed forces. I think a strong national defense is still necessary, as opposed to fighting a guerilla war.

Private Business has shown time and time again that it is superior to beauracratic management in every way (practically and ethically). So why wouldn't that apply to defense?

Bullshit. Your friendly neighborhood Social Security office is part of the largest bureaucracy on the planet and it is run by The Federal government at 1.2% efficiency, meaning that for every dollar you pay in FICA wages only 1.2 pennies is spent on administration and overhead. The best private insurance can boast is 20%.

It actually makes sense when you remove million dollar executives and demanding share-holders from the equation.

 

[Elutherian]

Yes, I'm aware Lysander Spooner was an anarchist. Ignoring national defense is not a good idea, in my opinion. There's no telling when another nation may feel it's good to invade the nation with no government or armed forces. I think a strong national defense is still necessary, as opposed to fighting a guerilla war.

Private Business has shown time and time again that it is superior to beauracratic management in every way (practically and ethically). So why wouldn't that apply to defense?

Bullshit. Your friendly neighborhood Social Security office is part of the largest bureaucracy on the planet and it is run by The Federal government at 1.2% efficiency, meaning that for every dollar you pay in FICA wages only 1.2 pennies is spent on administration and overhead. The best private insurance can boast is 20%.

It actually makes sense when you remove million dollar executives and demanding share-holders from the equation.

Social Security is bankrupt. Which is what you get when you can't respond to market incentives. The Market ain't just a profit machine... it's a cold and cruel mother f*cker. You mess up, you're out of luck.

Unless of course you get a bailout from Mr. Obama... but that ain't exactly free market capitalism now is it.

 

[manifold]

There is one thing in which pure socialist and pure free market ideologues agree on. For some reason they both ignore human nature in their theoretical models. That is why both extremes are markedly sub-optimal, to say the least. I don't know exactly where the optimal balance lies, nobody does. But I can state with complete certainty that what we have today is far better than either extreme. True story.

 

[Elutherian]

There is one thing in which pure socialist and pure free market ideologues agree on. For some reason they both ignore human nature in their theoretical models. That is why both extremes are markedly sub-optimal, to say the least. I don't know exactly where the optimal balance lies, nobody does. But I can state with complete certainty that what we have today is far better than either extreme. True story.

I hate that... when somebody attacks an ideology as being against "human nature" without any real evidence supporting it. It's just one of those things that gets me.

Here's a good quote:

Many people say that government is necessary because some men cannot be trusted to look after themselves, but anarchists say that government is harmful because no men
can be trusted to look after anyone else.” — Nicolas Walter

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Yes, I'm aware Lysander Spooner was an anarchist. Ignoring national defense is not a good idea, in my opinion. There's no telling when another nation may feel it's good to invade the nation with no government or armed forces. I think a strong national defense is still necessary, as opposed to fighting a guerilla war.

Private Business has shown time and time again that it is superior to beauracratic management in every way (practically and ethically). So why wouldn't that apply to defense?

Bullshit. Your friendly neighborhood Social Security office is part of the largest bureaucracy on the planet and it is run by The Federal government at 1.2% efficiency, meaning that for every dollar you pay in FICA wages only 1.2 pennies is spent on administration and overhead. The best private insurance can boast is 20%.

It actually makes sense when you remove million dollar executives and demanding share-holders from the equation.

Bwa aha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha....and in effect...Social Security is subsidized. Of course they're "efficient".....

Do you know how much money the U.S. government has borrowed from the SSA? Hint: Trillions!!!!!

 

[ihopehefails]

I think the criticisms of the free market is as silly as criticizing free speech principles. No one ever said that free market will yield pre-programmed results that the government sets just like free-speech won't garnatee that everyone will say the correct thing that will benefit society. Both concepts present a level of danger to society such as the Black Panthers passing out hate propaganda or a business make a bad decision that cripples its employees future but the idea is that freedom of any form is never about predictable results but about you having the right to do something.

