Riiiight. The streets around your house will look awful funny when only 70% of your neighbours pay their road construction bills. 30% of your street will be dirt road, the rest paved?
I suppose education should be completely privatized too. That way, the only chance a child from a lower economic class has to make something of themselves will be torn away because their parents can only afford to choose two of these three alternatives: 1) feed them 2) clothe them 3) educate them.
I suppose, by your logic, that I should have to pay for my own dedicated wiring from my house to the electricity provider of my choice, right? Would we really have, like, 99% of all houses connected to the electical grid (therefore, accelerating the growth of other technologies like electrical appliances) if distribution was privatized? Would there be any incentive to have a step down station in bumsville, nowhere?
Markets work, u know?
Markets work with quite a bit of help. Do you think they'd work if we didn't have laws regulating fraud, disclosure, etc.?
The role of the government is primarily to establish a level playing field. The private sector, in the long term, is far more efficient than government services.
For example, the wave of privitization in the early 90's in India. Consumers benefitted tremendoulsy from the competition.
The private sector, in the long term, is far more efficient than government services.
I was responding to the original claim that everything should be privatized. I agree that privatization is good in some cases. However, there IS a reason for public funding of certain infrastructure.
You must admit that public education is better at establishing "a level playing field" than completely privatized education. Do you really think that the child of a wealthy person *deserves*, or has a *right* to a better education than any other child? Do you think it's acceptable that a child could miss out on an education because their parents can't afford it?
We have public funding for things we consider basic rights. We all think everyone has a right to an education, so we constructed systems to give everyone access to those services. We also think everyone should have access to clean water, so we have municipal water utilities. There is room for discussion of these issues, e.g. an American would say that health care is a priviledge, whereas a Canadian would say that access to basic health care is a right. That's why Canada has a universal health care system, and the U.S. does not.
The reasons why we choose to create public services is because of the argument that *everyone* benefits when access is available. To go back to previous examples: if you use public funds to connect everyone to the electrical grid, then you've increased the demand for electrical appliances. If you use public funds to build roads, then you make it easier for all companies and individuals to do business. If you use public funds to educate all children, then more kids will grow up to contribute to your economy, which makes everyone wealthier. So, in the long run, I would suggest that sometimes the private sector is *less* efficient.
Actually, with fully privatized education, competition would likely drive prices down to levels affordable to most people. Even if it didn't, there would be plenty of charities or other private organizations willing to help out.
Even so, I don't really support fully private education. It seems to me there needs to be a heavily standardized educational "base." That's another post, though.
It seems to me there needs to be a heavily standardized educational "base."
I agree. I think that goes along with the whole "level playing field" idea.
But if privatization always works, why are airports going back to federally employed security? It's precisely because they're trying to enforce a standardized base level of security. The private security firms are great at providing low prices, but they don't seem capable of providing adequate security at the same time. It's the whole lowest bidder problem that we tend to get into whenever the government starts asking for bids.
Precisely. The problem with the system isn't privitazation, it's the absurd (in some cases) lowest-bidder way of choosing contractors.
Consider roads. American road constuctors don't have any incentive to lay quality roads. This is one of the reasons potholes are so common.
Oh, and in general, public schools in America suck . The schools themselves may be good, but the average student lags behind his counterpart in other nations. Private schools could compete and raise the quality of education. Vouchers would solve the cost problem. We're already seeing a similar model for universities (without vouchers, but with many scholarships). Most Ivys cost around than $35k a year, but the whole system turns out many high quality graduates. I think competition is one of the reasons why the American university system is one of the best in the world.
"We all think everyone has a right to an education, so we constructed systems to give everyone access to those services. We also think everyone should have access to clean water, so we have municipal water utilities."
Education and clean water are NOT fundamental or basic rights. Rights are concepts that flow from man's nature as a rational being. The rational part of man's mind requires certain conditions to function--namely, the freedom to exist (life), the freedom to act (liberty), and the freedom to the products of those actions (property). If these conditions are denied, man lives on the level of a beast. If these conditions are supplied man can flourish. All true rights can be traced back to these fundamental rights. For example, you may note that "Freedom of Religion" is not specifically enumerated in the three fundamental rights, but it is, in fact, a corollary of liberty, or the freedom to do as one pleases while not infringing on the liberty of others. In order for the system of rights to be self-consistent, there can be no right that conflicts another. Indeed, when properly defined, none of the fundamental rights do conflict. Because they belong to all men, it is implied that my right to act as I please cannot include forcing you to act in a certain way. The function of government is to maximize the protection of these fundamental rights.
