Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 3
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Wallace





Joined: 09 May 2008
Posts: 73
Reputation: 4.7Reputation: 4.7Reputation: 4.7Reputation: 4.7
votes: 2

PostPosted: Sat May 10, 2008 12:42 am    Post subject: Free Market Anarchy Reply with quote

I consider my self almost completely free market anarchist, honestly there is very little the government can do that the free market can't do better. I am in favor of almost total privatization. Socialism is basically the government forcibly taking your money and putting into whatever harebrained scheme politicians need to satisfy the vast unwashed or to corporations too weak to hold themselves together. Does anyone disagree?
FascistLibertarian





Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 1092
Reputation: 30.1Reputation: 30.1Reputation: 30.1
votes: 14
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Sat May 10, 2008 3:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

government needs to regualte stuff.
Government cant be total free market in terms of healthcare, education, transportation, and security.
The public sector is needed to some extent with those things.
As well we need some sort of public pension system.

And the word your looking for isnt anarchy, its market capitalist.
kwlafayette





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
Reputation: 156.2Reputation: 156.2
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Sat May 10, 2008 3:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Why does the government have to be involved in all those things? You say it with authority, what authority do you have? The supreme court of Canada has said that access to a waiting list is not access to health care.
Cool Blue





Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Posts: 3130
Reputation: 114.9
votes: 10
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Sat May 10, 2008 5:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think there are some basic responsibilities which only the government can provide, like the court system for example; however, in many cases there is room for private sector involvement.


Quote:
Government cant be total free market in terms of healthcare, education, transportation, and security.


I agree with you somwhat. If you consider any involvement by government to be against a free market then it would be hard to have a true 100% free market. That isn't to say though that there isn't room for private sector involvement or that free market concepts like competition can't be applied.

Health care I'd agree can't be 100% free market, some regulations are needed, however in Canada there is much that the private sector can do.

In education you could have a voucher system where all education is provided by private schools, again though you'd need some provincial standards so 100% free market isn't possible.

Personally I don't see why transportation can't be 100% free market, unless you're referring to government set safety standards.

Security obviously can't be 100% free market. We need government to set and enforce the laws and I don't believe that you could privatize the military.
Cool Blue





Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Posts: 3130
Reputation: 114.9
votes: 10
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Sat May 10, 2008 5:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Remember, for markets to work you need stability and certainty of some basics.

Anarchy is the exact opposite of that.
FF_Canuck





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 3360
Reputation: 73.4
votes: 17
Location: Southern Alberta

PostPosted: Sat May 10, 2008 8:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

At a bare minimum, the government must have the ability to enforce contracts, and protect the liberty of its citizens with a military, police, and a courts system. Anything beyond that is optional, and should be considered carefully by the electorate before being assumed as a government function.

For instance, I'm confident that I get good value for my tax dollars at a municipal level, because they mostly concern themselves with keeping the roads and sewer sytems in good order, as well as paying a portion of the bill for the RCMP, and a running a bare-bones bylaw enforcement department. Generally, I think tax dollars are more efficiently spent when they are spent closer to the people they're extracted from.

PS: Welcome to the forums, Wallace!
Wallace





Joined: 09 May 2008
Posts: 73
Reputation: 4.7Reputation: 4.7Reputation: 4.7Reputation: 4.7
votes: 2

PostPosted: Sat May 10, 2008 10:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't see why we should regulate hospitals, having individuals have to license themselves to practice medicine simply increases costs for everyone. Really nurses are almost as good as doctors, and they can't open private practices, I wonder how much of the healthcare system is being clogged up by minor problems that only require a nurse's experience.

Regulations in all sectors can be done away with, by having private consumer watch groups place their stamp of approval on things.

About the public school standards, I don't think that is necessary. People should have the right to take their kids to whatever kind of school they want. The free media should be able to make a profitable story if they do a report on any schools that are actually creepy indoctrination centers of any sort.

I do see a sort of national education system forming on itself anyways, like how wallmart is many private stores running under the same policies, such a group would police themselves keep their image good.

