Don't Vote!

[annarborgator]

In contradiction of the retarded notion that we would, in the absence of government, rely solely on corporations to innovate solutions for problems we find in every day life:

When we discuss innovation, we tend to talk to talk about Bell Labs and Google. But a new paper challenges that notion, arguing that British consumers actually outspend companies on innovation.

When they adapt, change, hack and remake products they buy into better things, it's not a trivial thing. They are actually innovating, and in a first-of-its-kind paper, MIT researcher Eric Von Hippel has actually quantified the R&D power of the people.

Based on a survey of 1,173 UK households, Hippel estimates that 2.9 million Brits engaged in product development -- and that they spent 2.3 billion pounds in the process. That's more than twice what British firms officially spent on the innovation process.

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2010/10/consumers-innovate-more-than-companies/64418/

[annarborgator]

“If men are good, you don't need government; if men are evil or ambivalent, you don't dare have one.” — Robert LeFevre

[slideman67]

God it's like discussing the issues with a fucking 4 year old.

Somalia = straw man fallacy.

Love it or leave it = yet another fallacy.

My use of the services provided at the point of the government's gun = yet another fallacy.

You should have taken a class or two in logic. You have no clue about argumentation.

Yes, talking with you is like talking with a 4 year old because you have no fucking clue what you are talking about.

Everything that I have raised is a valid point. You have yet to raise one, or give me any proof that your ideal world can exist anywhere but in your mind. And I will put my graduate degrees and my logic against your "logic" anytime.

I'm out - debating you is like debating a fucking wall. You have no fucking clue about reality. And again, I say to you I don't give a fuck about your opinions since you are adbicating your responsibilities to our country. I have tried to be nice, but you have now made it personal.

[radbag]

So if I understand the (il)logic here you all are saying that we don't need a government and we can count on the private sector to do things like build roads give us fire and police protection, and build schools all so they can make money?

ONCE AGAIN....(for the fourth time)

i am saying that the incentive for private business to build roads or anything would be money.

or

money would be the incentive for private business to build roads

or

private business would build roads for money because that's the incentive

or

roads would be built by private business because they are incentive-ized by money

[radbag]

and btw - P3s (public-private partnerships) are all the rage in the banking industry.

for those who are unfamiliar, P3s are projects (roads, schools, hospitals, etc) built in which private companies and govt partner up...govt can't afford to build so they rely on private companies to assume the majority (if not all) the risk...in return, private company collects the rewards...

perfect example of how private companies are motivated by the prospect of making money and are helping govt provide services for the people....without the private company, the govt won't be able to afford the project and the people will be left without services.

governor christie of NJ just scrapped a tunnel idea to NY alleviating massive traffic issues because it was too expensive to build...private sector is interested and might provide NJ options

this might be of interest to 95 but i just read about some company submitting unsolicited bids to alleviate the traffic at the hamptons raod bridge and tunnel in VA....VA is not interested in it so they passed a law/rule in which companys are no longer allowed to bid on projects unsolicitedly...VA either doesn't have their citizens best interests in mind or the govt of VA is not making enough money in the deal...either way, it's an instance in which private business is interested in helping the good of the citizens and govt says fuck off....to be honest - gov't is probably hesitant because of a toll that might be imposed to use the new bridge/tunnel...but if its an improvement to those who use it, why not pay for it? why tax the whole city or state? most of the city/state might not even use the service...those who use it SHOULD pay for it (tolls)

my .02 cents

[DocZaius]

I didn't read anything past slider's comment about Robocop. I just wanted to say that having Robocop would be awesome.

[annarborgator]

Yes, talking with you is like talking with a 4 year old because you have no fucking clue what you are talking about.

Everything that I have raised is a valid point. You have yet to raise one, or give me any proof that your ideal world can exist anywhere but in your mind. And I will put my graduate degrees and my logic against your "logic" anytime.

I'm out - debating you is like debating a fucking wall. You have no fucking clue about reality. And again, I say to you I don't give a fuck about your opinions since you are adbicating your responsibilities to our country. I have tried to be nice, but you have now made it personal.

