Reduce Government Drag

Josh Cryer · 2003-04-16 02:14:38

Ahh yeah, those Thorium deposits are good. If you want to get rich real quick on Mars, just land some facilities around the two most highly concentrated areas, then you basically control the major deposits. All that's left is controlling the reactors (this is pretty easy, just make an underhanded deal with the nuclear reactor people so that they sell them really cheap, undercutting all competition).

Robert, I used to shrug off the kind of system you're suggesting as completely impractical. But I'll try to be less critical of you. You seem to be envisioning a Western-style life, but I think you're honestly neglecting an opportunity to make that Western-style life better. So that the society, as it were, would be formed more rationally.

Okay, so, you need life support on Mars. We all know this. Life support means, water, air and food, and a place to stay. Now we can look at it two ways.

We have a hab. We rent out each room, rent out food and water packs, and rent out air (a tax perhaps for the air and water, since consumption of such things is hard to manage). What's missing from this equation? An ecnomony. We need to see what jobs people will be doing, and what kind of work they would be doing. Okay, we have a nuclear prospector, that's one interesting job that undoubtedly has good returns, what else? Maintaining the life support systems, ahh, that's another job, but this should be relatively simple if we've designed things right. So wouldn't the value of someones labor who maintained life support systems be very low? I mean, after all, they don't do much.

You made a comment about the farm life. I'm a farmer, born one, at least. My life was very simple. Granted, I didn't have much machinery (though I would help my neighbors with their machinery), just a tiller, mower, etc., we raised sheep so not much use for it. But guess what? I didn't do much. But what I did do, directly benefitted me. I didn't give my money to some big wig just so he could cut out a huge precentage of it and give it back to me.

So, are we going to let these people who don't do much live on their little bit of labor? Or are we going to force them into a certain class because they have an ?easy job?? Agriculturally speaking, how much work is required to tend to some hydroponic/aeroponic gardens? Technically speaking, how much work is required to replace a few scrubbers? Heck... if it's organic, why need to replace them at all?

Heh, I had a friend, who used to ?work? for Sears, remodeling (I think I've told this story before, so ignore it if you know it). They needed those huge shelves moved from one area to another. Well, it turns out, that every other day they'd wind up moving shelves, for seemingly no reason in particular, sometimes moving stuff they'd moved just the day before. At first it seemed like indecesive management, but after awhile, it almost seemed obvious, that they were moving stuff, because there really was nothing else to do. They should've stacked the shelves in a storeroom somewhere, come back in a month, and put them where they belonged. Simple. Now, we can go on a moral story about who's wrong here (I mean, I'm sure people would say that the management was showing undeserved charity to people who were doing absolutely nothing productive), but let's look at the real picture. With regular labour, your employeer needs to ?make the most? out of your work. You're there for 8 hours, they need to have you ?doing something? for 7 of those hours. That's just a fact of life for a majorty of people.

Does this tell us something? That broken systems are ?better,? since people work more on them? I mean, clearly if someone is maintaining life support systems 8 hours a day he's doing more work than someone who is doing similar duties less than 30 minutes a week or something. The problem with well designed systems is twofold. First, less people have to work for the same ammount of product. And secondly, with less people working there are less people to buy said product. The only way to work around this problem is to make it so that people get a majority benefit of their labor. So what if they spend 30 minutes a week maintaining systems, they deserve everything that a week of system work creates (divided amongst the workers). Period. It doesn't matter if 30 minutes of said work means hardly breaking a sweat. If we don't distribute the wealth this way we can't have efficient systems if we're going to have any reasonably sized population.

So. We have a hab. Everyone owns their room because they inhabit said room. Everyone is responsible for maintaining their portion of said duties in the hab which are necessary for life support. They take turns maintaining these systems, all which are quite efficient, well designed and take very little effort to maintain (these duties can be traded among the inhabitants for other duties). This leaves the people room to explore other ventures, and makes class irrelevant.

Bill White · 2003-04-16 07:55:50

So, are we going to let these people who don't do much live on their little bit of labor? Or are we going to force them into a certain class because they have an ?easy job?? Agriculturally speaking, how much work is required to tend to some hydroponic/aeroponic gardens? Technically speaking, how much work is required to replace a few scrubbers? Heck... if it's organic, why need to replace them at all?

I have posted before the idea that one signficant enemy of early settlers will be BOREDOM! I heard howls of protest - don't be ridiculous - BORED? on Mars!