Well about the military, that looks a bit sketchy, but we should never have so many surplus troops that we can send them anywhere. I am in favor of mercenary academies and the government can hire from those. And if any organizations concern themselves with foreign wars, they can hire individuals from our private military organizations.

I can see insurance companies hiring mercenaries to guard places like ports to save on claims.

There does need to be some kind of national police force, but we don't need a lot of them. For cities and towns I am in favor of private police forces, they can be hired to force whatever laws they want provided they do not violate the non aggression principal or keep people from leaving to go to another town. The courts in most of these cities and towns can be private too, though there probably should be provincial and national courts.

And yes, I am ridiculously right wing :P
FascistLibertarian





Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 1092
Reputation: 30.1Reputation: 30.1Reputation: 30.1
votes: 14
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Sat May 10, 2008 10:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Why does the government have to be involved in all those things?


Transportation because its a money loser and its important we have things like subways, buses, trains, and planes as well as a decently maintained road and highway system.

Security because I dont trust private security forces to fight wars for Canada nor do I feel they are accountable enough to be the police. Also if the state gives up its ability to project force (as only having private security would do) it gives up its ability to enforce laws.

Healthcare and education because not all Canadians can afford private alternatives.

Quote:
That isn't to say though that there isn't room for private sector involvement or that free market concepts like competition can't be applied.


I totally agree there should be private alternatives.

Quote:
I don't see why we should regulate hospitals.


So because you are in favour of allowing private hospitals you believe that public ones should be shut down?

Quote:
Regulations in all sectors can be done away with, by having private consumer watch groups place their stamp of approval on things.


Disagree totally. This is the governments job. Otherwise I could open a private hisptial with no experince or dump mercury into lakes.

Quote:
People should have the right to take their kids to whatever kind of school they want.


So if I want to start a school stating that it is okay for kids to have sex with adults, that jews arent human and should be killed, that people who speak french are inferor and should be killed, how to make bombs, shoot guns and attack defended positions in small groups, and part of the school year invoved cage matches between 12 and 5 year olds, that would be fine under your system?

And if people dont have enough money to send their kids to a private school or a private hospital they are just out of luck because they are poor?

Quote:
I am in favor of mercenary academies and the government can hire from those. And if any organizations concern themselves with foreign wars, they can hire individuals from our private military organizations.


Cuz that worked so great for the romans and with blackwater in iraq. Raises costs AND decreases accountability!

Quote:
I am in favor of private police forces, they can be hired to force whatever laws they want provided they do not violate the non aggression principal or keep people from leaving to go to another town. The courts in most of these cities and towns can be private too


So who would they be accountable to?
Since they need no training or regulation under your system what is to prevent abuse of power?
Wallace





Joined: 09 May 2008
Posts: 73
Reputation: 4.7Reputation: 4.7Reputation: 4.7Reputation: 4.7
votes: 2

PostPosted: Sat May 10, 2008 6:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Transportation because its a money loser and its important we have things like subways, buses, trains, and planes as well as a decently maintained road and highway system.


So we should continue giving life support to systems that don't work? You are advocating a nanny state. If you want to give these corporations money, go ahead, but the government has no right to take my money by force and put it into failing ventures. If we eliminated taxes and subsidies the free market will create the most efficient system. There is demand for transport, the private sector will figure out the best method.

Quote:
Security because I dont trust private security forces to fight wars for Canada nor do I feel they are accountable enough to be the police. Also if the state gives up its ability to project force (as only having private security would do) it gives up its ability to enforce laws.


So we should base public policy on your feelings? The state has no right to project force or create laws.

Quote:
Healthcare and education because not all Canadians can afford private alternatives.


Orly? If it matters so much than why don't your make sure all canadians can afford it? If it mattered to everyone else, they would give you money for it voluntarily. If they wouldn't do it voluntarily than they are being robbed.

The funny thing about "government charity" is there is nothing charitable about it. There seems to be 3 kinds of people, the poor who will vote for such a charity because they want to receive it, the middle class because it gives them a good feeling while they pay very little for it, while the rich who are taxed a disproportionate amount to everyone else who are basically being robbed to satiate someone else's greed.