1) You attempted to poison the well in your very first post by saying that nobody should even consider the arguments against voting. Your first post also relied on a fallacious appeal to tradition (about dishonoring whoever). You've also repeatedly relied on a tu quoque fallacy by claiming that my arguments are invalid due to alleged inconsistencies between my arguments and my actions. Now you're relying on a fallacious argument from ignorance.

2) Me "making it personal" was only in response to your baseless attacks against me for making the argument against voting. Your first post began as a personal attack.

3) Your "graduate degrees", eh? That's another fallacy: appeal to authority.

Out of curiosity, did you ever study formal logic? Argumentation?

[annarborgator]

why tax the whole city or state? most of the city/state might not even use the service...those who use it SHOULD pay for it (tolls)

my .02 cents

This is the crux of the issue. Those who want government to solve problems want to take money from everyone at the point of a gun to pay for things they want. They don't want to be stuck with the bill themselves. They seem to be ignorant that the free market always produces transactions where BOTH sides receive benefits, at least from each side's perception. Voluntary interactions are the only moral way to organize society.

[IHateUGAlyDawgs]

So if I understand the (il)logic here you all are saying that we don't need a government and we can count on the private sector to do things like build roads give us fire and police protection, and build schools all so they can make money? Do you not see the inherent corruption possibilities here? Do you really want a private business to be responsible for building schools and educating our children for example? What would they be teaching them? Would they be answerable to anyone?

I wrote a really long response to this a minute ago and it got deleted because my computer sucks. I'll try again, though, it may not be as good because I'm tired of typing this.

Slider, I agree with you for the most part on this thread. I disagree with the notion that NOTHING could be done without government and that the private sector is inherently evil because it turns a profit. However, for some services, I agree the government is a better option.

All of that said, in a sense, we already have private businesses building schools and teaching our children. They're in a lot of instances teaching our children more (quantity and quality) than a lot of public schools. If you haven't already blown a gasket and fired off a response read this: I'm NOT advocating the overthrow of the public education system. I am the product of public education. I attended Kindergarten through 12th grade in a public school, received my B.S. degree at a public university (UF), and my law degree at a public institution (FSU - vomit, I know, I know). I think public education served me well, by and large, not perfect, but well. I do think public education should exist as AN OPTION to the private system. Yes, I am a proponent of the voucher system for public schools that aren't cutting it - but that's probably another debate for another thread.

You ask, would they be answerable to anyone? Yes. They would answer to their students and parents of said students. If they weren't getting the job done, people wouldn't pay to attend that school. They would go somewhere else - to a school that is performing. The real question is - to whom is public education answerable? I have a lot more concerns about what is going into textbooks in public schools and even more worrisome - what is coming out of the unionized teachers' mouths.

I guess my main point of all of this is to say the following:

AA has some valid points. Government is NOT the only answer to every problem/issue/concern. It can be a decent option when not abused, but it should never be the only option (at least rarely - see National Defense).

[annarborgator]

Let’s say, for example, voters elect a corrupt politician who absconds with millions of dollars in public funds. Shouldn’t the voters who pulled the lever for the dishonest official in question be held responsible, perhaps even legally liable, for his actions? After all, if they had not put him in a position of power, he could not have committed the crimes.

A getaway driver in a bank heist would be arraigned for manslaughter if his partners-in-crime shot and killed an innocent bystander while committing the robbery, even though he did not pull the trigger. The concept of voter responsibility and accountability is not much different.

So, what do voters get by casting their vote in November?

They get the privilege of electing “representatives” whom they know little about, who know nothing about them, who will renege on their campaign promises, in order to increase the role of the State in our economic and personal lives by waging endless wars overseas, expanding the welfare state, implementing laws that will directly (often adversely) affect their lives, and creating trillions more in debt that will be passed on to future generations of Americans.

http://www.strike-the-root.com/82/powers/powers1.html

If you vote, you're the getaway driver in a bank robbery.

