Taxation is Coercion

[The Blue Aces]

Show me a man who is not willing to bear his share of the government that protects him, and I will show you a man who is unworthy to reap the benefits of a government like ours...

[Sungai Pusat]

Show me a man who is not willing to bear his share of the government that protects him, and I will show you a man who is unworthy to reap the benefits of a government like ours...

Some people prefer businesses prviding services that the government provides, OK?

[Grave_n_idle]

Yes, it is theft. And I do not think there should be such a system, it is ridiculous!

Hmm. What if someone believes that not being allowed to murder is an unfair restriction on their individual rights? That there should no such such system? That it's ridiculous?

Should we change our paradigm to suit that person? Is that a world you'd want to live in?

No, lifting that restriction is ridiculous. No, you do not get the point. Just because I said it is ridiculous, does not mean that I want just people to think on their own what is ridiculous and what is not. I am trying to say things in a libertarian way and honestly, I do not think you've read the entire post.

In my experience, libertarians are always well in favour of lifitng laws that they've decided are an unnecessary burden ON THEM. On removing laws that will make THEM better off (they think). They are always against lifting laws that favour OTHER paradigms. Such as 'might versus right' - which is a true extension of a completely unfettered market.

You want every regulation removed EXCEPT the regulation that stops violence? Why? Why not suck it up and go the whole way?

No, in fact I am NOT! I am against the laws against bad drugs because it hs done nothing to stop the use of it, but I am not going to take bad drugs any day. I may want no taxation, but I am willing to pay education or other services. Just by some other means as the government is most inefficient. You know why? Cause it is a monopoly. Here are the only things I want to restrict:
Force and fraud.

I want force to be restricted as that is taking away someone's liberties. I want fraud to be taken away as it either gives a false sense of hope or despair, which is again no freedom. Bad drugs are a different case as you have a choice not to take the drug and end up unfree yourself. If that is what you want to be, there is nothing that anyone can do if you want to be like that.

What is it with all this government intrusion? Why limit the individual's right to use force and fraud?

Even if you don't want to use force and fraud, yourself, why should others not be allowed to?

You said, yourself, that government is 'most inefficient'' - so why not completely remove all government intervention in force and fraud, and let the REAL 'free market' reign?

I am. OK, so I did not make myself clear. Here is something else we can do:
No taxes
Laws on force and fraud apply
The government is still there in the courts and police, but not anywhere else.
This time, the government has to compete with the private sector. The government works under free market laws, just like the rest of us would.
This time, if the government does badly, the private sector do better and warns the government that they can win. The government does better and the private sector will then bulk up. It is win win. Besides, it is the simplest to set up shop in a free market economy precisely because of the force and fraud laws.

No - you're missing the point.

You're saying that we have to get rid of the government restrictions and burdens that you feel are problematic - but ONLY those ones. It's hypocrisy - you want it all your own way.

If we're going to cut government out of the picture, we're going to lose regulation by the government, also.

Now you can privatise protections against force and fraud, but you';re going to get what you pay for - i.e. protection forces that will protect you... for a price.


So - why do we stop at your half-assed middle-ground approach? Of government regulation is an evil, let;'s do without it completely.

That way, when you take advantage of customers, leaving them destitute to make YOUR profits, they have some sort of recourse - even if it is just forming a mob with sharpened sticks.


And that - of course - is why libertarians are fake, and only want half a change. Because real deregulation means you have to physically deal with the people you fuck with for profits. And libertarianism is what happens when capitalism and cowardice marry.

[Abdju]

Show me a man who is not willing to bear his share of the government that protects him, and I will show you a man who is unworthy to reap the benefits of a government like ours...

Some people prefer businesses prviding services that the government provides, OK?

And some people prefer the state providing services that business provides, OK?

[Sungai Pusat]

Show me a man who is not willing to bear his share of the government that protects him, and I will show you a man who is unworthy to reap the benefits of a government like ours...

Some people prefer businesses prviding services that the government provides, OK?

And some people prefer the state providing services that business provides, OK?

But those people will prefer something else once the system proves itself. Can anyone say competition?

[Grave_n_idle]

Show me a man who is not willing to bear his share of the government that protects him, and I will show you a man who is unworthy to reap the benefits of a government like ours...