Anyways, it's pretty stupid to assume simply taking money away from people to throw at a problem will solve it. Without taxes, everything will become cheaper, and entrepreneurs will have more initiative. Businesses will provide education because a more educated workforce would be more proficient at their jobs.

Without taxes and tariffs and bureaucracy, everything will become cheaper. Our medical system sucks. We should allow people to buy their own health care if they want it, and allow insurance companies to discriminate. Young people are very low risk, the elderly are very high risk, let the free market determine insurance costs.

Quote:
So because you are in favour of allowing private hospitals you believe that public ones should be shut down?


Not shut down, sold.

Quote:
Disagree totally. This is the governments job. Otherwise I could open a private hisptial with no experince or dump mercury into lakes.


The free media will tell us which hospitals to avoid, and which companies pollute. If people want to risk their lives with low end medicare, let them. If people want to support a company that pollutes, what gives you the right to stop them?

Quote:
So if I want to start a school stating that it is okay for kids to have sex with adults, that jews arent human and should be killed, that people who speak french are inferor and should be killed, how to make bombs, shoot guns and attack defended positions in small groups, and part of the school year invoved cage matches between 12 and 5 year olds, that would be fine under your system?


Well it wouldn't be fine, however I believe in freedom of association, if you believe a group is doing bad stuff, boycott them. Do not work for them, sell them things or buy things from them.

Quote:
And if people dont have enough money to send their kids to a private school or a private hospital they are just out of luck because they are poor?


Yes, I guess they are. People are charitable, if someone wanted to open a school or hospital for the poor, than they should. Also entrepreneurs could do this as well on a larger scale, as it is good publicity.

Quote:
Cuz that worked so great for the romans and with blackwater in iraq. Raises costs AND decreases accountability!


Well I oppose invasions of any kind, I hate black water as much as I do any other military soldier involved in iraq. And I do not consider my self a fan of Roman conquest.

Quote:
So who would they be accountable to?
Since they need no training or regulation under your system what is to prevent abuse of power?


If you are an insurance company, to save money you buy mercenaries to defend a port. Now do you get a bunch of psychopaths who will ruin your companies' reputation? Or would you get people who will make you look good for the right price.
Craig
Site Admin




Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8
votes: 36

PostPosted: Sat May 10, 2008 10:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kwlafayette wrote:
Why does the government have to be involved in all those things? You say it with authority, what authority do you have?


He is expressing his opinion. Almost everything you say in these forums YOU say with authority.

Anarchy isn't the correct word. Most free market proponents acknowledge that there is a role for government - specifically policing (securities regulators, etc.). Besides, you can't separate economics from other aspects of our society. And most reasonable people acknowledge that there is a valid role for government to play.
Wallace





Joined: 09 May 2008
Posts: 73
Reputation: 4.7Reputation: 4.7Reputation: 4.7Reputation: 4.7
votes: 2

PostPosted: Sun May 11, 2008 12:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Craig wrote:
Most free market proponents acknowledge that there is a role for government - specifically policing (securities regulators, etc.).


Yeah, I know I tend to flip-flop on wether to destroy the government completely or just 99% of it :P

Craig wrote:
Besides, you can't separate economics from other aspects of our society. And most reasonable people acknowledge that there is a valid role for government to play.


Orly, I'm being unreasonable, care to back up that statement, or should we just accept that on face value?
FascistLibertarian





Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 1092
Reputation: 30.1Reputation: 30.1Reputation: 30.1
votes: 14
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Sun May 11, 2008 12:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
So we should base public policy on your feelings?


No, we should base public policy on YOUR feelings! :roll: :lol:

Under your ideal system could I kill my neibour and take her house? Clearly its fascist of the government to make and enforce private property laws!

How would we deal with oka, riel rebellion, flq crisis, nazi germany, vancouver olympics?
Oh, the private sector will do it better and cheaper, without regulation?

The government shouldnt be involved in via rail, ttc, air canada, or road maintance because private individuals and companies will do it better for less money?

Got any evidence to back up your radical oppinions?