Yet I stand by my prediction, at least for many of the settlers.

There will be hours, days, weeks and months of interminable boredom intermixed with moments of awesome beauty and transcendent discovery and other moments of pure stark terror.

RobertDyck · 2003-04-16 08:02:20

Moving to an economy based on product rather than work hours can avoid "make work". Piece work is one way to measure that work, and paying someone based on how many of something they make is something that does exist today. Piece work can be measured for a manufacturing environment, for example to give someone materials to take home for 100 units of something, then come back to the factory with finished product when done for the next set of raw materials. The reason there isn't much of this is that often the "piece work" that is contracted out from a factory is at a low pay rate. The alternative is just self-employment; individuals running their own small business to provide a product or service. That is available now. How many people are self-employed or small business owners? It does have the advantage that you don't have a boss, only you determine your productivity rate.

A small colony can live as a commune; and that works in a very small community where everyone knows everyone else. There is no need to keep track of who does how much within a commune, but each colony must trade with each other on a commodity basis. I think the Soviet Union showed that communism over a large nation doesn't work. The Israeli kibbutz shows a small commune does work, but it is treated as a corporation as far as trade outside the community.

I guess I was trying to describe a system that isn't too radically different, and permits a close to zero tax economy. There is no need for social assistance within a kibbutz; when something needs to get done someone will do it. Are you suggesting the primary economy be based on a series of kibbutzim?

clark · 2003-04-16 10:02:56

Are you suggesting the primary economy be based on a series of kibbutzim?

Yes, I am.

Everyone within the habitat is an employee of the habitat. The Habitat, i.e., the Company, is responsible for providing it's workers with the neccessary commodities to carry out their jobs. So the Company provides health care, housing, water, food, power, shelter, etc. Everything neccessary for people to live on Mars.

All internal 'business' within the community is either provided by the Company, or by individuals within the Company- people can have a small business within the habitat, but not outside. Any external 'business' is conducted solely through the Company- so say a successful internal business wants to expand out- they can, but it must be done through the Company.Most of the profits made from external business would go to the Company (i.e. -everyone within the habitat.)

This helps pay the bills, and allows for other social programs like free education.

We seriously need to move away from this idea of 'renting' our neccessites of life. It is nothing more than neo-feudilism, and it is a dangerous propoisition in space.

Alexander Sheppard · 2003-04-16 10:27:03

Regarding my message about "libertarianism", what I said does not have much directly to do with the first colonies on Mars ; I'm really just talking generally. If you want a system where people keep the fruits of their labor, then that is not capitalism. People in our society do not keep the fruits of their labor, rather they work for people who have the resources to exploit them into giving that away, thus increasing the wealth of the exploiters and keeping the exploited in a life of servitude, even if, as in some cases, the exploited make a decent living. I don't know what kind of a society exactly should take the place of capitalism, but it should be one where people are for the most part equal, and where everyone has a similiar standard of living and a say in what they are doing with their lives. So, no bosses telling people what to do at work ; that needs to be decided democratically, or individually, the latter being the preferable choice, to be used whenever it is found to be possible for the task at hand.

soph · 2003-04-16 13:03:15

Wow, your economic analysis is completely off, once again.

Capitalism allows you to keep the fruits of your labor, while socialism and communism, and other similar "equal" systems do not. If I outproduce my neighbor, under these so-called "fair" systems, I do not get my share of the resources, no, my output is robbed from me and distributed to my underproductive neighbor. However, in capitalism, these "exploited slaves" can quit and work somewhere else, for money. They can start their own business. This "life of servitude" is a fallacy.

This kind of an economy would never work. Management is a necessity in any enterprise. Why do all democracies have an executive branch? Because there has to be a top manager.

With equal resource appropriation, as in the USSR, there is no incentive to work harder, and thus, the economic model will never work.

Josh Cryer · 2003-04-16 13:55:26

Robert,

Moving to an economy based on product rather than work hours can avoid "make work".

Well, let me say that I'm not really dictating the overall economy here. I'm just saying what ought to happen with necessities, because they're almost inarguably within public domain. We need to survive, and we have the technology to do so, so let's make the most of it. That's my line of thinking.

Are you suggesting the primary economy be based on a series of kibbutzim?