[slideman67]

So if I understand the (il)logic here you all are saying that we don't need a government and we can count on the private sector to do things like build roads give us fire and police protection, and build schools all so they can make money? Do you not see the inherent corruption possibilities here? Do you really want a private business to be responsible for building schools and educating our children for example? What would they be teaching them? Would they be answerable to anyone?

I wrote a really long response to this a minute ago and it got deleted because my computer sucks. I'll try again, though, it may not be as good because I'm tired of typing this.

Slider, I agree with you for the most part on this thread. I disagree with the notion that NOTHING could be done without government and that the private sector is inherently evil because it turns a profit. However, for some services, I agree the government is a better option.

All of that said, in a sense, we already have private businesses building schools and teaching our children. They're in a lot of instances teaching our children more (quantity and quality) than a lot of public schools. If you haven't already blown a gasket and fired off a response read this: I'm NOT advocating the overthrow of the public education system. I am the product of public education. I attended Kindergarten through 12th grade in a public school, received my B.S. degree at a public university (UF), and my law degree at a public institution (FSU - vomit, I know, I know). I think public education served me well, by and large, not perfect, but well. I do think public education should exist as AN OPTION to the private system. Yes, I am a proponent of the voucher system for public schools that aren't cutting it - but that's probably another debate for another thread.

You ask, would they be answerable to anyone? Yes. They would answer to their students and parents of said students. If they weren't getting the job done, people wouldn't pay to attend that school. They would go somewhere else - to a school that is performing. The real question is - to whom is public education answerable? I have a lot more concerns about what is going into textbooks in public schools and even more worrisome - what is coming out of the unionized teachers' mouths.

I guess my main point of all of this is to say the following:

AA has some valid points. Government is NOT the only answer to every problem/issue/concern. It can be a decent option when not abused, but it should never be the only option (at least rarely - see National Defense).

This is an excellent post. While we will not agree on some issues let me address your comments. I think we can do it in a way to keep the conversation civil.

First off, there is no way a civilized society can exist without a government. For living proof of that, go to Somalia. I notice that that country is not exactly a hotbed of tourist activity right now. So AA’s comments that we can survive without a government exist as a fantasy in his mind only with no basis in actual reality.

I never said that the private sector is inherently evil because it turns a profit. I don’t believe that business is evil – if I did, I wouldn’t have gotten my MBA from UF. What I am saying is that I categorically reject the notion that the private sector can do everything better than the government. And I definitely don’t advocate outsourcing basic services to the private sector for two reasons – they are not accountable to the voters, and the potential for corruption, cronyism, and abuse is way too high. Look at Halliburton for example – how much money was wasted in Iraq through the use of Halliburton when they got no-bid contracts from the appropriately named DICK Cheney? Halliburton is not accountable to anyone and the only reason they got those contracts was because of Dick. Check out the movie Gasland if you can – it talks about fractionation procedures in obtaining natural gas and how Halliburton got a loophole passed so that they can bypass clean water rules to extract natural gas. Meanwhile, they use 600 poisonous and volatile chemicals in this procedure, and the movie shows people who turn on the tap water and their water is flammable due to the chemicals in it. This kind of procedure would become commonplace at all levels of government if this practice became the norm.

Keep in mind the police example I used – if a business ran the police force, bad neighborhoods would not get police protection because it wouldn’t be profitable.

I realize that there are many private schools that do a great job and I am not advocating shutting them down. I received a public education through high school, and while I did do my undergrad work at a private university, mainly due to scholarships and location, I have my PhD in Biochemistry and Molecular Biology and my MBA from UF. So the majority of my education was in the public schools as well. IMO, public education was one of the best ideas this country ever had. Without getting into a history lesson, public education was largely responsible for growing both the middle class in this country, and providing and engine for the economic and scientific growth that made this country the economic powerhouse that it is. (The fact that some of these teabagging twits are advocating ending public funds for education is truly mind-blowing, but a topic for another thread). My biggest complaint about private institutions is that you can’t improve public education by removing money from it in the form of vouchers, which I do not agree with. And yes, while public education does need reform, starting with paying teachers a higher salary so that we can get the best and the brightest in the profession (my physics teacher in high school has to quit teaching because he couldn’t afford to teach. That is a shame because he was one of the best teachers I had). Again, for profit institutions don’t necessarily have the needs of the students in mind when they are concerned about the bottom dollar. And I have concerns about what would come out of a corporate run teacher’s mouth as well.

