Where ever the Government has a monopoly on a service, the Free Market can do better

[Makalakumu]

Newsflash your not on twitter

And your crying about corrupt national police forces well we don't have one of those so quit crying

:seppuku:

http://news.investors.com/ibd-edito...7-reids-push-to-nationalize-police-unions.htm

In an effort to please union backers ahead of the 2010 midterm elections, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is quietly trying to nationalize rules governing every police, fire and first responder union in the nation.
Through the benignly named Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act (H.R.413), Reid wants all first responders represented by collective bargaining rules emanating from Washington D.C. Naturally this legislation is being pushed as a matter of "national security."
Democrats' union supporters will greatly benefit from nationalized rules for police and fire unions. This plan would replace with federal rules state laws on collective bargaining between state and local governments and their first responder unions and would greatly empower unions to dictate pay scales and benefits on a national level.
While a boon to unions, this law would seriously damage our federalist system by taking away a large measure of local control over police and firefighters unions and lead to higher costs to local governments and taxpayers, costs that neither will be able to affect at the ballot box.

It's only a matter of time.

 

[ballen0351]

:seppuku:

http://news.investors.com/ibd-edito...7-reids-push-to-nationalize-police-unions.htm

That's not a national police force. That just deals with salary and benefits.

 

[Makalakumu]

That's not a national police force. That just deals with salary and benefits.

It's another step toward a nationalized force.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Federal_Protective_Service

 

[ballen0351]

It's another step toward a nationalized force.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Federal_Protective_Service

Again not a national police force. Its a security guards for federal government building and court houses. They havebeen around since 1971 . That's one slow step

 

[Makalakumu]

Again not a national police force. Its a security guards for federal government building and court houses. They havebeen around since 1971 . That's one slow step

http://www.westernjournalism.com/obamas-civilian-national-security-force-by-executive-order/

On July 2nd, 2008, Obama delivered a speech in Boulder, Colorado in which he promised the creation and establishment of a “Civilian National Security Force.” He further promised it would be “just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded as the US Military.”

 

[Rumy73]

There is a difference in scale that I think you are missing. There will always be corruption, even in a free market, but that corruption is local and it does not become institutional without government help. In areas where corruption develops, it's still small enough for local people to actually do something. Compare this to what happens when large governments go corrupt. How much do you think you can really do against a national police force that has unlimited authority and the ability to know the intimate details of your life? You can't even run without them knowing. At least when corruption is localized and limited by the free market, you can move.

So, the free market still wins here.

Ok. Lets outsource the military and save big.

 

[Rumy73]

Ok. Lets outsource the military and save big.

You could not be more wrong. All politics is local. Oppression can and is carried out locally, and in many was worse when done by private entities. Alas you ignored the book I cited. In the USA there are layers of government -- federal, state and local -- and in each different branches that provide checks and balances. Civics 101, son.

 

[Makalakumu]

Ok. Lets outsource the military and save big.

Not outsource. Home grown, free market protection. Make it part of what a community does together.

 

[Makalakumu]

You could not be more wrong. All politics is local. Oppression can and is carried out locally, and in many was worse when done by private entities. Alas you ignored the book I cited. In the USA there are layers of government -- federal, state and local -- and in each different branches that provide checks and balances. Civics 101, son.

Not ignored, it's on my reading list. That said, I should warn you that there are all kinds of misrepresentations and half truths that are told about the Progressive Era in order to justify the growth of the centralized state. These justifications were all given ex post facto in government school history lessons concocted by the very people who wanted to grow the state...ie Banksters, multinational corporations, political organizations.

Here are a couple of books for you that might dispel some of this propaganda.

From Mutual Aid to the Welfare State: Fraternal Societies and Social Services, 1890-1967, by Dr. David Beito

The Not so Wild Wild West, by Dr. PJ Hill

These two books tell a very different and well sourced version of American History than what is offered in the typical government school text book. Namely, people were actually capable of making decisions, taking care of each other, and organizing for the common good without government holding their hands.

That said, this statement that oppression is local and worse when carried out by private entities is patently wrong. It is so wrong in fact that I wonder if you've ever cracked a history book. There is NO way the typical Boss Hog type of corruption found in 19th century America can ever compete with the huge centralized oppressive government regimes that terrorized people in the 20th century. No corporation ever built a gulag. No business ever made gas chambers for people who didn't like their products or who wanted to compete for them. This is not local oppression. In fact, the only thing local about it was the spies that the government employed and the people who came to throw you into prison. Those people might have been your neighbors.