Some people prefer businesses prviding services that the government provides, OK?

And some people prefer the state providing services that business provides, OK?

Most people prefer that, actually.

They think about it for a few seconds, and they decide if - for example - they want policing to be a service provided based on how much you can afford... and they think, naah, maybe not.

[Abdju]

And that - of course - is why libertarians are fake, and only want half a change. Because real deregulation means you have to physically deal with the people you fuck with for profits. And libertarianism is what happens when capitalism and cowardice marry.

Best description of Libertarianism ever

[Sungai Pusat]

Yes, it is theft. And I do not think there should be such a system, it is ridiculous!

Hmm. What if someone believes that not being allowed to murder is an unfair restriction on their individual rights? That there should no such such system? That it's ridiculous?

Should we change our paradigm to suit that person? Is that a world you'd want to live in?

No, lifting that restriction is ridiculous. No, you do not get the point. Just because I said it is ridiculous, does not mean that I want just people to think on their own what is ridiculous and what is not. I am trying to say things in a libertarian way and honestly, I do not think you've read the entire post.

In my experience, libertarians are always well in favour of lifitng laws that they've decided are an unnecessary burden ON THEM. On removing laws that will make THEM better off (they think). They are always against lifting laws that favour OTHER paradigms. Such as 'might versus right' - which is a true extension of a completely unfettered market.

You want every regulation removed EXCEPT the regulation that stops violence? Why? Why not suck it up and go the whole way?

No, in fact I am NOT! I am against the laws against bad drugs because it hs done nothing to stop the use of it, but I am not going to take bad drugs any day. I may want no taxation, but I am willing to pay education or other services. Just by some other means as the government is most inefficient. You know why? Cause it is a monopoly. Here are the only things I want to restrict:
Force and fraud.

I want force to be restricted as that is taking away someone's liberties. I want fraud to be taken away as it either gives a false sense of hope or despair, which is again no freedom. Bad drugs are a different case as you have a choice not to take the drug and end up unfree yourself. If that is what you want to be, there is nothing that anyone can do if you want to be like that.

What is it with all this government intrusion? Why limit the individual's right to use force and fraud?

Even if you don't want to use force and fraud, yourself, why should others not be allowed to?

You said, yourself, that government is 'most inefficient'' - so why not completely remove all government intervention in force and fraud, and let the REAL 'free market' reign?

I am. OK, so I did not make myself clear. Here is something else we can do:
No taxes
Laws on force and fraud apply
The government is still there in the courts and police, but not anywhere else.
This time, the government has to compete with the private sector. The government works under free market laws, just like the rest of us would.
This time, if the government does badly, the private sector do better and warns the government that they can win. The government does better and the private sector will then bulk up. It is win win. Besides, it is the simplest to set up shop in a free market economy precisely because of the force and fraud laws.

No - you're missing the point.

You're saying that we have to get rid of the government restrictions and burdens that you feel are problematic - but ONLY those ones. It's hypocrisy - you want it all your own way.

If we're going to cut government out of the picture, we're going to lose regulation by the government, also.

Now you can privatise protections against force and fraud, but you';re going to get what you pay for - i.e. protection forces that will protect you... for a price.


So - why do we stop at your half-assed middle-ground approach? Of government regulation is an evil, let;'s do without it completely.

That way, when you take advantage of customers, leaving them destitute to make YOUR profits, they have some sort of recourse - even if it is just forming a mob with sharpened sticks.


And that - of course - is why libertarians are fake, and only want half a change. Because real deregulation means you have to physically deal with the people you fuck with for profits. And libertarianism is what happens when capitalism and cowardice marry.

Look, anarchy is never going to last. Never. We do need some form of regulation, but just a little bit of regulation. That is what libertarianism is. I mean, everyone will always be seeking to earn profits. What libertarianism really does, unlike the way you claim, is to restrict the force and fraud against people as the meaning of free in its core is the absense of force or fraud.

[Grave_n_idle]

Show me a man who is not willing to bear his share of the government that protects him, and I will show you a man who is unworthy to reap the benefits of a government like ours...

Some people prefer businesses prviding services that the government provides, OK?