So we will have to agree to disagree on several points. Bottom line for me – government is necessary for a civilized society, and as such we need to participate in it. I have made that point repeatedly throughout this thread.

Good discussion Hater.

[IHateUGAlyDawgs]

Oh, I agree that SOME government is necessary. You and I will always differ on what the scope of that government should be.

And you're right, we are capable of having a civil discussion. Or, at least we would be. Notice, I made no mention of liberals being bleeding heart Marxist thieves. I would appreciate it if you would refrain from "teabaggers" or "teabagging twits" in future posts.

[slideman67]

Marxist thieves? WTF?

I have to admit, I do get great joy in using the word teabagger - it has been a great source of humor for me. Until I had to explain it to Mom who asked me about it. I referred her to The Urban Dictionary.

We have a candidate here for Congress, backed by the tea party, who has openly called for the repeal of funding for public education. I took great joy in voting against her last week (I love early voting!). Add to that some of the comments from the other tea party backed candidates, and you see the source of my comments.

At least we can agree on some things. And that is the basis for intelligent debate - a fact that has seems to get lost these days. I am very curious as to how Jon Stewart's Rally for Sanity turns out this weekend.

[IHateUGAlyDawgs]

Jon Stewart needs to rally for his own sanity, but we are getting off base.

[annarborgator]

The only thing people need to agree on in order to have intelligent debate is that the rules of logic should apply to all arguments which are asserted during the debate.

[slideman67]

Well Hater, we can agree to disagree on that one too. You might want to check out the show though as they actually do some research into the stories. Like this one from June 16 - off topic but a good example of actual research on a story.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-june-16-2010/an-energy-independent-future

[radbag]

i need to get gatornana in here.

[annarborgator]

First off, there is no way a civilized society can exist without a government. For living proof of that, go to Somalia. I notice that that country is not exactly a hotbed of tourist activity right now. So AA’s comments that we can survive without a government exist as a fantasy in his mind only with no basis in actual reality.

There are several glaring issues with this point. First, it relies on faulty logic by assuming that a lack of evidence proves that a stateless society is impossible. Second, it ignores the fact that Somalia, as a society, did not transition voluntarily into a stateless form. In reality, the chaos (such as it is) in Somalia is by and large caused by warlords fighting violently to control the very apparatus of the State against which I argue. Third, it also ignores the fact that by a vast majority of measures the standard of living in Somalia has increased since the government lost control of its claimed territory.

Apart from those issues, many aspects of a potential stateless society have been used effectively throughout history to maintain order and provide for services currently monopolized by government. I'm not sure that a society in the written record of history has been purely stateless but that is neither here nor there. Private and polycentric legal and law enforcement systems have worked (see medieval Iceland, for example). Transportation infrastructure was private for centuries and people made it work and it was effective enough to spread cultures and products throughout the globe. Education was private for centuries and people learned what they needed or wanted to learn.

I agree that collective defense is probably the most complex issue for a stateless society to tackle. However, we should remember that state-run collective defense is not always effective at providing defense and inevitably provides the means by which major aggressive wars occur. So, if I had to choose between taking my chances with a private system or relegating ourselves to living with legalized and institutionalized immorality (compulsory taxation, conscription, etc.)...I'm not sure why we should choose the legalized and institutionalized violence of the state.

[slideman67]

Wow - you truly are over the edge in your fantasies. How exactly has Somalia improved since devolving into a failed state? How exactly has their standard of living increased? Last I checked, they have resorted to piracy among other things.

Did I forget to mention that as a failed state like Afghanistan was/is, Somalia is a perfect recruiting ground, training ground and safe haven for Al Qaeda? You know, the bad guys we are fighting.

Give me one example of a stateless society that has been effective in providing basic services for their citizens, especially one that has chosen to dissolve its government. I won't hold my breath.