So, forgive me if I'd rather deal with Boss Hog instead of the SS or the Stasi when it comes to corruption.

 

[Rumy73]

Not ignored, it's on my reading list. That said, I should warn you that there are all kinds of misrepresentations and half truths that are told about the Progressive Era in order to justify the growth of the centralized state. These justifications were all given ex post facto in government school history lessons concocted by the very people who wanted to grow the state...ie Banksters, multinational corporations, political organizations.

Here are a couple of books for you that might dispel some of this propaganda.

From Mutual Aid to the Welfare State: Fraternal Societies and Social Services, 1890-1967, by Dr. David Beito

The Not so Wild Wild West, by Dr. PJ Hill

These two books tell a very different and well sourced version of American History than what is offered in the typical government school text book. Namely, people were actually capable of making decisions, taking care of each other, and organizing for the common good without government holding their hands.

That said, this statement that oppression is local and worse when carried out by private entities is patently wrong. It is so wrong in fact that I wonder if you've ever cracked a history book. There is NO way the typical Boss Hog type of corruption found in 19th century America can ever compete with the huge centralized oppressive government regimes that terrorized people in the 20th century. No corporation ever built a gulag. No business ever made gas chambers for people who didn't like their products or who wanted to compete for them. This is not local oppression. In fact, the only thing local about it was the spies that the government employed and the people who came to throw you into prison. Those people might have been your neighbors.

So, forgive me if I'd rather deal with Boss Hog instead of the SS or the Stasi when it comes to corruption.

Ok, sorry, but you are simple minded. You can only think in the extreme. Nuance and common sense eludes you. I stated once and will state again that history shows that a balance between public and private control offers the best model for a society. In cases of total state control or general laissez-faire systems, the public is put at the mercy of a few. In those settings, for example, one sees gestapo like tactics or reckless Union Carbide accidents rear their heads. Recourse is only found in insurrection, if that is even possible.

Your thesis that private sector is always better than public is plain dumb. The profit motive (aka greed) does not necessarily orient a person or entity to behave ethically. During the industrialization of America, companies dumped pollutants with blatant disregard, and had workers in unsafe conditions, such as locking doors, which prevented escape during a fire. We can find all kinds of horrible examples of private sector behavior that resulted in the death or maiming of people.


Clearly, human nature seems to be the best managed in a check-and-balance type system. So get off your soapbox and get on board the clue train.

 

[Makalakumu]

Nearly everything you've stated has been refuted by scholarly research. Again, I must point to the two sources I posted above. Most of what you parrot is based on myths that have been propagated about the Progressive Era and the supposed problems with "free market capitalism". For example, did you know that Upton Sinclair's book, The Jungle, is fiction? Yet, this book is portrayed as an example of muckraking journalism to millions of High School students.

Now, on to the meat of what you are saying...

I stated once and will state again that history shows that a balance between public and private control offers the best model for a society.

History does not show this. History shows that civilizations rise and fall. Civilizations start with very little restrictions on human actions and they grow incredibly prosperous. Then, an entrenched oligarchy develops and they use the power of the State to protect and expand their position. As the level of central control increases, the level of productive capacity in the society decreases. Eventually, a tipping point is reached and the power structure crumbles. This happens because the parasites kill the Golden Goose of the Free Market. If there ever is a balance between public and private control, it is a transitory moment in time on an arch of ever increasing control.

The Founding Fathers of the United States realized this pattern in history and attempted to institute a system that would limit this progression by limiting government. Unfortunately, America's experiment with limited government failed.

In cases of total state control or general laissez-faire systems, the public is put at the mercy of a few. In those settings, for example, one sees gestapo like tactics or reckless Union Carbide accidents rear their heads. Recourse is only found in insurrection, if that is even possible.

Again, you miss the idea of scale. No corporation ever had a Gestapo. No corporation ever created a Stasi. No robber baron ever created the NKVD. This doesn't excuse the things that did happen. It simply points out that the effects were limited to local areas. So, when it comes to corruption, governments are far worse than the free market. The free market actually limits corruption by limiting the scope of resources that can be poured into corruption.

Also, I think you better study up on some of those incidents. You'd be surprised at how much influence the Robber Barons exerted on government to get people to look the other way or to actually use government employees to do their dirty work.