And some people prefer the state providing services that business provides, OK?

But those people will prefer something else once the system proves itself. Can anyone say competition?

You can say it all day, but it won't mean anything.

If you think provincial judges, owned by whoever is the highest bidder, are ever going to appeal to anyone but the local rich... you're deluded.

If you think that people are going to happily accept treatment of the water supply, based on income, you're kidding yourself.

[Great Nepal]

So yes, anybody that has opened this is already steaming. But I want to ask a simple question here. How is taxation not theft? You are forced to pay, and if you refuse you are imprisoned. I can understand if you think taxation is a necessary evil, but denying that it is theft outright seems completely rediculous to me.

Yes, it is theft. And I do not think there should be such a system, it is ridiculous! It takes money away from people and uses it to supposedly pay for services. Does any of you here have any idea how much money Washinton spends on the money meant to go to the states? Here is the lowest they will: 20% That means if I wanted to build a road for, say, the state of New York and it costs me $5 billion, by the time it goes through Washinton, probably on $4 billion will be left!
In Singapore, it may not apply as much since taxation is not the main revenue for the government, but if it was, let me tell you: The amount of taxation it has to do will be ungodly!

Again, tax isn't theft cos in the end you have to use it and you want to live in civilized world and there is a price to be paid for it.

Well, it is theft.

How exactly is it theft as you are using service and you want to live in civilized world which costs.

Yes! But I do not want to get it by government since I've already explained in another post: It is monopoly, thus the most inefficient.

No, isn't. Government dont need profit whereas private companies do.

Besides, how do you think politicians get their salaries? From a job? I don't think so. In USA, bureacracy manages to suck at least 20% of the money meant to go to people.

Presidency is a job and people indirectly employs them and they work for people.

Technically, they are not for the people. They are for the constitution or the law.

Which in turn is working for people.

And I do want to live in a civilised world. And I am OK by paying those services to businesses. Ask me further to ask why if you do not believe so.

You cant depend on private sector for everything. There are huge disadvantages of private sector. For example:-

Police:- Company may be actually associated by criminals and leave criminals who pay them.
Roads:- Monopoly will be disastrous. A person/company who owns main highway can charge insanely and person will have no other option than to pay for it.
ETC.

Police; I said in another thread that for a hundred rotten apples, there will be one which is clean and good. That is why by then, more people come to the clean apple. The other rotten apples will then change.
Roads: I mean, can you tell me that people only use cars or only go on highways? Even if the majority do, you can't deny that you can just drive on the other roads there. The streets? The roads? Avenues?

Police:- 1 rotten apple can rot 100 good apples but reverse never happens. Why? Cos it is easy to be bad but it is very hard to be good.
Roads:- Highways are most efficent way of going from one place to other. Yes you can use other minor roads - but then you will have to pay more as you have to use more roads. It will also take a lot longer.

[Sungai Pusat]

So yes, anybody that has opened this is already steaming. But I want to ask a simple question here. How is taxation not theft? You are forced to pay, and if you refuse you are imprisoned. I can understand if you think taxation is a necessary evil, but denying that it is theft outright seems completely rediculous to me.

Yes, it is theft. And I do not think there should be such a system, it is ridiculous! It takes money away from people and uses it to supposedly pay for services. Does any of you here have any idea how much money Washinton spends on the money meant to go to the states? Here is the lowest they will: 20% That means if I wanted to build a road for, say, the state of New York and it costs me $5 billion, by the time it goes through Washinton, probably on $4 billion will be left!
In Singapore, it may not apply as much since taxation is not the main revenue for the government, but if it was, let me tell you: The amount of taxation it has to do will be ungodly!

Again, tax isn't theft cos in the end you have to use it and you want to live in civilized world and there is a price to be paid for it.

Well, it is theft.

How exactly is it theft as you are using service and you want to live in civilized world which costs.

Yes! But I do not want to get it by government since I've already explained in another post: It is monopoly, thus the most inefficient.

No, isn't. Government dont need profit whereas private companies do.

No, in fact USA's bureacracy is so large, the minimum amount the government takes from the money meant to go to the people end up 20% less, at a minimum, than the actual amount. Take insurance companies. Their average profit margin is 6%, which is not lost. USA's government average 'profit margin' (The amount going to the people in the government) are at 25%.

