Because my arguments are so sarcastic they are convincing.

EXC. For the last time. I am not going to repeat myself over and over again to you. I'm quitting this discussion if you fail again to progress beyond "What is your idea of socialism?" in your next reply. Got that? .... good.

Bullshit. If you recall, and obviously you don't. The 'tax on resource use' line you keep spouting at me, you got that from a post I made to you some weeks ago, I introduced you to that concept. You keep throwing it like a match at the strawman you're building of my argument like it should carry some weight against me. It doesn't. It only compounds the demonstration of baldfaced ignorance and propagandist lies that has been a running theme throughout your argument in this thread.

Exhibit A.

When did I argue for any sacredness of public policing? Answer: I didn't. In fact argued the opposite. That I didn't necessarily think that public policing was best in practice.  And repeatedly I have tried to steer this back on topic only to have you throw up another red herring in reply.

The ONLY argument I have made is that public policing and private policing are different in principle. Public police funded by public money perform a different function to private security guards. To wit, public police are not guards at all they are law enforcers. Their duty is to the law of the people, not to the property or possessions of the payer.

I'm resting on this. If you want to discuss opinions on practice, very well, go ahead. But you'll find there's not much debate between us on it, and if you make one up, again, I will just quit talking to you about it.

Oh damn. I can't believe I let you slip that damnable word in, EXC. I shouldn't even be arguing this "rights" bullshit cause it's not my argument, it's another strawman. I don't believe health care is a right. Never did. In my politic Health Care is a public good worth holding in trust by the people for the people.

If you can manage to remember that this time (as I am quite sure I have told you before) we'll restart.....

No. Holding a public good in trust requires that resources and labour are set aside for the purpose. Money is just a method of distributing them. This is the principle behind a planned economy. 

What do they want the money for, EXC? Cause one way or another they can have "what they want the money for" without a cent exchanging hands, you do know that, don't you?

Ultimately getting a doctor or policeman to work simply means ensuring that they are distributed a proportionally larger or more prestigious share of the state's available resources and labour for their efforts, you can use money to do this, sure, or vouchers, or whatever, it's all the same thing, it's just a method of distribution. Just like your economic model except that the minimum level of promissory resources and labour per capita is nominal according to the mandate of the society trust, rather than zero.

Or maybe America can look beyond it's nose at the other countries that have rationally incorporated socialist politics into their lifestyles instead. See how nice it is that way. Typically you are so insular-minded that you want me to come there and get beat down by the fucked up American system. Nice attitude.

1.You have claimed to believe that the market self-regulates via competition. 2. You have claimed believe that free market enterprise is the key to liberty and justice, the perfect economy. 3. You have argued that socialism is slavery to industry.

To name a few reasons why you are clearly standing as a capitalist here.

Capitalists don't live on planet Kolob, EXC. They live here, monopolising the limited resources and imposing demands for greater and greater resources and labour from the majority people in exchange for access to them. And they aren't spending their money, they are hoarding it while they live off freebies and kickbacks (alright for the mega rich to get free lunches but the poor and middle classes can't?)

Yes, EXC. That's what is wrong with capitalism, it institutes this behaviour.

Exhibit B.

Do you remember I told you I think high income tax is poorly aimed and virtually useless?

It was about the same time as I first explained to you how my idea system was one of social contract between capitalism and the public resources it gobbles up for the frivolous sake of "wealth creation".

Oh for petes sake, EXC. The country is reporting growth, Queensland is just one state, and it has been overrun in recent days, mass migration from the southern states and all. The greedy rush on property investment since the 1990s has caused no end of problems for individuals, yes. It's a nasty business, but it's not breaking us exactly, just an unpleasant feeling in the stomachs of most that it is/was all a big rort.

Also, I said Queenslander's found their pockets emptier due to rising prices but the state is adjusting. How do you manage to completely misconstrue almost everything you read?

"Whitey" has long been forcing a whole integrated and developed culture on the rest of the world and shouldn't be expecting other cultures (especially those which existed in peace and comfort for centuries and otherwise would have no reason to change) to even want to accept the idea that white western culture is good and should be normal for everyone, let alone adapt to it. That's just bad manners.

If Australian Aboriginals, for example, have defiantly resisted white western culture for two centuries of our settlement, and suffered in the name of their own beliefs that what white settlement has introduced is wrong or unhealthy or against their religion you can only respect them for that. Westerners have matured since and acknowledged there was nothing inherently savage or wrong about the culture and lifestyle of the natives, and that the west was arrogant to force themselves wholesale on the country.

So the next logical step is to accept that what disadvantage, to the native people and our society, has come from the resistance they have necessarily demonstrated against the push for westernising of their world, is par for the course it would be wrong to punish anyone for it. It's not right to penalise poverty that is a result of such a long ongoing injustice and the only fair response is to commit long term to supporting a mutual resolution.