Now that rights have been defined, it is easy to see why there can be no fundamental "right" to education or clean water. Schools and water networks cost money and resources, and those resources must come from somewhere. If everybody has a right to an education weather they have earned the resources that the education will cost, than such a "right" would necessarily imply the violation of a fundamental right-property. In fact, the very idea that a person has a right to something that they have not earned is a perversion of the ideal of justice.
Now that I have said all this you may think that I am opposed to public education. I am not. I justify public education as a form of national defense. One of the biggest threats to freedom are large groups of people being irrational. Because of the democratic nature of our government, if large segments of the population choose not to think, than individual liberties are threatened. Racism is such a phenomenon. Public education is our defense against this threat, and its goal is to empower and nurture people's ability to think.
The concept of intrinsic rights is unfortunately just an academic idea. Life has no respect for rights. Your only right is what you have the power cause. If you get eaten by a tiger, or bitten by a coral snake, or sucked under by an eddy while taking a bath, so sorry, right to life, uh huh. Thus the only old pithy maxim, might makes right. It's 100% true. The government does lots of things which are violations of your "rights" but because they have the might, the act becomes "right" to use the tired play on words.
Now, it's not FAIR for me to just walk up to you and shoot you in the face, and so the government tries to prevent it (though really our system of justice operates ex post facto) so what happens is you end up dead.
Is it fair to be punished for something you're not responsible for? Is it fair to reward someone for something they're not responsible for? Thats exactly what happens when you deny education to a child born to a poor family.
This whole philosophical idea of intrinsic sacrosanct rights is such bullshit. It's been latched on to by objectivists to prove an argument, but what really has happened is they've created a big petitio principi.
Goes something like this:
"we have the right to a capitalist democracy" why? "because freedom is a right" why? "because we live in a capitalist democracy"
As societal entities we can of course come together and dictate what we believe is fair and unfair and pass regulations based on that. This in fact is exactly what the US government does. If you dont agree with your elected representative, you can either vote for someone else and live with the decisions that person makes or kill them, your choice.
I get frustrated that the voices of ignorant media puppets count to the same amount as me, and I get doubly frustrated that you can't even count on your elected representative to do what he or she espoused during a campaign. Nothing I can do about it really, but choke on my morals or swallow them and take advantage of people to increase my personal wealth and prestige.
The concept of intrinsic rights is unfortunately just an academic idea. Life has no respect for rights. Your only right is what you have the power cause. If you get eaten by a tiger, or bitten by a coral snake, or sucked under by an eddy while taking a bath, so sorry, right to life, uh huh. Thus the only old pithy maxim, might makes right. It's 100% true.
In your examples you showed how just because morality says something ought to be does not actually make it so. The proper way to summerize this would be "right does not make might." The conclusion that "might makes right" is completely unwarranted by your evidence.
The idea that "might makes right" is, in fact a lie. Abraham Lincoln once asked someone, "How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg?" The person replied "Five," and to this Lincoln said, "Wrong. Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg." Morality and Rights exist independently of the actual state of things at a given time and dictate the direction toward which men ought to strive. Without morality, man is reduced to following his whims like a beast. The consensus might determine what people will actually do, but the right thing to do will remain the same weather people choose to recognize it or not. What if the ad hoc morality of our society dictated that it was OK for me to kill you, and the only thing that kept me from doing so was my own recognition of a higher moral standard? Would you still be trying to convince me that morality was a pointless philosophical exercise then?
"we have the right to a capitalist democracy" why? "because freedom is a right" why? "because we live in a capitalist democracy
The answer to the question "why is freedom a right" is not "because we live in a capitalist democracy." Once again, you rely on the false premise that "might makes right." I would say in response something like "because man's rational mind requires certain things to function, and one of those things is freedom."
Is it fair to be punished for something you're not responsible for? Is it fair to reward someone for something they're not responsible for? Thats exactly what happens when you deny education to a child born to a poor family.
Actually, its not. The right at stake is the right of the creator to dispose of the wealth that he has earned/created as he sees fit. Not surprisingly, the rich person has decided to share his wealth with his children, and that is his right to do so. By not receiving that which you have not earned, you are not being "punished." Although the rich child is rewarded just for being born in the right family, morally you cannot stop this because to do so would violate the parent's property rights.