Besides, how do you think politicians get their salaries? From a job? I don't think so. In USA, bureacracy manages to suck at least 20% of the money meant to go to people.

Presidency is a job and people indirectly employs them and they work for people.

Technically, they are not for the people. They are for the constitution or the law.

Which in turn is working for people.

Even so, they are using the money paid for by the masses. While they may want to pay, a trickle certainly don't.

And I do want to live in a civilised world. And I am OK by paying those services to businesses. Ask me further to ask why if you do not believe so.

You cant depend on private sector for everything. There are huge disadvantages of private sector. For example:-

Police:- Company may be actually associated by criminals and leave criminals who pay them.
Roads:- Monopoly will be disastrous. A person/company who owns main highway can charge insanely and person will have no other option than to pay for it.
ETC.

Police; I said in another thread that for a hundred rotten apples, there will be one which is clean and good. That is why by then, more people come to the clean apple. The other rotten apples will then change.
Roads: I mean, can you tell me that people only use cars or only go on highways? Even if the majority do, you can't deny that you can just drive on the other roads there. The streets? The roads? Avenues?

Police:- 1 rotten apple can rot 100 good apples but reverse never happens. Why? Cos it is easy to be bad but it is very hard to be good.
Roads:- Highways are most efficent way of going from one place to other. Yes you can use other minor roads - but then you will have to pay more as you have to use more roads. It will also take a lot longer.

Police: No, the reverse is always possible. In fact, it is much easier to do the reverse than the normal way you claim is much easier. Why? Cos the clean apple as I explained will gain more customers. And in a free market, none of the rotten apples can hold back their own customers.
Roads: yes, but here is something: Is that the only road there? What if there are other options? Tunnel? Bridge? What else? Anyone with money can either buy out that highway or just build his own.

[Sungai Pusat]

Show me a man who is not willing to bear his share of the government that protects him, and I will show you a man who is unworthy to reap the benefits of a government like ours...

Some people prefer businesses prviding services that the government provides, OK?

And some people prefer the state providing services that business provides, OK?

But those people will prefer something else once the system proves itself. Can anyone say competition?

You can say it all day, but it won't mean anything.

If you think provincial judges, owned by whoever is the highest bidder, are ever going to appeal to anyone but the local rich... you're deluded.

If you think that people are going to happily accept treatment of the water supply, based on income, you're kidding yourself.

No, to maximise profits, what do you do? You will make the water cleaner and find ways to make the water cheaper. It becomes up to the point that even the poorest can afford the water. And the judges? Well, you can guess my position there. Competition is going to boost the company, whoever is owning part of that water supply. In one city alone, an oligopoly is enough to drive competition to its fullest. In a country like USA, monopolistic competition is the main ideal to bring comepetetive forces to work.

[Abdju]

Show me a man who is not willing to bear his share of the government that protects him, and I will show you a man who is unworthy to reap the benefits of a government like ours...

Some people prefer businesses prviding services that the government provides, OK?

And some people prefer the state providing services that business provides, OK?

But those people will prefer something else once the system proves itself. Can anyone say competition?

Just like Indah Water Konsortium, British Rail, Metronet/LUL, STAR/PUTRA, Ghazl Shebeen, Cement Asyut....

Yep. I'm so deeply impressed about privatisation, and utterly convinced about how it will make things better for society me, and make us all me happy, and make our my hair shiny too. Sorry, I forgot I'm meant to think only about myself...

[Grave_n_idle]

Look, anarchy is never going to last. Never.

Right. Anarchy won't last. It will be replaced with the dominance of personality, or with the dominance of violence - either way, you've reverted to feudalism - small citystates of closeknit communities that hold together for protection, and trade 'enforced' through violence.

Libertarianism isn't a whole philosophy - it's just a small step towards feudalism.

We do need some form of regulation, but just a little bit of regulation. That is what libertarianism is. I mean, everyone will always be seeking to earn profits. What libertarianism really does, unlike the way you claim, is to restrict the force and fraud against people as the meaning of free in its core is the absense of force or fraud.