[annarborgator]

Wow - you truly are over the edge in your fantasies. How exactly has Somalia improved since devolving into a failed state? How exactly has their standard of living increased? Last I checked, they have resorted to piracy among other things.

Obviously data from anywhere in Africa and especially Somalia should be treated with caution, but here's a couple examples: since the Somali government fell life expectancy has increased by about 5 years, more children get immunizations, and access to telecommunications has improved dramatically. ( http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/somalia-failed-state-economic-success/# ) The live animal trade has boomed since the fall of government. Also:

Leeson (2006) builds on this literature by comparing how 18 development
indicators have changed in Somalia since the collapse of the state.3 He assembles his
data set from UNDP, World Bank, UNICEF, UNESCO, and World Health Organization
reports, comparing data that they report for the last five years Somalia had a state, 1985-
90, to those same measures for 2000-2005. Although the statistics clearly paint a picture
of a very poor country, they also demonstrate that Somalia is doing better today without a
state than when it last had one. Of the 18 development indicators, 13 clearly improved
since the collapse of the state, and only two, adult literacy and school enrollment, clearly
declined. Leeson attributes the declines in these two measures to decreases in aid, not
lack of state provision.
Leeson (2006) shows that while far from perfect, Somalia has not collapsed, and
has actually improved in broad living standards since becoming stateless.

http://www.observatori.org/paises/pais_74/documentos/64_somalia.pdf

Did I forget to mention that as a failed state like Afghanistan was/is, Somalia is a perfect recruiting ground, training ground and safe haven for Al Qaeda? You know, the bad guys we are fighting.

Criminals should be dealt with as criminals (the pirates and terrorists both), but that does not require the State.

Give me one example of a stateless society that has been effective in providing basic services for their citizens, especially one that has chosen to dissolve its government. I won't hold my breath.

I see you missed the fact that this is a logical fallacy (argument from ignorance). It's an invalid argument to conclude that it is impossible for a stateless society to provide such things simply because we have yet to see a purely stateless society.

And to be clear I don't advocate abolishing the government tomorrow. I advocate peacefully building voluntary institutions and processes which can replace the state down the road. It will take years, maybe generations, but it's the right thing to do.

[annarborgator]

Wow - you truly are over the edge in your fantasies.....

....I won't hold my breath.

For future reference if you're truly interested in having an intelligent debate on the issues, comments like these hurt your chances of getting one from me. I'm doing my best to stick to the issues at this point and answer your questions but these comments make it seem like you're more interested in baiting me into an answer that you can ridicule rather than waiting and seeing what I actually have to say.

No harm no foul and I'm not pissed or whining about it because I know I very often get passionate and go waaaay over the line of reasonable and intelligent debate. Just wanted to let you know the messages were mixed.

[annarborgator]

And I definitely don’t advocate outsourcing basic services to the private sector for two reasons – they are not accountable to the voters, and the potential for corruption, cronyism, and abuse is way too high. Look at Halliburton for example – how much money was wasted in Iraq through the use of Halliburton when they got no-bid contracts from the appropriately named DICK Cheney?

The private sector is accountable to the market. To its customers. Government is accountable to nobody.

And Halliburton? They were never a free market company. They have always relied on government contracts. That's not free market.

[IHateUGAlyDawgs]

Government is accountable to the voters, AA.

Now, the problem is, there are far too many ignorant voters. That's another issue for another thread, though, one for which I'm likely to get lambasted and left on an island the way AA has been on this thread.

[G8rMom7]

Slider...I am not a tea bagger...however, I am a Tea Party Patriot. And to be honest, I can't understand how any diehard Democrat could be happy about what the far left has done to your party. I read a blog on a daily basis written by gay guys from Chicago who were Hillary supporters and have now made it their mission to take down the current Democratic party which is now just a shell of what it used to be.

I wish we were back in the days when both parties could agree on the basics...smaller gov't, run by THE PEOPLE and individual liberty. Then we could just argue over the social issues at a local level. THAT would be MY utopia.

[radbag]

Obama represents his own agenda and no longer has use for ANY party.