This whole philosophical idea of intrinsic sacrosanct rights is such bullshit. you have yet to present any evidence that this is the case. Your "circular agreement" example isn't really created by the idea of intrinsic rights, but rather by the assumption that might makes right. Your false dichotomy of "fairness vs. morality" really is quite pathetic. What is fairness if it not derived from justice, which comes from morality?
You touch on the idea of the social contract, but you miss the point I'm making: in the natural world, no such contract exists. When you say that someone has "rights" you are making a value judgement, and applying it universally (fairness is a local value judgement and says nothing universal). Are the laws and rights synonymous? If not where does your justification for rights come from? There is no foolproof moral system, and your statement about "the right thing to do existing whether people choose to recognize it or not" seems to me to indicate that you are probably somewhat bigoted in your morality. It's fine if you agree with the pope or kant as far as the morality you use to determine your own personal actions, but you shouldn't extend that to everyone. I am not a moral relativist but I don't believe that any one moral system can answer the question "what is the right thing to do" all of the time.
If you look at the ACTUAL values this country espouses (which have been terribly subverted by the idea of currency as personal worth) you can see that the might makes right paradigm is really unavoidable. There's a lot of talk about "rights" but what it comes down to is exercises of "might" in the economic sense. The few things which we provide to people who don't have the economic "might" to take them are all obviously provided because they would bring about externalities to the empowered portion of the population. Health care is an example, in order to stop the spread of nasty communicable diseases we have to cure those disgusting impoverished people. Homeless shelters are another, we have them because we don't like to look at the homeless, and we want to keep them away from tourist attractions, and keep them from spreading those nasty diseases. Drug rehab programs exist to prevent addicted users from stealing from or mugging the empowered (since police can't take away that nasty feeling of violation). All across the world the might makes right paradigm shows true despite the claims of "rights". the important difference is that fairness is an empathetic concept, and rights are based upon rational logic. The problem here is that logic doesn't go from is to ought, and those influenced by the aristocratic ideology assume that humans have "rights" as the basis for their postulations. There's no justification for the claim that humans have rights though, you can't get to that in any logical way from the nature of life and the world. Any argument based on the proposition that humans have certain basic rights is going to be unsound. You can get to "that action is unfair" from a couple of simple propositions, and it will be valid and sound.
My complaint about the circular argument of many objectivists was just that, not a refutation of all objectivist ideas. You can make an economic argument for some of the objectivist ideas, but those havn't been shown to produce an outcome any better, and in fact as it has been stated, the idea of a totally free market is sort of silly, especially considering that a free market is empowered to take advantage of consumers when there is disparity of law. Totally free markets are always going to be perform sub optimally, what is required is not a free market but freedom to compete. Sounds the same, but very different. Adam Smith was not referring to the typical market when he talked about the invisible hand, but rather a market of theoretical perfect competition.
As far as the people who make the money being able to keep it and choose how they spend it, I have a slight disagreement with that. Life's bounty should be distributed based upon the merit and work of the individual, but few people can claim that their merit was the source of their wealth. Hard work and intelligence by themselves are only somewhat likely to get you ahead in life, and I don't believe in the dispersement of funds based on luck (and nepotism as an extention thereof). The day that luck is no longer a factor in determining wealth I will be first in line to vote for a reduction of taxes for the very wealthy. My main problem with extreme wealth besides the elements of luck and nepotism, is that it tends to subjugate the political system by allowing the advancement of agendas which lack popular support (a very un-democratic notion). I can't yet demonstrate logically that a society based on different precepts would be any better, however, so I respect the fact that the system we have is at least somewhat operational.
As a side note, please leave the pithy but fundamentally wrong and irrelevant quotes by famous people aside, and argue on the merit of your own logic and knowledge. I also don't appreciate having my assertions insulted when you don't properly justify your refutations and argue with fallacies. I understand nobody's perfect:) I certainly don't claim to be, but that doesn't mean you have a license to be rude, particularly in a condescending manner when you havn't proven yourself superior in any way, and it's completely unwarranted.
No hard feelings, everything with the exception of the logical impossibility of "rights" is just my personal opinion and you're free to disagree and there's no real way to determine who's correct (probably neither). If you can come up with a valid and sound argument for the existence of universal rights, I'd be happy to listen but be prepared to have it refuted. Rights are a value judgement.