Care to cite examples of countries switching from only public to private healthcare, getting rid of security forces, getting rid of the governments ability to make and enforce laws, getting rid of public schools and unis/colleges, and not being involved in transportation?

This all comes down to the legitmacy of the government, you clearly dont feel the governments (at the various levels) of canada are legitimate. Thats the real issue and the one we should be debating because the specific examples we are arguing about all stem from this basic point in your arguement.

Basically you feel there should be no role for government and people should have the rights to do whatever they want. I and the majority of Canadians dont think thats reasonable and wouldnt support it.

Since we live in a democratic country with freedom of speech you have the right to try and convience people of your views. Good luck. :wink:
mrsocko





Joined: 29 Oct 2006
Posts: 2463
Reputation: 131.2
votes: 8
Location: Southwestern Ontario

PostPosted: Sun May 11, 2008 9:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

FF_Canuck said:
Quote:
For instance, I'm confident that I get good value for my tax dollars at a municipal level, because they mostly concern themselves with keeping the roads and sewer sytems in good order


Municipal governments should be abolished. Tell the people of Toronto how well their money is being spent. The NDP has taken over most large municipal governments. If they are so well run why are they always begging for money?

That's why I think they should let municipal politians run under party banners, so we can identify the socialists. And get rid of them.
Wallace





Joined: 09 May 2008
Posts: 73
Reputation: 4.7Reputation: 4.7Reputation: 4.7Reputation: 4.7
votes: 2

PostPosted: Sun May 11, 2008 11:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
No, we should base public policy on YOUR feelings! :roll: :lol:


Yes :lol:

Quote:
Under your ideal system could I kill my neibour and take her house?


And what little socialist policy do we have now to prevent this? I bought my private security system.

Quote:
How would we deal with oka, riel rebellion, flq crisis, nazi germany, vancouver olympics?
Oh, the private sector will do it better and cheaper, without regulation?


Yes.

Quote:
The government shouldnt be involved in via rail, ttc, air canada, or road maintance because private individuals and companies will do it better for less money?


On the nose.

Quote:
Got any evidence to back up your radical oppinions?


Well you may have a stockholm syndrome-like love for our current tyranny, but I want to give freedom a chance.

Quote:
This all comes down to the legitmacy of the government, you clearly dont feel the governments (at the various levels) of canada are legitimate. Thats the real issue and the one we should be debating because the specific examples we are arguing about all stem from this basic point in your arguement...Since we live in a democratic country with freedom of speech you have the right to try and convience people of your views. Good luck.


Well if you believe in democracy so much, than you should be behind me. If government is supposed to reflect the wishes of the people, than what's the point of coercing them? Shouldn't their actions without walls, be the same as with them if we built the walls ourselves?
crazymamma





Joined: 18 Aug 2007
Posts: 1011
Reputation: 71.8
votes: 14
Location: The kitchen

PostPosted: Mon May 12, 2008 6:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

FFCanuck writes:

Quote:
For instance, I'm confident that I get good value for my tax dollars at a municipal level, because they mostly concern themselves with keeping the roads and sewer sytems in good order, as well as paying a portion of the bill for the RCMP, and a running a bare-bones bylaw enforcement department. Generally, I think tax dollars are more efficiently spent when they are spent closer to the people they're extracted from.


Where do you live FF?


Because back on my home planet, Ottawa, the city seems occupied with every thing but. Scent by-laws, idling by-laws, pesticide by-laws, free crack pipe programs, financing GLTG parades, not financing the Help Santa parade, Sending goofs around to count how many and what garbage I put out monthly, while not dealing with the real issue, something like plasma gasification, debate about banning gas powered mowers, expropriating land because it is a natural habitat for trees and geese, stopping the local ladies axillary from poisoning the congregation with their unhealthy food choices, legislating Trans-Fats in the city boundaries, banning local farmer's markets from selling eggs, jams, pies, all baked goods, for "health" reasons. Financing music chambers that can't raise their own money.Stopping folks from putting any sort of "wild life" on their property. Man the list of intrusions and expenditures that are not any business of the City is endless here.


I gotta move!
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 3

Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum


Free Market Anarchy

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB