Legitamate Market Force?

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Milton Bradley Look lsbskins, illustrating education makes leads to a better standard of living is all welll, and good, but what about "governement education", like you are contending? Your links don't support your contention.

Yes they do. My contention was that government does not get the monetary benefit of the KNOWN benefits of an educated public. You bitch and moan about the costs, ignoring the fact that there are definite rewards. It's just that Exxon/Mobil and Microsoft and every other private industry you can name gets to reap those rewards and you guys still complain that your taxes go to pay to educate the public. Government takes on the burden because private industry has proven to be too short sighted to support those kind of long term goals. Try supporting your contention that private industry does it better. Where more people going to college before or after public education became the norm? Were literacy rates higher before or after public education became the norm? Do the most well off and productive nations have a system of private or public education?

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: grandpa Yes it is. It uses coercion even in its simplest, most benign functions. Grandpa h.

This is a vast oversimplification and if you do not know it, you should. I do not have to be coerced to pay my taxes. I pay them because I know that it is necessary. Government does not coerce me much at all. It coerces me into not smoking pot anymore and it coerces me into not being able to marry who I want, but otherwise I am pretty free of coercion. It delivers paved roads and an education and an army to protect me and protection against ecoli laced hamburger meat and helps to secure my right to say what I want about politics and read whatever books I choose to read, it keeps fire trucks at the ready in case my house catches on fire and policemen on the streets to catch those who need to be coerced into not stealing my VCR and car, and it helps pay for research into illnesses that might affect me or a member of my family. It does thousands of other things for me that I have not even mentioned and in the ballance, I am pretty satisfied. In the ballance, most people would rather have the government we have than no government because most people never need to be coerced by our government in any but small ways. Most people are happy, in ballance with the level of coercion they need to endure to get THE REWARDS OF GOVERNMENT THAT ARE IT'S ACTUAL PURPOSE, because coercion is a tool government uses to accomplish it's purpose, not it's reason for existing, as you claim.

[grandpa]

Quote by: lsbskins1 This is a vast oversimplification and if you do not know it, you should. I do not have to be coerced to pay my taxes.

I know you may not mind paying taxes, but they'll still threaten you if you do not. Hence, I say the government uses threats even in its most basic functions. That's not an "oversimplification," but a plainly observable fact. If anything, you are oversimplifying things.

Really, the perceived need to pay taxes, or any other kind of fee, is inherently coercive. Where these artificially imposed "needs" are in effect, we are ultimately placed under some degree of duress. And, as has been argued all over the political spectrum, the "national unity" behind paying taxes is a false one. Yes, it's true there are no individuals who pay
ALL taxes, but the mere process of being forced to pay for this and that is not truly unifying, it's a way of artificially dividing people. So not only is taxation imposed, but it's ultimately divisive -- as is the bulk of the state-capitalist system. Also, trade and social activity cannot help but take on a false character, as we believe we cannot do anything unless there is a price tag involved. And what establishes and defends these price tags? It would be the authorities an dtheir biggest loyalists, who tend to be either wealthy and powerful or highly indoctrinated.

Grandpa h.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: grandpa I know you may not mind paying taxes, but they'll still threaten you if you do not. Hence, I say the government uses threats even in its most basic functions. That's not an "oversimplification," but a plainly observable fact. If anything, you are oversimplifying things. Really, the perceived need to pay taxes, or any other kind of fee, is inherently coercive. Where these artificially imposed "needs" are in effect, we are ultimately placed under some degree of duress. And, as has been argued all over the political spectrum, the "national unity" behind paying taxes is a false one. Yes, it's true there are no individuals who pay ALL taxes, but the mere process of being forced to pay for this and that is not truly unifying, it's a way of artificially dividing people. So not only is taxation imposed, but it's ultimately divisive -- as is the bulk of the state-capitalist system. Also, trade and social activity cannot help but take on a false character, as we believe we cannot do anything unless there is a price tag involved. And what establishes and defends these price tags? It would be the authorities an dtheir biggest loyalists, who tend to be either wealthy and powerful or highly indoctrinated. Grandpa h.

So, your argument, essentially, is that even though most people do not need to be or feel coerced in most things governmental, they all are because some are and you have to be either wealthy (and benefiting from the coercision) or stupid to play along? I think that is a bunch of crap. I don't have to pay for things because the government exists, I have to pay for things because there is not enough of everything everybody wants and/or needs to satisfy everyone. It is a simple economic principle, scarcity. I am a freely participating member of a democratic system that is imperfect to be sure, but, in my estimation, a far superior system to the one you propose. It is superior because it recognizes the simple fact that most of what we need and desire will never be free. Explain to me how everyone who wants a gold trinket can have one at no cost, even in a world free of government? Damn right I believe there is little that can be done without a price tag involved. I don't believe that because I have been indoctrinated. I believe it because it is a fact. Tell me how, in a world of finite resources, you get around that fact. Gold is pretty. Gold is a finite resource. More people want it than can have it. How is that the "fault" of government. Water is needed for survival. It is a finite resource. Explain to me how getting rid of government will make people stop trying to gain control of that resource. Everything you say might sound noble and impressive when it comes to some idealized view of humans and the world we inhabit, but it turns ugly when it butts up against reality. I have said it before and you do not hear, so I will try to say it again and maybe it will sink in this time: Government is a tool. Most people use the tool to try to improve their lives and some very bad people use it to try to enrich themselves at the expense of others. It has gone through eons of trial and error and refinement. It is not perfect. But people do not discard it because in the end, they find existence more bearable with it than without it and use the more rational approach of trying to minimize the harm the assholes can cause. It's a net gain to the average individual. It can be misused to devastating effect, but the problem is not government, the problem is bad government. You can site examples of bad government from here to all eternity and it will not make your contention true. Just because I could site millions of examples of people drowning through the years, that does not mean water should be done away with. The existence of waterboarding does not make water bad. It makes the assholes who use it bad. That is the very simple concept you seem to be unwilling to grasp.