Your thesis that private sector is always better than public is plain dumb. The profit motive (aka greed) does not necessarily orient a person or entity to behave ethically. During the industrialization of America, companies dumped pollutants with blatant disregard, and had workers in unsafe conditions, such as locking doors, which prevented escape during a fire. We can find all kinds of horrible examples of private sector behavior that resulted in the death or maiming of people.

Yes, you can find examples of people in the Free Market behaving poorly, but again it's matter of scale. For example, none of these horrible things even come close to causing the amount of human suffering that the first World War caused. This is because the Free Market limits the amount of resources that can be gobbled up and shoveled toward policies that cause human suffering. I bring up the WWI as a counter example because this is occurring in the middle of the Progressive Era, an era with a mythological story that claims that government had to limit human freedom in order to limit human suffering. At the same time, the the very government who are claiming that they can limit human suffering are causing it on scale that the world has never seen before at any point in history. That contradiction drives a stake through the heart of the propaganda you were fed in government school.

Clearly, human nature seems to be the best managed in a check-and-balance type system.

The Free Market has a check and balance system. It's called competition. Governments form monopolies. There is no competition and this is why they get out of control and fail. This is why all government programs degrade and all services provided soley by the Free Market get better.

 

[Makalakumu]

Here is a little history lecture for you by the great Murray Rothbard.

http://mises.org/media/4495

Why did the Laissez-Faire era end?

 

[Rumy73]

Nearly everything you've stated has been refuted by scholarly research. Again, I must point to the two sources I posted above. Most of what you parrot is based on myths that have been propagated about the Progressive Era and the supposed problems with "free market capitalism". For example, did you know that Upton Sinclair's book, The Jungle, is fiction? Yet, this book is portrayed as an example of muckraking journalism to millions of High School students.

Now, on to the meat of what you are saying...



History does not show this. History shows that civilizations rise and fall. Civilizations start with very little restrictions on human actions and they grow incredibly prosperous. Then, an entrenched oligarchy develops and they use the power of the State to protect and expand their position. As the level of central control increases, the level of productive capacity in the society decreases. Eventually, a tipping point is reached and the power structure crumbles. This happens because the parasites kill the Golden Goose of the Free Market. If there ever is a balance between public and private control, it is a transitory moment in time on an arch of ever increasing control.

The Founding Fathers of the United States realized this pattern in history and attempted to institute a system that would limit this progression by limiting government. Unfortunately, America's experiment with limited government failed.



Again, you miss the idea of scale. No corporation ever had a Gestapo. No corporation ever created a Stasi. No robber baron ever created the NKVD. This doesn't excuse the things that did happen. It simply points out that the effects were limited to local areas. So, when it comes to corruption, governments are far worse than the free market. The free market actually limits corruption by limiting the scope of resources that can be poured into corruption.

Also, I think you better study up on some of those incidents. You'd be surprised at how much influence the Robber Barons exerted on government to get people to look the other way or to actually use government employees to do their dirty work.



Yes, you can find examples of people in the Free Market behaving poorly, but again it's matter of scale. For example, none of these horrible things even come close to causing the amount of human suffering that the first World War caused. This is because the Free Market limits the amount of resources that can be gobbled up and shoveled toward policies that cause human suffering. I bring up the WWI as a counter example because this is occurring in the middle of the Progressive Era, an era with a mythological story that claims that government had to limit human freedom in order to limit human suffering. At the same time, the the very government who are claiming that they can limit human suffering are causing it on scale that the world has never seen before at any point in history. That contradiction drives a stake through the heart of the propaganda you were fed in government school.



The Free Market has a check and balance system. It's called competition. Governments form monopolies. There is no competition and this is why they get out of control and fail. This is why all government programs degrade and all services provided soley by the Free Market get better.

You argue in the extreme and cannot handle nuance. Your understanding of the Progressive Era is inaccurate at best. As professional in the field of history, I can assure that the general understanding of the time period separates between positive reform efforts, like child labor laws, and attempts at social control by white anglo-protestants over new immigrants from Central and Eastern Europe, such as through the anti-saloon league.

Now time to smell the coffee: Governments can and do have competition, it is called voting. If the people do not like policy, they can vote to change it.

Your example of WWI is inaccurate as well. The scale of destruction was made possible by the cooperation of government and market. Eisenhower famously termed it the military-industrial complex.

