Where did you get this idea from?

Seriously. I don't even see how you extrapolated it. I never said that or anything close to it.

Yes, PEOPLE work for an EMPLOYER. That is what makes them EMPLOYEES. I don't see how this is in any way relevant to anything being discussed. What is your point exactly? And why are you talking about "selfishness" and "unselfishness?"

EXC - this is the second time I agree with you this year. You are obviously doing something wrong.

Ah, generalisation taken too far - that's better.

What you feel deep inside - this "I only percieve with my own senses, thus I ultimately only care for preservation and increased positive input to myself", while true, is understood by you in a misguided fashion. Increase in positive input to yourself is actually just a perception of reafirmation or betterment of your identity in social context. This can take any form, but common to pretty much all of us is the need to know you are needed, loved, respected for your ability and opinion. And this will not change for millions of years (evolution, remember?), no matter how visceral the society becomes.

What would you like most to be given to you tomorrow: a million $ in cool cash, or respect, love and a sense of dependability from anyone that comes in contact with you? If your answer is the $, you are just comfirming my point - you don't want the mil $, you want the things that in your perception come with it: love, respect, attention, dependability, the very definition of who you are. The reality is that you just see no way these can come true, while the $ (or raw power for that matter) at least have some imediate societal effect. Ultimately however, taking these shortcuts will be your prison as well. Losing money and power might at the very least make you feel positively worthless. And there will be some truth to this, simply because the social relations you have built depend on money and power. You would basically have to start all over, or put a bullet in your head.

What you really want to do is maximize the positive reinforcement of your identity, while minimizing this "prison" effect. Running away from reality is just a way to lock yourself deeper into your prison and I wouldn't recommend it. I have another way and I think you should have one too. May I suggest a course in Aristotelian ethics? Its in your private interest.

In conclusion, the theory of private interest in your head needs to be amended with a more clear definition of what this really means for the social individual. And its not so different for different people, remember that we all have 100% common DNA with humans.

While this is correct, and I agree, it is also entirely irrelevant to the conversation.

They are employees working for an employer. So what? They want more benefits as a group, because they feel they are treated unfairly, and so go on strike. Okay?

It doesn't have any bearing on the discussion still.

The issue has to do with a private COMPANY, in it's very nature, seeks profits. Public servants work for the GOVERNMENT, a nonprofit entity controlled and financed by the people for the benefit of the people.

The discussion is about the entity, not their employees. The employees are meaningless to the discussion. They are the same for all practical purposes.

Except that it does. People in government are not "just" employees, they have influence on the rules applicable to all employers. Very often the border between "public employee" and "public chieftain" gets whisked out.

That's not true. The carriers in the Gulf are not a non-profit enterprise. And what does non-profit mean anyway? Isn't being paid a form of profit? People in the organization profit by earning their wages with zero overall growth or surplus - that is a perfectly valid profit-based institution.

I don't think so. Employees are all there is, the entity is imaginary. This is the core of the misunderstanding in the discussion about for- and non-profit - the only real difference is that in for-profit organizations people that do no work both have the greatest say and profit, and consequently widely different interests than the rest of the population. Different interest and points of view can be good and in fact essential, but the ones developed through the human for-profit so far.

This is not to say that the majority of the population have an answer - they don't. They are largely uneducated and those that are educated are educated to be uneducated.

"How many Libertarians does it take to screw in a light bulb?"
 

"None. The Market will take care of it."

And why is it that people think that Libertarians have no sense of community? It's quite the opposite. We expect community involvement and feel that it's absolutely necessary for a society to thrive.

Nice retort...Highly intellectual. I'm not sure I've ever even seen a decent argument from you. It's all baseless nonsense. I don't even take you seriously, could be why you have the sig you do. Strawman..I'll be dat!!

You kinda suck at the whole "Life" thing, don't you?

I do alright.  Though I tend to cheat nature at times.

I'M not sure if you're saying you as in ME or the party. I don't think I've ever said anything along those lines. I know that a community is a collective group and it's necessary that we function as such. Unfortunately in these times I don't think we really have that. I also think that Libertarianism supports that need. Socialism on the other hand get's rid of the need for community involvement because the state will handle everything and you don't need the community. Forgive me if this is blabber, I'm a bit under the weather, but I'm trying to make a point.

How ironic that you complain about people who don't know how Libertarianism works only to do the exact same thing yourself with Socialism. That's what we call hypocrisy. Pot, meet kettle. At least EXC has arguments, even if 80% of them are strawmen. When you can explain why the USSR and China never used Socialism, you'll be in a better position to argue against it. Until then you should stick to defending Libertarianism without using Socialism to do so, because I'll call you out every time. I won't call you an arrogant prick either, at least not until you call me one. I'll let the last one slide, because you confuse confidence with arrogance.

I don't think anyone has called you an idiot. Some people have called you ignorant on topics, but thats about it.

If you change your mind you are always welcome to post here. I would suggest listening to others a lot more and researching things said before replying, because there is always more to learn. There is nothing wrong with that, but here if anyone makes a claim they are more than likely going to have to provide evidence for that claim. Saying "I don't care what you think" doesn't validate your arguments.

Sorry that no one here plays with kids gloves on. I wish you the best of luck wherever you decide to go to, but anywhere on the internet you are going to need thicker skin or you are going to find yourself without many places to talk freely without getting upset at something someone else said that disagrees with you.

Still, thanks for coming. Best of luck in your endeavors Mr. E. 