I went back to the Martian Kibbutzim thread to be sure I knew what you were asking. One could say that that's the sort of model I'm talking about. Though I feel that centralization isn't always necessary, and one of the key points kapito made was about a ?centralized educational and care system.? I avoided that thread (or at least I think I did, I haven't read it all), because it devolved into a discussion about children, and how to raise them, so I'm not going to bring up an alternate solution here to that exact problem. I just think that central control over resources is unnecessary, and I think a more distributed democratic system would be way better.

For example, instead of the argiculture facilities being maintained by a central parliment or whatever, they would be controlled and run by all the people in each sector in which one exists. They basic idea behind kapito's model is actually quite elegant when you think about it, I just think democracy should play a much larger role. Each sector in a large colony would be able to define its own methods to achieve similar goals, they would only be restricted by the reality of resources, etc.

clark, why is it that we would be agreeing with each other if not for definitions? I could rewrite your whole post by changing a few words, and we'd be in perfect agreement. Ahh well, I can agree without having to change definitions around, I'm glad we at least seem to see eye to eye.

Alexander Sheppard, hmm, have you read Proudhon's What Is Property? Interesting comments you have there.

soph, if I make a hundred shoes a day, and I'm getting ten cents a day, I am certainly not getting the fruits of my labor. Commission doesn't exist for every job in capitalism, and even then, you never get 100%. That's what Alexander was saying. Socialism wouldn't give you 100% either, though, neither would any system, really (except perhaps anarchy, but you'd first have to reconcile that you couldn't ever have 101%).

Also, you should stop lying, not ?everyone? can start their own business. It's true, I know it's hard to believe, but it's true. Don't take another thread off on another tangent because you feel like trolling where legitimate discussion is occuring.

Ugh, I'm tired of unsubstantiated posts.

soph · 2003-04-16 13:59:32

Trolling? Ah, I see, as long as somebody supports your fringe view of economics, it's not trolling? If somebody opposes you, no matter how right they are, they're trolling?

And besides, I've resolved not to discuss economics with you until you have a real grasp on the realities of economics. So you can postulate all you want on the brilliance of Proudhon.

clark · 2003-04-16 14:03:38

clark, why is it that we would be agreeing with each other if not for definitions?

<grin> welcome to the folly of language. The written word is but the bastard child of this reality we wish to understand. the very act of speaking only serves to move it further from our grasp, and the written word is further still. But we can blow our minds another day...

What would you change to my definitions? How would you change them? And why?

If this is too off-topic, please PM me.

Josh Cryer · 2003-04-16 15:26:17

soph, since you ran off on our last discussion, I don't think you have any right to try to get another one started. You are completely disingenuious when you pretend that you want real discourse. Consider yourself ignored until you say something with substance.

BTW, I only note Proudhon when talking about liberties along with other things. I make concessions for every single system (as none is perfect). So please, don't lie and say that I have a fringe position, I'm tired of people making assumptions about me.

clark, just replace Company with Democratic Commitee. I don't think that Compeny conveys that people ought to be able to make these decisions with a large, well informed voice. If you disagree, then perhaps we do disagree on this point, but in either case, it's an entity which would deal with outside trade and so on, especially if it affects the overall wealth of the colony. In your case the Entity is a Company which is controlled and run however, and in my case the Entity is a Democratic Commitee.

soph · 2003-04-16 15:37:14

Consider yourself ignored until you say something with substance.

Do I have an echo?

So, in other words, until I agree with you. Got it.

clark · 2003-04-16 15:49:03

Ah, of course.

I tend to avoid stipulating the inner workings of a system, as I am biased in what I perceive to be the optimal solution. I don't say "democracy" becuase democracy could be the wrong solution, or there could be multiple solutions that work just as well as my own pet theory.

Everyone has a comfort zone, and my goal here is to think through an overall system that will work, regardless of the form used to run it.

If people want a King, who am I to say no? If people want nothing, who am I to say no?

However, a *framework* is neccessary, which is what i am focusing on here.

I say Company, but not how that Company is formed or operated. I outline responsibilites, but not how those are realized. Do you understand?

Most people tune me out without ever realizing this, but hey, i expect as much anyway.

I don't think that Compeny conveys that people ought to be able to make these decisions with a large, well informed voice.

That's becuase you have certain ideas and terms associated with the word "company". You need to move beyond obvious definitions and look at what I am saying in the context of the discussion ( which you are doing).