I hope your Taekwondo is better than your sense of history.

 

[Makalakumu]

You argue in the extreme and cannot handle nuance. Your understanding of the Progressive Era is inaccurate at best. As professional in the field of history, I can assure that the general understanding of the time period separates between positive reform efforts, like child labor laws, and attempts at social control by white anglo-protestants over new immigrants from Central and Eastern Europe, such as through the anti-saloon league.

You aren't really making an argument here. This is a fallacy with an assumption spread on top of it. LOL.

If you are a history professional, I suggest you hit the books. I've got some more for you if you like...

https://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=511

Capitalistic competition is also why "child labor" has all but disappeared, despite unionist claims to the contrary. Young people originally left the farms to work in harsh factory conditions because it was a matter of survival for them and their families. But as workers became better paid—thanks to capital investment and subsequent productivity improvements—more and more people could afford to keep their children at home and in school.Union-backed legislation prohibiting child labor came after the decline in child labor had already begun. Moreover, child labor laws have always been protectionist and aimed at depriving young people of the opportunity to work. Since child labor sometimes competes with unionized labor, unions have long sought to use the power of the state to deprive young people of the right to work.
In the Third World today, the alternative to "child labor" is all too often begging, prostitution, crime, or starvation. Unions absurdly proclaim to be taking the moral high road by advocating protectionist policies that inevitably lead to these consequences.

Now time to smell the coffee: Governments can and do have competition, it is called voting. If the people do not like policy, they can vote to change it.

That is how it works in theory, but in practice, how it really works is that the major parties are taken over by entrenched oligarchies, they buy off party leaders and get them to agree to not change anything important. Then, they market themselves as different even though 95% of what they want is exactly the same. A good example of this is the Bipartisan Consensus on Foreign Policy.

Politics is pro wrestling.

Your example of WWI is inaccurate as well. The scale of destruction was made possible by the cooperation of government and market. Eisenhower famously termed it the military-industrial complex.

This isn't the Free Market. This is Crony Capitalism...or Corporatism. Most people conflate these because of the propaganda they've been fed in government schools.

I'm afraid my example still stands and your thesis has drowned like Grover Norquist's baby.

I hope your Taekwondo is better than your sense of history.

My TKD sucks, but it's better than your history! LOL. That's a joke, btw, check my profile, I don't study TKD.

 

[Rumy73]

You aren't really making an argument here. This is a fallacy with an assumption spread on top of it. LOL.

If you are a history professional, I suggest you hit the books. I've got some more for you if you like...

https://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=511





That is how it works in theory, but in practice, how it really works is that the major parties are taken over by entrenched oligarchies, they buy off party leaders and get them to agree to not change anything important. Then, they market themselves as different even though 95% of what they want is exactly the same. A good example of this is the Bipartisan Consensus on Foreign Policy.

Politics is pro wrestling.



This isn't the Free Market. This is Crony Capitalism...or Corporatism. Most people conflate these because of the propaganda they've been fed in government schools.

I'm afraid my example still stands and your thesis has drowned like Grover Norquist's baby.



My TKD sucks, but it's better than your history! LOL. That's a joke, btw, check my profile, I don't study TKD.

Ok, it was crony capitalism lol and in the Soviet Union, they did not have communism, they had a police state. Ninja, please.

 

[ballen0351]

http://www.westernjournalism.com/obamas-civilian-national-security-force-by-executive-order/

2008 huh? Obama says alot of things none of which has happened so AGAIN not a national police force

 

[Makalakumu]

2008 huh? Obama says alot of things none of which has happened so AGAIN not a national police force

Do you understand the word incremental?

 

[Makalakumu]

Ok, it was crony capitalism lol and in the Soviet Union, they did not have communism, they had a police state. Ninja, please.

Fascism, Corporatism, and Communism all led to Police States. Free market capitalism led to the greatest expansion of human prosperity that the world has ever known....when elements of it were allowed to flourish by the overlords.

 

[ballen0351]

Do you understand the word incremental?

You understand the words WE DONT HAVE A NATIONAL POLICE FORCE?

 

[Rumy73]

You understand the words WE DONT HAVE A NATIONAL POLICE FORCE?

He is a fantasist. Only he knows "real history" and anytime his views are challenged, he inserts "but that does not apply." Save your energy. He can make his claims, but there is not one example of a system where there is no government and the free market handles everything.