Libertarianism doesn't 'do' anything, it's not a mechanism. It's not even a complete philosophy. It's a deluded belief that - if you strip almost EVERY power and control away from the government... other groups that would profit from a DIFFERENT paradigm won't just step in and take it.

You want to deregulate the market so that you can cheat customers and maximise your return?

Fair enough - but how long do you think the paradigm will support you, before the customers you are impoverishing decide they want to see some redistribution? They're hardly going to keep paying for a legal system that stops them harming you if you cheat them, and you've decided to stop paying taxes...

You dare to talk about freedom - but all you really mean is freedom for those who want to profit off of others to do so. How about the 'freedom' of those who have lost everything? If you're free to scam them, why aren't they free to feed you to the ceiling fan?

[Grave_n_idle]

Show me a man who is not willing to bear his share of the government that protects him, and I will show you a man who is unworthy to reap the benefits of a government like ours...

Some people prefer businesses prviding services that the government provides, OK?

And some people prefer the state providing services that business provides, OK?

But those people will prefer something else once the system proves itself. Can anyone say competition?

You can say it all day, but it won't mean anything.

If you think provincial judges, owned by whoever is the highest bidder, are ever going to appeal to anyone but the local rich... you're deluded.

If you think that people are going to happily accept treatment of the water supply, based on income, you're kidding yourself.

No, to maximise profits, what do you do? You will make the water cleaner and find ways to make the water cheaper. It becomes up to the point that even the poorest can afford the water. And the judges? Well, you can guess my position there. Competition is going to boost the company, whoever is owning part of that water supply. In one city alone, an oligopoly is enough to drive competition to its fullest. In a country like USA, monopolistic competition is the main ideal to bring comepetetive forces to work.

You're just vomiting the buzzwords, now - you're not even pretending to apply them.

How does privatising a water supply maximise the profit AND make it so that even the poorest can afford the water?

How does a privatised judge assure blind justice?

Come on - real world answers - no more of your libertatian theology. Give answers that actually work.

How does a privatised water supply lower costs and ensure quality water. How does that work with deregulation?

[Sungai Pusat]

Show me a man who is not willing to bear his share of the government that protects him, and I will show you a man who is unworthy to reap the benefits of a government like ours...

Some people prefer businesses prviding services that the government provides, OK?

And some people prefer the state providing services that business provides, OK?

But those people will prefer something else once the system proves itself. Can anyone say competition?

Just like Indah Water Konsortium, British Rail, Metronet/LUL, STAR/PUTRA, Ghazl Shebeen, Cement Asyut....

Yep. I'm so deeply impressed about privatisation, and utterly convinced about how it will make things better for society me, and make us all me happy, and make our my hair shiny too. Sorry, I forgot I'm meant to think only about myself...

Yeah, I know what you're trying to do.....

OK, I checked. Indah Water Konosortium is a nationalised company. Chek their website, it is run by the nation's finance minister. Both British Rail and STAR are fused companies, meaning that both of them are not real single entities. Metronet is half pulic, half private so it is not counted, like the Indah Water Konsortium.

The other two you listed in the back can't be searched on Bing directly.

[Jello Biafra]

I don't want government run healthcare. I am pointing out how irrational your gtfo argument is. The people that want government run healthcare, want it in the US. They are not willing to move to Europe to have it. There is nothing wrong with that. Just like there is nothing wrong with getting rid of the personal income tax.

You do realized this whole thread is about the claim that taxation is theft, right?

Yes. And your point is?

So you're admitting you can't come up with a good argument that taxation is theft, and are now trying to misdirect the conversation elsewhere?

No. I have provided several arguments of how it is theft. Saying it's legal, because the government says it's legal is absurd at best.

Not really. The government, in conjunction with the social contract, determines what it legal. It is possible for the government to violate the law, and even have this violation later ruled to be illegal, but the group doing the ruling is also a government body. Essentially one part of the government finds another part has violated the law, by pointing to the social contract (usually a constitution). The only way one can get around the government saying something is legal is if one can argue that the social contract says it is not. If both the government and the social contract say it's legal, then it's legal.

The government cannot print gold. There has been a handful of times when governments have decreased the money supply (intentionally). There have been countless times when they have increased it to the point of total collapse.