I'd suggest you read john rawls' "a theory of justice". It's an excellent book and could broaden your horizens somewhat.
While I agree that there has to be a balance (your example about a poor child not getting an education is a good one), I do have an issue with the statement:
Would there be any incentive to have a step down station in bumsville, nowhere?
My issue is this - why should I have to pay for a substation just because somebody wants to live in bumsville? (I assume you are talking about a substation serving one or two houses located remotely from anybody else - not one serving a slum with 5000 families living in it.)
I submit that if people had to pay to be wired up, they would think twice before building a house out in bumsville in the first place.
In America houses tend to be dispersed all over the place due to cheap transportation. In Europe they tend to be clustered due to high gas costs. In this case, the gas cost is artificially imposed, and I do not agree with this. However, in cases where costs are genuine (such as running 300 kV lines out to the middle of nowhere) I think that people should be given incentive to cut costs. When people are shown the true costs of their activities, they will make choices to make the most efficient use of their resources - saving both them and the provider of those resources money.
Now, if bumsville is the site of gold and oil deposits and it makes sense to build out there, then whoever is doing the building would gladly foot the bill.
A sense of entitlement is dangerous. We should definitely give people opportunities to get out of circumstances that are BEYOND THEIR CONTROL (such as a child born in a poor family), but we have to preserve incentives for people to be innovative and to make wise choices.
I live in rural Tennessee. You say we shouldn't be allowed electricity. Should we be allowed doctors? Or should only the people who can afford them be allowed? How should we deal with people who get comunicable diseases, but can't afford a doctor or treatment?
Should we have schools? We can see what poor quality schools have done in the "inner cities". Smart people abandon their neighborhood or go into the drug trade and other criminal enterprises where they can use their gifts to get ahead.
Natural selection is a great principle in the long run, but most of us don't live in the long run. In the very short run, it stinks. I'm glad my better armed neighbors don't see me as a possible source of food for dinner tonight.
Increasing my access to modern infrastructure improves my chances of adding to the common good. I may not pay that investment off for a long time or at all. Or I may invent a clean fusion motor or [add your favorite innovation here] tomorrow. And if I do should I share with the guy who wants to take my electricity away?
Riiiight. The streets around your house will look awful funny when only 70% of your neighbours pay their road construction bills.
I really had to cringe when I saw this response rated a 5. Government-funded road projects don't fit the definition of "subsidies" very well -- they can be more accurately described as the taxpayer simply getting one of the services that he paid for.
A better example of a "subsidy" is when the government pays a farmer for not growing crops. Here, it's much harder to make the case that the farmer is simply getting a service that he paid for with his taxes.
This "5-rated" response was a heavy-handed smackdown that missed the mark, due to a lack of thoughtful contemplation by the author.
A better example of a "subsidy" is when the government pays a farmer for not growing crops. Here, it's much harder to make the case that the farmer is simply getting a service that he paid for with his taxes.
It would be hard to argue that this is what the original poster meant by privatization, though. Farmers are privatized, but they get government subsidies.
I suppose education should be completely privatized too. That way, the only chance a child from a lower economic class has to make something of themselves will be torn away because their parents can only afford to choose two of these three alternatives: 1) feed them 2) clothe them 3) educate them.
I choose options 1 and 3
Fat, Naked and Smart.
"Be there. Aloha."
-- Steve McGarret, _Hawaii Five-Oh_
Privatize them! (Score:-1, Flamebait)
Government subsidies are bad.
Markets work, u know? Otherwise we'll be living in communist utopia ruled by evil old men from Moscow today.
Re:Privatize them! (Score:5, Insightful)
Riiiight. The streets around your house will look awful funny when only 70% of your neighbours pay their road construction bills. 30% of your street will be dirt road, the rest paved?
I suppose education should be completely privatized too. That way, the only chance a child from a lower economic class has to make something of themselves will be torn away because their parents can only afford to choose two of these three alternatives: 1) feed them 2) clothe them 3) educate them.
I suppose, by your logic, that I should have to pay for my own dedicated wiring from my house to the electricity provider of my choice, right? Would we really have, like, 99% of all houses connected to the electical grid (therefore, accelerating the growth of other technologies like electrical appliances) if distribution was privatized? Would there be any incentive to have a step down station in bumsville, nowhere?
Markets work, u know?
Markets work with quite a bit of help. Do you think they'd work if we didn't have laws regulating fraud, disclosure, etc.?