That is what free-market is about. Its the right to conduct your own economic affairs as you see fit and as you see best just like someone using free speech to speak on any topic as they see fit and as they see best no matter how the execution of those two particular freedoms affects society in a desired way.

 

[Diuretic]

Rothbard is my ideological mentor... and you know, Lysander Spooner was an Anarchist too. I see you have one of his quotes.

And I don't worry about National Defense. There is no need for a "Nation" in the first place. I'm more concerned with personal defense.

Yes, I'm aware Lysander Spooner was an anarchist. Ignoring national defense is not a good idea, in my opinion. There's no telling when another nation may feel it's good to invade the nation with no government or armed forces. I think a strong national defense is still necessary, as opposed to fighting a guerilla war.

Private Business has shown time and time again that it is superior to beauracratic management in every way (practically and ethically). So why wouldn't that apply to defense?

Business is interested in making money. Governments have to provide services. Some things are better done by business, some by government. Claiming one is superior to the other is probably not defensible.

 

[Old Rocks]

Private Business has shown time and time again that it is superior to beauracratic management in every way (practically and ethically). So why wouldn't that apply to defense?

It's not often I get to argue against the market on here, in fact I'm not sure it's ever happened. At any rate, it seems illogical to me that the market would be able to raise anything more than what amounts to a guerrilla army that operates under a war of attrition. While that may be fine for some third world countries, I think the United States is better off having a top of the line national defense, and I don't see the market supplying that on its own.

Well that's where you and I are going to disagree. I am consistent in supporting the free market... Socialized Defense ain't no better than Socialized Health Care.

No nation that has trusted it's defense to mercenaries has survived long. Any nation that is dumb enough to apply your economic ideology would advance rapidly to a feudal economy.

 

[Elutherian]

Yes, I'm aware Lysander Spooner was an anarchist. Ignoring national defense is not a good idea, in my opinion. There's no telling when another nation may feel it's good to invade the nation with no government or armed forces. I think a strong national defense is still necessary, as opposed to fighting a guerilla war.

Private Business has shown time and time again that it is superior to beauracratic management in every way (practically and ethically). So why wouldn't that apply to defense?

Business is interested in making money. Governments have to provide services. Some things are better done by business, some by government. Claiming one is superior to the other is probably not defensible.

The Government is a parasite. They steal our money and force their services down our throat.

I can argue from a practical perspective all day... but when it comes right down to it, I oppose all Government on principle. It's theft and slavery... pure and simple.

 

[Old Rocks]

Private Business has shown time and time again that it is superior to beauracratic management in every way (practically and ethically). So why wouldn't that apply to defense?

Business is interested in making money. Governments have to provide services. Some things are better done by business, some by government. Claiming one is superior to the other is probably not defensible.

The Government is a parasite. They steal our money and force their services down our throat.

I can argue from a practical perspective all day... but when it comes right down to it, I oppose all Government on principle. It's theft and slavery... pure and simple.

My goodness, and honest to God Anarchist! OK..............

 

[Elutherian]

Business is interested in making money. Governments have to provide services. Some things are better done by business, some by government. Claiming one is superior to the other is probably not defensible.

The Government is a parasite. They steal our money and force their services down our throat.

I can argue from a practical perspective all day... but when it comes right down to it, I oppose all Government on principle. It's theft and slavery... pure and simple.

My goodness, and honest to God Anarchist! OK..............

Hell yes I'm an Anarchist. The State = Violence. I'm proud of that stance.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Yes, I'm aware Lysander Spooner was an anarchist. Ignoring national defense is not a good idea, in my opinion. There's no telling when another nation may feel it's good to invade the nation with no government or armed forces. I think a strong national defense is still necessary, as opposed to fighting a guerilla war.

Private Business has shown time and time again that it is superior to beauracratic management in every way (practically and ethically). So why wouldn't that apply to defense?

Bullshit. Your friendly neighborhood Social Security office is part of the largest bureaucracy on the planet and it is run by The Federal government at 1.2% efficiency, meaning that for every dollar you pay in FICA wages only 1.2 pennies is spent on administration and overhead. The best private insurance can boast is 20%.