The government also cannot print pictures of me in drag. It cannot create diamonds. It cannot make a lot of things out of thin air that are rare... Guess what?! That doesn't mean they automatically have any particular value excepting what is assigned.

Nervun, what you are saying is true from an existential point of view. But that dosn't mean that there isn't phenomenon created by the free market that make gold worth more than fiat currency in terms of economics.

only because gold isn't a currency. Make gold into a currency (a medium of exchange) and it suffers all the same problems that fiat currency does as well as some additional ones which is why currency switched to other metals an age ago and then to paper.

Assuming the government does not dilute the gold coins with another metal, it does not have the option of increasing the money supply.

Dear god. Do you know what the hell a gold mine is? Do you know how much gold is mined? My home state produced over 6 million troy ounces in 2007.

Want to try again?

That gold does not belong to the government. A total of 50 million ounces is mined per year.

Why is it bad when the money supply is increased by the government, but not bad when it is increased by someone discovering a new mine of gold?

Point to where I say it's good

I used the words 'not bad', not 'good'.

So? Point to where I said it isn't bad.

If it's also bad then why is it preferable?

[Jello Biafra]

The government cannot print gold. There has been a handful of times when governments have decreased the money supply (intentionally). There have been countless times when they have increased it to the point of total collapse.

The government also cannot print pictures of me in drag. It cannot create diamonds. It cannot make a lot of things out of thin air that are rare... Guess what?! That doesn't mean they automatically have any particular value excepting what is assigned.

Nervun, what you are saying is true from an existential point of view. But that dosn't mean that there isn't phenomenon created by the free market that make gold worth more than fiat currency in terms of economics.

only because gold isn't a currency. Make gold into a currency (a medium of exchange) and it suffers all the same problems that fiat currency does as well as some additional ones which is why currency switched to other metals an age ago and then to paper.

Assuming the government does not dilute the gold coins with another metal, it does not have the option of increasing the money supply.

Dear god. Do you know what the hell a gold mine is? Do you know how much gold is mined? My home state produced over 6 million troy ounces in 2007.

Want to try again?

That gold does not belong to the government. A total of 50 million ounces is mined per year.

Why is it bad when the money supply is increased by the government, but not bad when it is increased by someone discovering a new mine of gold?

Point to where I say it's good

I used the words 'not bad', not 'good'.

Its not good, but the negative affects are reduced by the fact that as more gold is mined, the population increases. Where as the amount of fiat currency printed is completely independent of discovery or population growth.

I don't think gold mining correlates with population growth, but if it did, does this mean it's good to increase the money supply when the population grows?

[Abdju]

Yeah, I know what you're trying to do.....

Yes, I am illustrating how, to use your words, "once the system proves itself" people often don't prefer the services they get from the privateers. The privatisation scam has had chance to prove itself, and so why aren't people begging for more, and an end to the "socialised roads" and "socialised police" that make their life so unbearable and inefficient?

OK, I checked. Indah Water Konosortium is a nationalised company. Chek their website, it is run by the nation's finance minister.

It is now, because water privatisation failed,amidst massive public discontent and the company was nationalised. Check your facts, my friend, before you post.

Both British Rail and STAR are fused companies, meaning that both of them are not real single entities.

For STAR/PUTRA this is precisely because the deluded attempt to have a privately run mass transit system failed spectacularly. They were nationalised when they were on the verge on bakruptcy, threatening to bring KL to (even more of) a standstill. Check your facts before you post.

British Rail isn't "fused", for all intents and purposes it doesn't exist any more. However, the train operation side is completely private, with the exception of the various franchisees that sporadically implode and have to be taken into national ownership to keep what's left of the system running. The private track operator "Railtrack" spectacularly went bankrupt and had to be nationalised as a Not-for-Profit. The whole asset stripping privatisation of BR is almost universally resented in the UK.

Metronet is half public, half private so it is not counted, like the Indah Water Konsortium.

Metronet is now public, since it spectacularly collapsed following a attempt to hand LU over to privateers, which was widely opposed in the UK, and almost universally opposed within London. Check your facts before you post.

The other two you listed in the back can't be searched on Bing directly.