 From CC's link in the other thread -

"Sense of community" as defined by capitalism. (emphasis is my own)

For the sake of being an asshole:

Drum roll!

I LOVE the fact that what gets written here stays around for a while.

(I bet he'd fit in better on Richard Dawkins' site.)

EXC, I'm not going to answer this silly propagandist rhetoric again so make sure you're listening carefully.

COSTS DO NOT COME OUT OF PROFIT!

EXC, I have a question for you (or anyone willing to argue for the sake of libertarians).

Could you do without any public services? 

Any as in any at all. By removing public services they become optional, a luxury. I would have to assume that by arguing for libertarianism they are okay without any then, since they don't deem public services necessary for society. 

That is the reason I am asking.

With respect, this is a sort of silly argument: 90% of the population being home-schooled by high-school dropouts? You can do better than that mathematical inconsistency. You do make interesting points as concerns home-schooling, though. I had the misfortune to live in South Carolina for five years where the public educational system is a joke (don't worry, I paid exorbitant property taxes for a failed system during the years that I lived there). We had considered homeschooling our child for that time (which would have increased my workday to ~19hours), but instead found a private school that met our criteria. I am not attempting to put words in your mouth, but you seem to be enamored of public projects. Recognizing that you and I are separated by continents, do you believe that education should be the province of the government?

Looking forward to your reply,

UE.

So would you be okay living without any public services? If you are taking the stance to defend libertarianism, that is. 

Like I've explained, public services or public servant is pretty much a BS concept. I'm not even sure what you mean by 'public service' because something like the electric company is a regulated private enterprise. And every business must be regulated to the exent they don't commit fraud or pose a health danger.

I'm not an anarchist. There needs to be elected administrators that must answer to taxpayers and the public. But you've never explained why we can't just have a small group of elected and accountable administrators that hire and fire companies to provide services that everyone pays for as they go. There is nothing magical about a 'public' servant.

There's actually very few places that are 'public' as in anyone can visit there for free. If you go to any national or state park, you pay an entrance fee to pay for the 'public services' in the park. But the same is true if I visit an private amusement park, so I'm not sure what the real distiction is other than one is supposed to be non-profit.

If you live in a gated community and you pay for all it services, you have an administration and security to enforce it's rules. I have no problems being on a cruise ship with private services. The 'public' roads are usually OK because they are paid for in fees for using them(gas tax, registration), unless the politicans spend the money on other things.

The only places I have a problem with are 'public' areas where there is no fee to enter and use. If I go to the streets of San Francisco, I encounter a lot of homeless that urinate and deficate in the streets and create crime problems. Same is true if I visit a no-fee beach. The state had to make a lot of beaches have a fee entrance otherwise they'd be overrun with homeless that would do damage and never pay.

So what I'm in favor of is eliminating the few areas that are left that are free and not pay as you go. Raise taxes on land and other natural resource usage to pay for social services that get the homeless into jobs that can enable them to pay for what they use(like security, heathcare and a toilet).

"Show me when I called you specifically an arrogant prick"

Thomathy beat me to it.

"Furthermore, I have far too much more important shit going on in my life to give a FLYING FUCK what any of you perfect strangers think of me or my opinions."

Yeah, like you're the only one with problems. Here's a news flash for you: I couldn't care LESS about your uneducated opinions and hypocrisy wrapped in insults and conspiracy theories. Next time you want to discuss something with someone, I suggest you actually learn about the subject first. And when you're told you're wrong about something, instead of taking it personally, find out if you are.

Maybe you can explain to me then because I don't understand. I lived in a private community on a lake. The guards didn't let anyone in unless you owned property, paid the administration bill or you were a guest. We had 'public' areas and public facilities, but we still had 'private' property. Everyone paid for the services they used via the administration bill. The guards enforced the community rules. So were all these services public or private?''

Seems like the only difference between our community and those on the outside was that we didn't allow people to come and use the land, facilities and services without paying  the bill for them. That's why these communities are popular.

The distinction between public and private has become that one allows you to get free services, the other makes you pay for what you use. But then when the government goes broke, they force you to pay just like a private entity. That's why our broke governments raise public university tuition and charge user fees for parks and services now. Non pay as you go systems can't be maintained.

So how do I answer CC's question about what 'public' services could I live without when I lived in a private community? In this case what services were 'public' and what was 'private'?

Seems like the more important question is 'How can a system be maintained that allows those receiving the benefits of a service to be continually subsidized by those that receive little or no benefit?'

I said to show where I called you specifically an arrogant prick. It never happened,  so the only thing Thomathy beat you to was showing a general statement I made. You can't show me because I NEVER said it. Just because my opinion isn't the same as yours doesn't make me wrong, nor does it make you right, it means we have a difference of opinion. I've seen very little fact about anything, just peoples own personal opinions. And just to add, though I shouldn't have to because I've said it once already, I don't take opinions or opposing views personally, I take personal attacks personally.

You know what, you should stay around.  You really, really should.  I won't give you slack for saying that you weren't coming back.  I've been baited myself to post in threads I said I'd left.  Don't just stay and lurk either.  You ought to post, even if your posts get ripped up (and they haven't all, have they?).  Just try to actually rip up those responses too; don't just call your arrogant prick of an interlocutor names.  I very much doubt if you'd be worse at responding intelligently than EXC, and that really is high praise.  Stick around, because if there's anything you like, it's why you're still here letting us know about it.

Now, 'anyone know why debating politics FAILS?  (A: Read this thread.)