It actually makes sense when you remove million dollar executives and demanding share-holders from the equation.

ROFLMNAO... We're gonna have to call: BULLSHIT on that one...

First, there is no incentive for government to be efficient... thus the reason for the total lack of efficiency in government; and the closer to the left that government gets, the farther from efficiency it gets, because it's farther from any reason to BE efficient...

Now this in STARK contrast to business, where the need for efficiency is a function of the competitive nature of the markets...

So you're going to have to post a citation of a 3rd party, non-political; non-ideological resource to support that accounting, or it is OUTTA HERE; stamped TOTAL BULLSHIT![/SIZE]

 

[Paulie]

If someone would move this thread to econ where it belongs, I'd be happy to join in on it Mani.

I hate these politics subforums. I'm not even sure why I posted on some of them today. Probably because Ron Paul was mentioned, I guess.

 

[manifold]

HA.

I actually considered putting it in the Econ forum. But that place doesn't see much action.

Not to mention that economic theory and political theory go hand-in-hand.

 

[Paulie]

The only problem with more attention is that it gets buried too quickly.

If the topic is interesting enough, with enough contribution, posters will come regardless of the subforum.

If you build it, they will come.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Private Business has shown time and time again that it is superior to beauracratic management in every way (practically and ethically). So why wouldn't that apply to defense?

Bullshit. Your friendly neighborhood Social Security office is part of the largest bureaucracy on the planet and it is run by The Federal government at 1.2% efficiency, meaning that for every dollar you pay in FICA wages only 1.2 pennies is spent on administration and overhead. The best private insurance can boast is 20%.

It actually makes sense when you remove million dollar executives and demanding share-holders from the equation.

Social Security is bankrupt. Which is what you get when you can't respond to market incentives. The Market ain't just a profit machine... it's a cold and cruel mother f*cker. You mess up, you're out of luck.

Unless of course you get a bailout from Mr. Obama... but that ain't exactly free market capitalism now is it.

Social Security is not 'bankrupt'. The trust fund is stable to 2035 using the worst case assumptions and stable to 2045 using assumptions that the economy gets better in the next 25 years.

The better news is that as of 1984 newly hired federal workers were hired under SSA instead of Civil Service, so as soon as we get rid of deadwood like McCain, Hall, Murtha, Byrd, Specter and the rest of the 24 Senators and 48 Congressmen who are over 70 and been suckin' the government tit for the last 30 years, our leaders will have a personal, vested interest in fixing Social Security.

Social Security is a great program... it serves everyone equally without regard to race, religion, or political affiliation.

 

[FactFinder]

Bullshit. Your friendly neighborhood Social Security office is part of the largest bureaucracy on the planet and it is run by The Federal government at 1.2% efficiency, meaning that for every dollar you pay in FICA wages only 1.2 pennies is spent on administration and overhead. The best private insurance can boast is 20%.

It actually makes sense when you remove million dollar executives and demanding share-holders from the equation.

Social Security is bankrupt. Which is what you get when you can't respond to market incentives. The Market ain't just a profit machine... it's a cold and cruel mother f*cker. You mess up, you're out of luck.

Unless of course you get a bailout from Mr. Obama... but that ain't exactly free market capitalism now is it.

Social Security is not 'bankrupt'. The trust fund is stable to 2035 using the worst case assumptions and stable to 2045 using assumptions that the economy gets better in the next 25 years.

The better news is that as of 1984 newly hired federal workers were hired under SSA instead of Civil Service, so as soon as we get rid of deadwood like McCain, Hall, Murtha, Byrd, Specter and the rest of the 24 Senators and 48 Congressmen who are over 70 and been suckin' the government tit for the last 30 years, our leaders will have a personal, vested interest in fixing Social Security.

Social Security is a great program... it serves everyone equally without regard to race, religion, or political affiliation.

Social Security is dependent on the government being able to pay back what it stole.