Then hit the news archives and dig deeper.

[NotnotgnimmiJymmiJ]

ALL jobs pay more in the public sector. What is it with you and source, source, source?

Accountants, nurses, chemists, surveyors, cooks, clerks and janitors are among the wide range of jobs that get paid more on average in the federal government than in the private sector.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/201 ... -pay_N.htm

I like to have some concrete backing for claims about things like pay structure? I'm sorry if you're offended that I don't take you at your word but even you are, at least on occasion, wrong (look back at your claim of 10 year ).
taxes which turned out to be incorrect. Moving on, all jobs don't pay more in the public sector even if you take the data you sourced (a statistical analysis of raw data done for the purpose of that article . . .which is iffy . . . especially that they claimed that there were only 136 professions examined when there are, in fact, 800 in the original survey http://www.bls.gov/bls/blswage.htm) about 80% of all jobs pay better in the public sector.

And that's fair?

maybe, I don't know the value of the work people do? I would assume that it's in fact entirely fair given that, in theory anyway, government positions are awarded the same way private sector positions are and therefore the people who are better at their job get paid better.

Unfortunately, that's not often how it works out. Public-sector employees are pretty spoiled.

so the people who get spoiled are the ones who are best at their jobs. . . how is that unfair?

Lol. Who said public sector employees are best? I would argue that SEC employees for example are worse than average in their field (finance). The same goes for the CBO. For example.

And there is no mutual agreement on their pay, between them, and the ones that pay it.

hang on you're a free market capitalist right? Don't you already know this argument? Positions with better pay and benefits attract better people. (where better means better at their jobs/more experienced/ w/e)

Aha. This is where the SEC is a massive fail. Goldman Sachs pays many times more than the SEC pays for a job that requires similar knowledge. So the best go to GS. The leftovers end up at the SEC.

Again, that's really not how the hiring processes at the SEC and GS work. In any event, that's not even the reason Madoff slipped by.

[Sungai Pusat]

Yeah, I know what you're trying to do.....

Yes, I am illustrating how, to use your words, "once the system proves itself" people often don't prefer the services they get from the privateers. The privatisation scam has had chance to prove itself, and so why aren't people begging for more, and an end to the "socialised roads" and "socialised police" that make their life so unbearable and inefficient?

Privatisation scam, huh? Are you thinking that I was trying to get the services privatised with current laws, like the massive bailout money given to businesses in USA? I hope not. I mean, check my post. I said in one of them that the only legimitate laws in the economy would be againstt force and fraud. Fraud laws are already going to make a scam from the companies literally impossible.

OK, I checked. Indah Water Konosortium is a nationalised company. Chek their website, it is run by the nation's finance minister.

It is now, because water privatisation failed,amidst massive public discontent and the company was nationalised. Check your facts, my friend, before you post.[/quote]
Once again, laws. If the company could get away with it because the laws had a massive loophole or something, then it is the government. Just remember that the website you took is from Malaysia. With a messy government, they are bound to let things run loose.

Both British Rail and STAR are fused companies, meaning that both of them are not real single entities.

For STAR/PUTRA this is precisely because the deluded attempt to have a privately run mass transit system failed spectacularly. They were nationalised when they were on the verge on bakruptcy, threatening to bring KL to (even more of) a standstill. Check your facts before you post.

British Rail isn't "fused", for all intents and purposes it doesn't exist any more. However, the train operation side is completely private, with the exception of the various franchisees that sporadically implode and have to be taken into national ownership to keep what's left of the system running. The private track operator "Railtrack" spectacularly went bankrupt and had to be nationalised as a Not-for-Profit. The whole asset stripping privatisation of BR is almost universally resented in the UK.

Any single entity can't have no profit. Otherwise, how is it going to grow? And like I said, if there is a loophole in the laws, there is no use saying you want to ban force and fraud and yet have a loophole serving to some place and etc.

Metronet is half public, half private so it is not counted, like the Indah Water Konsortium.

Metronet is now public, since it spectacularly collapsed following a attempt to hand LU over to privateers, which was widely opposed in the UK, and almost universally opposed within London. Check your facts before you post.