If I say "democratic committee" then others will dredge up their association with those words, which are more exact in their definition. People stop listening the further you define yourself becuase of built in bias against information that does not jive with their personal world view. So, I try to be as general as possible to convey the idea, but not get tripped up on detail. Detail is the next step.

If you want to know my vision of this, it would be a Company as we know it here in America. There are leaders, management, etc. There is a hierarchy. However, this hierarchy can be changed. Seperate beuacratic entities can exsist, one charged with the financial aspects of the Company (read business), one charged with the welfare of the people (read society), and one charged with the mainteance of facilities (read Community). Within each bueracratic (please don't think BIG) is further sub-division to place the appropriate checks and balances within the each main divisions. There is of course checks and balances between the main divisions (Corporate, Human, and Facility) themselves.

This allows for the greatest flexibility in adjusting the various powers and responsibilites within the divisions. there is room to try out several different types of governance in each division, or sub-division. So the Human division can be democratically elected, while having Corporate leaders be appointed by the elected Human division, and then the Corporate appointee's choose the plans and personell for the Facilities division. This is an example, and it could easily be changed and modifed as neccessary.

Is this easier to follow?

RobertDyck · 2003-04-19 21:07:25

Ok guys, here is another plan. "The Company" builds a permanents shuttle between Earth orbit and Mars orbit. This isn't a cycler because it will actually enter high Earth orbit and stay there for passengers to board or return to Earth. A small on-orbit shuttle (something like a bus) will ferry passengers between the permanent shuttle and space station in LEO. "The Company" also builds Mars landers capable of ferrying passengers between the interplanetary spacecraft in high Mars orbit and Mars surface. Some other companies build a space hotel in Low Earth Orbit, a space bus capable of carrying passengers to/from the space station, and a refuelling tanker. Some other company builds a mining operation on Phobos or Deimos to harvest ice for fuel, and a tanker to deliver that fuel to the interplanetary spacecraft. "The Company" may provide the heavy equipment for asteroid mining and may sell the fuel tanker to the Mars moon mining operation.

As another line of business, "The Company" builds heavy equipment for mining near Earth asteroids, both metal and carbonaceous chondrite. "The Company" does not operate any mining operations, but does provide heavy equipment for asteroid mining.

"The Company" also builds a spaceport on the surface of Mars. This will include a city dome. Anyone who works for the company at an off-Earth location (such as Mars) will be issued an apartment complete with pressure, heat, electricity, water, sewage disposal, cable TV, and high-speed internet access. The apartment is free of charge (part of the employee compensation package). The dome has a free public transit system, although any "off road" travel outside the dome would require a privately owned rover. The company also offers free cafeteria meals for employees; but no food to be taken outside the cafeteria, and cafeteria meals have limited selection. Restaurant meals or groceries would have to be paid for by the employee.

Entertainment services available in the dome would include restaurants, movie theatres, and rentals for rovers, pressure suits, pressure tents and mountain climbing gear. There would also be a shopping mall. "The Company" would provide the mall, but individual stores and entertainment services would be private small businesses.

Elsewhere on Mars groups could decide how they want to organize themselves. Individual farmers could build greenhouses, hydroponics, or aquaculture farms. Miners could establish mining operations. Anyone else who comes up with a means to support their own homestead may build their own home. A group may choose to build a kibbutz, or any other form of village. There would be no need for central organization, each village would be independent. If they want to shop in the "big city" there is always the spaceport dome.

Company salaries would not have to be large since housing, utilities and transportation would be provided. Try calculating how much of your income goes to income tax, house mortgage / apartment rent, utility bills, car payments, repairs and gasoline. How much is left?

soph · 2003-04-19 21:21:44

That sounds fine, various economic systems can exist in the vicinity of the city, which would probably be dependent on trade with Earth (and so, would most likely be corporate/capitalist, surrounded by farm kibbutz type "villages" and perhaps factory domes).

The spaceport can grow into a major city (for example, New York city growing from Ellis Island immigration) by attaching domes as immigration increased. Perhaps a residential, commercial, etc. dome. "The Company" may, in each case, be a varied mix of competitors. In fact, this is almost a necessity. What if the Mars Supply Company goes down? We better have Martian Supply Co. B to provide our supplies!

I would like to add, if an employee is to be fired, he must get at least a 1-2 month notice. This is because all of his basic necessities are being provided by the company, so they will need time to find a new home, food provider, etc.

clark · 2003-04-21 11:11:01

"The Company" builds a permanents shuttle between Earth orbit and Mars orbit.