Re:Privatize them! (Score:1)
For example, the wave of privitization in the early 90's in India. Consumers benefitted tremendoulsy from the competition.
Re:Privatize them! (Score:2)
I was responding to the original claim that everything should be privatized. I agree that privatization is good in some cases. However, there IS a reason for public funding of certain infrastructure.
You must admit that public education is better at establishing "a level playing field" than completely privatized education. Do you really think that the child of a wealthy person *deserves*, or has a *right* to a better education than any other child? Do you think it's acceptable that a child could miss out on an education because their parents can't afford it?
We have public funding for things we consider basic rights. We all think everyone has a right to an education, so we constructed systems to give everyone access to those services. We also think everyone should have access to clean water, so we have municipal water utilities. There is room for discussion of these issues, e.g. an American would say that health care is a priviledge, whereas a Canadian would say that access to basic health care is a right. That's why Canada has a universal health care system, and the U.S. does not.
The reasons why we choose to create public services is because of the argument that *everyone* benefits when access is available. To go back to previous examples: if you use public funds to connect everyone to the electrical grid, then you've increased the demand for electrical appliances. If you use public funds to build roads, then you make it easier for all companies and individuals to do business. If you use public funds to educate all children, then more kids will grow up to contribute to your economy, which makes everyone wealthier. So, in the long run, I would suggest that sometimes the private sector is *less* efficient.
Re:Privatize them! (Score:0, Flamebait)
Re:Privatize them! (Score:1)
I agree. I think that goes along with the whole "level playing field" idea.
But if privatization always works, why are airports going back to federally employed security? It's precisely because they're trying to enforce a standardized base level of security. The private security firms are great at providing low prices, but they don't seem capable of providing adequate security at the same time. It's the whole lowest bidder problem that we tend to get into whenever the government starts asking for bids.
Re:Privatize them! (Score:1)
Consider roads. American road constuctors don't have any incentive to lay quality roads. This is one of the reasons potholes are so common.
Oh, and in general, public schools in America suck . The schools themselves may be good, but the average student lags behind his counterpart in other nations. Private schools could compete and raise the quality of education. Vouchers would solve the cost problem. We're already seeing a similar model for universities (without vouchers, but with many scholarships). Most Ivys cost around than $35k a year, but the whole system turns out many high quality graduates. I think competition is one of the reasons why the American university system is one of the best in the world.
Re:Privatize them! (Score:0)
Re:Privatize them! (Score:1)
Education and clean water are NOT fundamental or basic rights. Rights are concepts that flow from man's nature as a rational being. The rational part of man's mind requires certain conditions to function--namely, the freedom to exist (life), the freedom to act (liberty), and the freedom to the products of those actions (property). If these conditions are denied, man lives on the level of a beast. If these conditions are supplied man can flourish. All true rights can be traced back to these fundamental rights. For example, you may note that "Freedom of Religion" is not specifically enumerated in the three fundamental rights, but it is, in fact, a corollary of liberty, or the freedom to do as one pleases while not infringing on the liberty of others. In order for the system of rights to be self-consistent, there can be no right that conflicts another. Indeed, when properly defined, none of the fundamental rights do conflict. Because they belong to all men, it is implied that my right to act as I please cannot include forcing you to act in a certain way. The function of government is to maximize the protection of these fundamental rights.
Now that rights have been defined, it is easy to see why there can be no fundamental "right" to education or clean water. Schools and water networks cost money and resources, and those resources must come from somewhere. If everybody has a right to an education weather they have earned the resources that the education will cost, than such a "right" would necessarily imply the violation of a fundamental right-property. In fact, the very idea that a person has a right to something that they have not earned is a perversion of the ideal of justice.
Now that I have said all this you may think that I am opposed to public education. I am not. I justify public education as a form of national defense. One of the biggest threats to freedom are large groups of people being irrational. Because of the democratic nature of our government, if large segments of the population choose not to think, than individual liberties are threatened. Racism is such a phenomenon. Public education is our defense against this threat, and its goal is to empower and nurture people's ability to think.
-Andrew
Re:Privatize them! (Score:1)
Now, it's not FAIR for me to just walk up to you and shoot you in the face, and so the government tries to prevent it (though really our system of justice operates ex post facto) so what happens is you end up dead.