[grandpa]

Quote by: lsbskins1 So, your argument, essentially, is that even though most people do not need to be or feel coerced in most things governmental, they all are because some are and you have to be either wealthy (and benefiting from the coercision) or stupid to play along? I think that is a bunch of crap.

Legal coercion is being applied all the time. It's hardly even in the realm of argument, but a fact of this system. Many will point out the existence of some corrupt snake keepers, but will still feed the snake itself. This is both out of ideological loyalty to the state (like you certainly have) and because people grow accustomed to carrying out orders under duress, even to the point where they pretend the duress is not there.
You even suggest we could not have access to water without the coercive state, even though the state and capitalist industry is going out of their way to monopolize and, apparently, pollute such resources. Taken collectively, or even individually, they are no savior.

However, if you veer away from the state-capitalist system, you'll most surely experience systematic coercion and alienation. You'll have a much more difficult time accessing resources and you'll likely either face much adversity or total obscurity. And that's supposedly good?

This is why I have to wonder what kind of lives some of you Volconvo-ites have, where the system is somehow so benign, even beyond general criticism. Do you never step outside? When I do, I see my points validated over and over again. I view news sources -- even mainstream, democratic-Republican leaning ones -- and what I say is quite true. Sycophants don't paint it in these terms, but the state steals land and resources from the general population, and divvies them out to those obedient enough, and, significantly, to the wealthy. This is aided in large part by banks, which are essentially legal institutions, and other capitalist structures (such as insurance and mortgage companies).

The pandering to ruling elites is the cause of our greatest problems. It's jarring to want to play the melody but leave the chords to them.

Grandpa h.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: grandpa Legal coercion is being applied all the time. It's hardly even in the realm of argument, but a fact of this system. Many will point out the existence of some corrupt snake keepers, but will still feed the snake itself. This is both out of ideological loyalty to the state (like you certainly have) and because people grow accustomed to carrying out orders under duress, even to the point where they pretend the duress is not there. You even suggest we could not have access to water without the coercive state, even though the state and capitalist industry is going out of their way to monopolize and, apparently, pollute such resources. Taken collectively, or even individually, they are no savior. However, if you veer away from the state-capitalist system, you'll most surely experience systematic coercion and alienation. You'll have a much more difficult time accessing resources and you'll likely either face much adversity or total obscurity. And that's supposedly good? This is why I have to wonder what kind of lives some of you Volconvo-ites have, where the system is somehow so benign, even beyond general criticism. Do you never step outside? When I do, I see my points validated over and over again. I view news sources -- even mainstream, democratic-Republican leaning ones -- and what I say is quite true. Sycophants don't paint it in these terms, but the state steals land and resources from the general population, and divvies them out to those obedient enough, and, significantly, to the wealthy. This is aided in large part by banks, which are essentially legal institutions, and other capitalist structures (such as insurance and mortgage companies). The pandering to ruling elites is the cause of our greatest problems. It's jarring to want to play the melody but leave the chords to them. Grandpa h.

You keep making this unfounded claim that because I do not think the whole system needs to be discarded that I think every fault of the system is acceptable. It may make you feel intellectually superior to think of me in those terms, but it is not accurate. I do not pretend that coercion is "not" part of the state. I accept that coercion is a necessary part of the state and understand that in balance, I gain more than I lose. I know that everyday, someone gets pulled over for speeding. I know that everyday, someone loses a patent case. I know that everyday, someone is denied a zoning variance. Millions of times these things happen. I am saying this is not the root of all evil. I do not live in a fantasy world. I live in the real world. The point is, that when someone is coerced into not speeding, more people are aided than are harmed. Maybe we should allow people to drive faster in some places and maybe speeding tickets have become a source of revenue that localities are heavily dependant on and tend to attempt to manipulate for their own ends, but really and truly, I would rather have to deal with fixing that problem than have to dispense with speeding tickets and go to my 7 year old nephew's funeral because some minority of fanatics think speeding tickets are evil.

[lsbskins1]

And since we are no longer even close to the OP, I think this thread is played out. I'm sure, Grandpa, that you and I will cross paths on this matter in other threads.

[grandpa]

Quote by: lsbskins1 You keep making this unfounded claim that because I do not think the whole system needs to be discarded that I think every fault of the system is acceptable. It may make you feel intellectually superior to think of me in those terms, but it is not accurate.

The problem is, if you support a system in argument, you're ultimately supporting it's absues, even if you don't like them. That's actually one of the intended purposes of citizenship, to place us all under the same umbrella, for better or worse (though most often for worse). Ideologies can be such causal links, and the state ultimately is an ideology, as is capitalism. Yes, we can accept these arrangements, but we should expect all that typically comes with them, including the worst abuses.

It's also a matter of misperception.
If we work for an organization -- whether public or private -- and say, "this is not you or I, but the nation or the company," we're only deluding ourselves. But this happens everyday, and must happen if we are to have the state, capitalism, or any other mental subversion of the self and human community.

Grandpa h.