No, a Martian federation of "Companies" forms with other Terran organizations to build and maintain the permanent shuttle system. This is analogous to a "super-highway" in space. Control of this system is essentially control of all of space. It behooves all of us to keep this out of private hands, and in the domain of the public. It can be funded through shipment taxes, and/or general taxes for all space related groups.

If we are to be consistent with the theme of space as the birthright for all of humanity, then all of humanity should have a hand in supporting a system that will make the pracitcal utilization of our shared birthright.

soph · 2003-04-21 11:15:37

clark: That's what I was getting at when I said "The Company" had better mean multiple competing companies, that can't dominate the market and force unfavorable conditions down the consumers' throats.

RobertDyck · 2003-04-22 00:43:24

Actually, I had a dream that my company would be "The Company". Splitting it into multiple competing companies just destroys it before we have gotten to Mars. I suggested leaving fuel supply from a Mars moon to another company because another member on this board had expressed his desire to run that operation. I notice that the "Space Island" group and at least one other company want to operate a space hotel in Low Earth Orbit. The X-Prize contestants want to provide transportation to Low Earth Orbit. The Artemis Society wants to colonize the Moon. If we all pull together we can achieve all our goals. One reason I mentioned the tax system was to work with "The Company": no tax other than service fees inside the dome, and payroll tax after a city-scale economy has been established.

To get a serious aerospace company started I need to land contracts. Currently the only customer is government space agencies like NASA and the Canadian Space Agency. They expect people with degrees behind their name. I tried to pull together a team to develop a Mars balloon mission, and seriously tried to bid on NASA's Next Generation Ion Engine, but my electrical engineer pulled out at the last minute; too late to replace him. I now will be presenting a science paper at the Humans in Space conference on my idea for a life support system. I will need people with biology credentials to land a contract to work on that. There are other projects we can start with, but I need people willing to do serious work. There were people willing to work on a serious project on the last message board, and people with aerospace industry contacts on the various email lists. Are the people on this message board just posting to waste time and flame each other, or are there people here willing and able to do serious work? I thought the SpacesuitMars group was going to do something serious, and had collected some research into the subject, but when I tried to collect serious engineering research papers from NASA and industrial suppliers, as well as contacting leading researchers in the field and NASA engineers, the result was a shift to build yet another analogue suit. Each analogue habitat already has a supply of analogue suits so there is no need for yet another analogue suit; I dropped out of that group out of frustration. I had to inform my engineer contacts at a NASA center that serious research by the Mars Society into developing a real spacesuit for Mars has been suspended.

Are there people here willing to do serious work to make "The Company" a reality? It will have to start small and grow, and take a lot of real work. I could list several projects we could work on, but I would be wasting my time if the members of this board only want to debate current politics.

clark · 2003-04-22 08:28:32

Are there people here willing to do serious work to make "The Company" a reality?

Like what? I think alot of people lack the neccessary technical background to meet your requirements.

Perhaps your goals would be better served if you described the skill sets you need for whatever project you want to pursue. Then it is a matter of assiginging roles, tasking responsibility, etc.

I might add, that Martian Politics section here invites politcal disccusions.

Socrates · 2004-09-02 16:34:16

MarsGuy, this is exactly the kind of tax I've been advocating as a socialist and yet you libertarians have the same idea. Maybe you ideology is not as idiotic as I origionally thought it to be. Of course like all libertarians you are infected with the false ideology that free enterprise is essentially the best way to get rid of tyranny. However Enron has nailed the lid on the coffin that laisse-faire capitalism can be almost as harmful to mankind as a totalitarian leader. Get that through your head. Also the tax classes will need to be adjusted as the value of the dollar fluctuates (and it will fluctuate) and gross income for each social class changes. Also I think that the money of the wealthiest should go to provide basic neccessities to the poor (you know like food, water, medicine, shelter, and clothes) for free (at least to the poor).