Is it fair to be punished for something you're not responsible for? Is it fair to reward someone for something they're not responsible for? Thats exactly what happens when you deny education to a child born to a poor family.
This whole philosophical idea of intrinsic sacrosanct rights is such bullshit. It's been latched on to by objectivists to prove an argument, but what really has happened is they've created a big petitio principi.
Goes something like this:
"we have the right to a capitalist democracy"
why?
"because freedom is a right"
why?
"because we live in a capitalist democracy"
As societal entities we can of course come together and dictate what we believe is fair and unfair and pass regulations based on that. This in fact is exactly what the US government does. If you dont agree with your elected representative, you can either vote for someone else and live with the decisions that person makes or kill them, your choice.
I get frustrated that the voices of ignorant media puppets count to the same amount as me, and I get doubly frustrated that you can't even count on your elected representative to do what he or she espoused during a campaign. Nothing I can do about it really, but choke on my morals or swallow them and take advantage of people to increase my personal wealth and prestige.
Re:Privatize them! (Score:1)
In your examples you showed how just because morality says something ought to be does not actually make it so. The proper way to summerize this would be "right does not make might." The conclusion that "might makes right" is completely unwarranted by your evidence.
The idea that "might makes right" is, in fact a lie. Abraham Lincoln once asked someone, "How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg?" The person replied "Five," and to this Lincoln said, "Wrong. Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg." Morality and Rights exist independently of the actual state of things at a given time and dictate the direction toward which men ought to strive. Without morality, man is reduced to following his whims like a beast. The consensus might determine what people will actually do, but the right thing to do will remain the same weather people choose to recognize it or not. What if the ad hoc morality of our society dictated that it was OK for me to kill you, and the only thing that kept me from doing so was my own recognition of a higher moral standard? Would you still be trying to convince me that morality was a pointless philosophical exercise then?
"we have the right to a capitalist democracy"
why?
"because freedom is a right"
why?
"because we live in a capitalist democracy
The answer to the question "why is freedom a right" is not "because we live in a capitalist democracy." Once again, you rely on the false premise that "might makes right." I would say in response something like "because man's rational mind requires certain things to function, and one of those things is freedom."
Is it fair to be punished for something you're not responsible for? Is it fair to reward someone for something they're not responsible for? Thats exactly what happens when you deny education to a child born to a poor family.
Actually, its not. The right at stake is the right of the creator to dispose of the wealth that he has earned/created as he sees fit. Not surprisingly, the rich person has decided to share his wealth with his children, and that is his right to do so. By not receiving that which you have not earned, you are not being "punished." Although the rich child is rewarded just for being born in the right family, morally you cannot stop this because to do so would violate the parent's property rights.
This whole philosophical idea of intrinsic sacrosanct rights is such bullshit.
you have yet to present any evidence that this is the case. Your "circular agreement" example isn't really created by the idea of intrinsic rights, but rather by the assumption that might makes right. Your false dichotomy of "fairness vs. morality" really is quite pathetic. What is fairness if it not derived from justice, which comes from morality?
-Andrew
Re:Privatize them! (Score:1)
If you look at the ACTUAL values this country espouses (which have been terribly subverted by the idea of currency as personal worth) you can see that the might makes right paradigm is really unavoidable. There's a lot of talk about "rights" but what it comes down to is exercises of "might" in the economic sense. The few things which we provide to people who don't have the economic "might" to take them are all obviously provided because they would bring about externalities to the empowered portion of the population. Health care is an example, in order to stop the spread of nasty communicable diseases we have to cure those disgusting impoverished people. Homeless shelters are another, we have them because we don't like to look at the homeless, and we want to keep them away from tourist attractions, and keep them from spreading those nasty diseases. Drug rehab programs exist to prevent addicted users from stealing from or mugging the empowered (since police can't take away that nasty feeling of violation). All across the world the might makes right paradigm shows true despite the claims of "rights". the important difference is that fairness is an empathetic concept, and rights are based upon rational logic. The problem here is that logic doesn't go from is to ought, and those influenced by the aristocratic ideology assume that humans have "rights" as the basis for their postulations. There's no justification for the claim that humans have rights though, you can't get to that in any logical way from the nature of life and the world. Any argument based on the proposition that humans have certain basic rights is going to be unsound. You can get to "that action is unfair" from a couple of simple propositions, and it will be valid and sound.