But you can call that whatever makes you feel superior, if that's what you need, EXC.

Capitalism goes where the money is. What infrastructure it builds is lopsided and it never goes where there is need and not money. Somalia is the perfect example of how broad is the scope of capitalist built infrastructure, take another look.

That's all over the country. Old age pensioners and disabled pensioners get a small subsidy <$10 off their quarterly bill (since they can't run out and get a couple of days extra work if they are strapped), and for anyone that is in hardship there can be more time to pay granted where they need it, or payment plans arranged. The point I was trying to make is that it was a new system introduced and the government put it on the electricity bill to save on the costs of establishing a big new administration department for it.

It appears that, from what I've read,  Jormangunder is the only one that truly understands the Libertarian platform and philosophy. I will never understand why people would want the government to make all of the decisions that effect their lives, having such little control over it themselves. Well, maybe aside from the fact that it's a lot easier when somebody makes difficult decisions for you, and your left to be less responsible for your own life. Libertarianism is the last real hope for this country. I challenge anybody to show me a political/governmental system that makes any more sense while allowing for maximum personal and economic freedoms. Seriously.

Nothing at all as long as you've taught him proper gun handling and safety.

*loud snort*

I wish I could tell you, I guess I don't know the answer to that, because it doesn't make sense to me either.

"I challenge anybody to show me a political/governmental system that makes any more sense while allowing for maximum personal and economic freedoms. Seriously."

Socialism is far superior, more free, more efficient, and more effective.

Uh, no, the government is not there to coddle anybody, our government was not formed for that purpose, EVER. Democracy? Our country was set up as a Republic, not a democracy, how easily that's been forgotten over the years. We are a democratic republic. A democracy means mob rule, so someone will always be oppressed, just look at the gays. And if you really think we have control of our government you are out of your mind. Think back to the bailouts, when every poll taken said that 96% plus were against them and yet they passed them anyway. Lots of control there. Patriot act..even more control, cmon, what a joke. Not to mention that you are a proud Canadian. Your country is ruled by a queen that resides in another country. You people are ok with that?Having a government that controls everything is easy for lazy people, but some of us want to strive and earn our living.

Of course I do. I was being facetious. I didn't think that was a serious statement asking why civil liberties and economic freedom were good things. I wouldn't think that anybody would ever seriously ask that question.Hopefully I'm missing the sarcasm here.

Because if you're not hurting anybody else or their property, why shouldn't you be free to do what you want? You are your own sovereign individual. Who else has the right to tell you what you can and can't do with your own body? Or your own money? Be amused by that answer all you want, but anybody who thinks that somebody else should decide what you should or can and can't do with your own life isn't deserving of freedom at all.  As a society people have been systematically programmed to think that they need somebody else to tell them what is good for them, without taking into account that the people making these decisions are people themselves. You can be a liberal leftist and tell me that I shouldn't be allowed to have a gun, why not? I've been fully trained in weaponry and fought in war, but I shouldn't have a gun to defend my home? Those on the right will say that I shouldn't be allowed to smoke weed, yet I can drink all the alcohol I want and smoke cigarettes packs a day? Why as a responsible adult, and a sovereign individual, should I not be allowed to make those decisions for myself? I have to go eat, but I'll finish this later if I haven't made my point. I just can't believe that I would have to explain why being free is a problem.

2 Things. If you're going to make a mockery of my military service you can kiss my ass. I didn't come close to death to have asshole make a joke of it. And I'm not even going to entertain your question of why shouldn't we be allowed to hurt anyone or their property because that question is just STUPID.

You can type your paragraph now, because I've already had my "self-realization". And don't expect any type of response from me because frankly, I don't like you.

Fair enough. But it really had little to do with the argument. But I'll let you have it.

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

Overstood Eloise, thanks for the explanation.

"More free? How do you figure that?"

How do you figure otherwise? Capitalism is merely free for the rich, 1-10% of the population. Socialism is free for all, 100% of the population.

"It's only more free to the people that aren't paying for it, but somebody has to pay."

Strawman. Everyone "pays" in Socialism, by definition.

"So you're telling me that the people that work hard and struggle and fight and finally make it in this world should pay for the lazy pricks that don't want to work hard?"

Not at all. I'm saying put everyone to work, and give them shelter, food, healthcare, protection, and other necessities in return. Those who don't want to work can depend on charity or starve.

"And you can't honestly say that it's more effective because we haven't had a Libertarian free market system."

Neither have we ever had a true Socialist market system. But I can still say it's better. Getting rid of wasteful strategies and pointless competition between equal opponents in favour of efficient strategies...