That is this time their fault, but the government needs to let them fail. If they do, it disincentivises other companies from making the very same mistakes all over again.

The other two you listed in the back can't be searched on Bing directly.

Then hit the news archives and dig deeper.

Second one from the back: Couldn't find any info. All info was in islamic writing.
First one from the back: I honestly dug further and couldn't find anything.

[NotnotgnimmiJymmiJ]

Although, the best attempt so far. For that

Ah Sibirsky the Anarcho-Capitalist god. You are truly amazing.

HA! This is like amateur night at the Apollo. I could defend Anarcho-Capitalism better than that, and I think it's a crock.

[Abdju]

Privatisation scam, huh? Are you thinking that I was trying to get the services privatised with current laws, like the massive bailout money given to businesses in USA? I hope not. I mean, check my post. I said in one of them that the only legimitate laws in the economy would be againstt force and fraud. Fraud laws are already going to make a scam from the companies literally impossible.

Scam isn't intended a literal of legal term. More akin to what you might call "honest profiteering". I.e. buying something on the cheap, jacking up access charges and raking in money whilst running the system into the ground then dumping it back on the cheap.

However, this doesn't address dissatisfaction rather than orgasmic delight when people have their services flogged off. There is no evidence that privatisation is wildly popular or that the masses beg for muni services and infrastructure to be sold off. I have presented cases that have all shown this. Where is the evidence that suggests otherwise?

Once again, laws. If the company could get away with it because the laws had a massive loophole or something, then it is the government. Just remember that the website you took is from Malaysia. With a messy government, they are bound to let things run loose.

Didn't get it from a website. I was a happy, contended, customer of a dynamic and innovative water delivery solution! or some such shite. Incidentally. IWK It wasn't fraud, it was just profiteering, or rather "profit motive". No fraud involved at all. As for "messy" government, the old muni serice was run just fine, and had no problems.

Any single entity can't have no profit. Otherwise, how is it going to grow? And like I said, if there is a loophole in the laws, there is no use saying you want to ban force and fraud and yet have a loophole serving to some place and etc.

Fraud wasn't a major factor in any of these failings.

That is this time their fault, but the government needs to let them fail. If they do, it disincentivises other companies from making the very same mistakes all over again.

Yes, I see no problem with the letting maintenance work on an underground mass transit system stop when the company goes bust. That wouldn't be bad at all, would it? You use the MRT, right?

Second one from the back: Couldn't find any info. All info was in islamic writing.

It's called Arabic.

[Sibirsky]

Well, since everybody seems to be arguing from their deepest-held ideals...

I don't see why people give a shit about taxes being coercive. I do not see why coercion means that it's theft, or that people have some claim to the money they "lose" (more like never have in the first place, amirite?). It's not like the average person is actually capable of being intelligent with how they use their money, so having a portion "removed" from their pay (as it never goes into their hands, they have no real claim to it that cannot be summed up by "BAAAAAW") for the purposes of being used to actually advance humanity. You know, as opposed to playing pointless games with the exchange of said money in the giant circlejerk known as the "free market".

They earned it. They have a claim to it. How they spend it is irrelevant.

[Sibirsky]

You paying for your fair share so your government can provide the sort of services it does (including, I might add, the police force, public education, the military, the judicial system, as well as many other, might I add essential, services) is hardly theft. You are just a greedy bastard and wish for the benefits without the cost, so taxation must be enforced, which I might add is another expense that must be now covered by the rest of the nation. Else, this wouldn't be an issue. Geez man, I must seriously wonder what exactly peoples huge problem with taxes is, that they will vote someone out of office for even the implication of raising them.

Fair share? What if the person went to private school? How is paying for public education fair?

Sure, how about those publicly financed roads you drive upon, or that clean water which you so love to drink? So you pay for schools privately. What about the other public utilities you so enjoy? Just because a family opts out on a public education, does not negate the other benefits of taxation and public infrastructure they utilize on a daily basis.

I have well water. I pay for roads through the gasoline excise tax. I pay more than my "fair" share, and I'm coerced into making that payment.

Tax money pays for a lot other service than it. And as I said, you dont want to pay tax - then you are free to go to Somalia.

You have to pay taxes to leave. You also have to pay taxes in Somalia.