My complaint about the circular argument of many objectivists was just that, not a refutation of all objectivist ideas. You can make an economic argument for some of the objectivist ideas, but those havn't been shown to produce an outcome any better, and in fact as it has been stated, the idea of a totally free market is sort of silly, especially considering that a free market is empowered to take advantage of consumers when there is disparity of law. Totally free markets are always going to be perform sub optimally, what is required is not a free market but freedom to compete. Sounds the same, but very different. Adam Smith was not referring to the typical market when he talked about the invisible hand, but rather a market of theoretical perfect competition.
As far as the people who make the money being able to keep it and choose how they spend it, I have a slight disagreement with that. Life's bounty should be distributed based upon the merit and work of the individual, but few people can claim that their merit was the source of their wealth. Hard work and intelligence by themselves are only somewhat likely to get you ahead in life, and I don't believe in the dispersement of funds based on luck (and nepotism as an extention thereof). The day that luck is no longer a factor in determining wealth I will be first in line to vote for a reduction of taxes for the very wealthy. My main problem with extreme wealth besides the elements of luck and nepotism, is that it tends to subjugate the political system by allowing the advancement of agendas which lack popular support (a very un-democratic notion). I can't yet demonstrate logically that a society based on different precepts would be any better, however, so I respect the fact that the system we have is at least somewhat operational.
As a side note, please leave the pithy but fundamentally wrong and irrelevant quotes by famous people aside, and argue on the merit of your own logic and knowledge. I also don't appreciate having my assertions insulted when you don't properly justify your refutations and argue with fallacies. I understand nobody's perfect
No hard feelings, everything with the exception of the logical impossibility of "rights" is just my personal opinion and you're free to disagree and there's no real way to determine who's correct (probably neither). If you can come up with a valid and sound argument for the existence of universal rights, I'd be happy to listen but be prepared to have it refuted. Rights are a value judgement.
I'd suggest you read john rawls' "a theory of justice". It's an excellent book and could broaden your horizens somewhat.
Re:Privatize them! (Score:2)
My issue is this - why should I have to pay for a substation just because somebody wants to live in bumsville? (I assume you are talking about a substation serving one or two houses located remotely from anybody else - not one serving a slum with 5000 families living in it.)
I submit that if people had to pay to be wired up, they would think twice before building a house out in bumsville in the first place.
In America houses tend to be dispersed all over the place due to cheap transportation. In Europe they tend to be clustered due to high gas costs. In this case, the gas cost is artificially imposed, and I do not agree with this. However, in cases where costs are genuine (such as running 300 kV lines out to the middle of nowhere) I think that people should be given incentive to cut costs. When people are shown the true costs of their activities, they will make choices to make the most efficient use of their resources - saving both them and the provider of those resources money.
Now, if bumsville is the site of gold and oil deposits and it makes sense to build out there, then whoever is doing the building would gladly foot the bill.
A sense of entitlement is dangerous. We should definitely give people opportunities to get out of circumstances that are BEYOND THEIR CONTROL (such as a child born in a poor family), but we have to preserve incentives for people to be innovative and to make wise choices.
Re:Privatize them! (Score:1)
Should we have schools? We can see what poor quality schools have done in the "inner cities". Smart people abandon their neighborhood or go into the drug trade and other criminal enterprises where they can use their gifts to get ahead.
Natural selection is a great principle in the long run, but most of us don't live in the long run. In the very short run, it stinks. I'm glad my better armed neighbors don't see me as a possible source of food for dinner tonight.
Increasing my access to modern infrastructure improves my chances of adding to the common good. I may not pay that investment off for a long time or at all. Or I may invent a clean fusion motor or [add your favorite innovation here] tomorrow. And if I do should I share with the guy who wants to take my electricity away?
We need to find a happy medium.
Re:Privatize them! (Score:0)
I really had to cringe when I saw this response rated a 5. Government-funded road projects don't fit the definition of "subsidies" very well -- they can be more accurately described as the taxpayer simply getting one of the services that he paid for.
A better example of a "subsidy" is when the government pays a farmer for not growing crops. Here, it's much harder to make the case that the farmer is simply getting a service that he paid for with his taxes.
This "5-rated" response was a heavy-handed smackdown that missed the mark, due to a lack of thoughtful contemplation by the author.
Re:Privatize them! (Score:1)
It would be hard to argue that this is what the original poster meant by privatization, though. Farmers are privatized, but they get government subsidies.
Re:Privatize them! (Score:0)