What is special about working in the U.S. military? What exactly is sacred about it?

It is just a job. It isn't in defence of America or the United States last I checked though. 

If it was I could believe it to be something respectable. 

Working in the U.S. military gets as much respect from me as working for Blackwater or any other mercenary group that kills people for money. It is work, nothing more. You are compensated with what you agreed on when you signed up.

Also, I find your response to Doomy juvenile. That fact that -I- am saying that should say something. Grow some skin.

With skin that thin it must be painful to sit down. You are always going to end up butthurt.

Seriously.

You are projecting a lot of anger and assumptions. Not to mention that there isn't much "getting in anyone's way" on an internet message board.

Apparently your training for thick skin is shit, because you seem to be taking this all kinds of personally. I stand by what I said: Grow some skin.

Talk or don't, but don't bitch and get offended over everything personally. I saw you react to really nothing from Doomy with all kinds of batshit crazy and I'm calling you on it.

If everyone did what you seem to suggest no one would talk to anyone on these forums.

I would agree with this. In fact, I would say that it would be impossible to find anyone on these forums that agree on everything.

Which, if they all stopped talking to the other after that, this message board would become quite inactive. You have to have thick skin.

Just not as thick as EXC I hope. :3

That was the joke. Thanks Doomy.

If you rephrase that in english we might have an argument.

"If you think the government should be in charge of the public needs, then you've just let them run as a corporation serve their needs."

I do not understand this. What exactly are you saying?

"The free market is as simple as supply and demand. As long as there is a demand there will be someone to supply it, and when it comes to personal gain vs. public welfare, they go hand in hand."

What? How do they go hand in hand? They are out for private gain. In order to maximize profits, they have to take as much as possible from public welfare. That is the whole point.

"Someone will be there to serve the public and make a personal gain at the same time. With a competing market, they would be forced to supply greater goods at a cheaper cost, so it works out for the best for both sides."

Competing market being what exactly? A monopoly? The free market has no competing market. It creates monopolies and oligopolies. They then can crush any upstart competitor because they dominate the market and can cut price below costs where needed to kill off competition. 

Then they will try and maximize profits. In doing so, they have to take as much from public welfare as possible, either by cutting what the public can gain or by increasing prices to the public, thereby restricting access only to some who can afford it. It creates an unnecessary drain on society as well as creating another class level. For example, "those who can afford to go to the park, and those who can't" or "those who can afford to go to the beach, and those who can't". Maybe even "those who can afford the police, and those who can't" or "those who afford the fire department, and those who can't". Libraries, roads, schools, all public goods are involved here. Do you see where it breaks down yet? The private companies will raise prices to maximize profits, and all things have a certain elasticity of their price...however by making it a for-profit venture it changes the entire dynamic. It restricts part of society, and depending on how many use those public services, may eliminate them altogether as not "profitable" enough.

If you restricted say education from a large portion of the population because of costs, you have a largely ill-equipped workforce in the country. If you restrict health care, you have a large portion of the workforce unable to participate. Restricting public goods from the population only hurts society as a whole, because there are many people that couldn't pay for something that society as a whole needs. 

I believe that internet is a public good for example. There needs to be publicly available broadband in this time period..I am sad there is not. It is mandatory today as a standard of communication and information. I consider it of higher importance for that than libraries. Some countries have already delegated it a public good, for example in Finland everyone is guaranteed 100meg/s connections by 2014.

Think about this: there has to be a base standard. How low do you want it to go? If you privatize things, it drops that standard to nothing in that area. Private companies will not give things for free, they want to make profits. They are not interested in public welfare, they are interested in profits. By allowing them control over a public resource, are they suddenly going to be looking out for public welfare? No. They are going to be looking out for profits. They have to appease shareholders, and once they dominate the market they can dictate terms to the public.

That is what the issue is. If anyone doesn't understand the free market, it is you. 

The police enforce the laws of the society solely for themselves?

Firefighters risk their necks going into burning buildings for themselves?

Wow, you don't get out of the house much, do you?

A private security guard or fire fighter only protects his own life and property?

Explain how a private security guard is fundamentally any different that a cop? If you don't pay them, they don't work. They have a beat and a boss that tells them what to do. They often have a union to represent them.

CC argument seems to be that if someone's employment contract is "public" that somehow they will be 'unselfish'. And anyone that works for a 'private' security firm is 'selfish'. They're both just guys that show up to work because someone pays them so they can pay their bills and feed their families. There is nothing magical or unselfish about 'public' employees.

So if a city decides to dump a police union and hire a private firm to do it's policing, are these workers now 'selfish' as opposed to the police union that is 100% unselfish and just working for the public interest?

It's just a BS concept, like churches and church leaders saying they are 'non-profit'.