spaceman9000 · 2005-10-16 09:33:20

Alright, I finally find libertarians at this site! Anyway, my solution is this:
1) eliminate ALL forms of compulsory taxes (sales, income, etc.), let people be charible to their government, not forced
2) privatize ALL government organizations EXCEPT the police, armed services, and the court - those are the ONLY purposes of government anyway
3) deregulate ALL industries and let the free market regulate itself through charters and competition
4) disband the FDA, FAA, FCC, and ALL other New-Deal era programs, because if no one noticed, the Great Depression ended a LONG time ago
5) stamp out welfare, food stamps, public schools, business subsidies, and other wasteful government controls on society
oh, yeah, and most importantly:
6) eliminate political party and lobbyist controls in government by cutting out political and lobbyist salaries

spaceman9000 · 2005-10-16 20:14:33

In addition to my previous post, I would like to add that solution #6 implies this: career politicans and political famliy powerhouses (the Bushs, Kennedys, etc.) would fade away and the era of statesmen (like Jefferson and Washington) would return. Part of this transistion is to establish this new frontier of exploration and colonization on Mars, the moon, the asteroid belt, and so on. The salary part means that politicans would serve the people voluntarly, after all, Hubert Hoover, the self-made millionaire, was president for free.
I just personally think that politicans should not need a paycheck, a huge pension, better-then-average health care, or other 'perks', and then complain about taxews being 'too low' and budget deficits. Just a thought.

RobS · 2005-10-16 23:39:37

Alright, I finally find libertarians at this site! Anyway, my solution is this:
1) eliminate ALL forms of compulsory taxes (sales, income, etc.), let people be charible to their government, not forced
2) privatize ALL government organizations EXCEPT the police, armed services, and the court - those are the ONLY purposes of government anyway
3) deregulate ALL industries and let the free market regulate itself through charters and competition
4) disband the FDA, FAA, FCC, and ALL other New-Deal era programs, because if no one noticed, the Great Depression ended a LONG time ago
5) stamp out welfare, food stamps, public schools, business subsidies, and other wasteful government controls on society
oh, yeah, and most importantly:
6) eliminate political party and lobbyist controls in government by cutting out political and lobbyist salaries

If you eliminate taxes (#1) how will you pay for #2? I have never heard of anyone donating enough to cover the costs, and if businesses and rich people "donate" it will come with strings (i.e., don't arrest me; protect my property).

No FDA? Who will make sure our drugs aren't fakes? In the nineteenth century there was no drug regulation and snake oil remedies abounded.

No public schools? Let the poor fall into illiteracy and let the rich send their kids to the best public schools they can afford?

Deregulate all industry? They can pour their pollutants into rivers if they want?Pittsburgh's air can be opaque again? If a hundred thousand die ever year from air pollution, that's okay? If the gasoline we buy is thirty percent water, that's just "buyer be ware"? If you happen to get a catastrophic illness and lose all your savings, no one will help you get on your feet again?

My goodness.

-- RobS

idiom · 2005-10-16 23:47:14

The utopia of the strong.

Grypd · 2005-10-17 17:14:02

The problem with the idea of getting rid of taxation especially non compulsory is that then totally hinders goverment from functioning. Sad to say but all goverments from good to poor need money to live. People will not give money to there goverment not in the sums it needs to be able to pay for the services people require.

You would by deregulating industry and also privatising the organisations designed to protect people destroy lots of peoples lives. What is to stop a company deciding it needs to put a toxic waste dump next to your home or your childrens school. These regulations and of course the agencies to ensure regulations are carried out. Do not expect the police to be able to stop them as they will need specialised advice and that just wont be in the goverment sector and the Police just will not be able to pay for hiring it. And since more and more power will be going to private security agencies or company police they would hardly even want too. Police would have more important jobs protecting the citizens who do pay for them the companies employees.

As buisness takes over more and more of what goverment did it would then more or less control the country. Education of children would make a society of classes with private security companies patroling those areas that where company towns. The poor unwashed trash that had recieved no education and medical help would be disenfranchised and since they have no money they would have no power in the only type that matters now purchasing power.

This is a future so loved by the writers of the "cyberpunk" genre of SciFi. It is what happens when a goverment becomes but a tool of corporations and at the moment only a decent goverment with power has the strength to stop this happening.

spaceman9000 · 2005-10-17 18:39:52

If you eliminate taxes (#1) how will you pay for #2? I have never heard of anyone donating enough to cover the costs, and if businesses and rich people "donate" it will come with strings (i.e., don't arrest me; protect my property).

Ok, first of all is this: the government shouldn't need half of my paycheck to pay for the essential things: like police, the military, and the court. Next, if I volunteer maybe 10-15% of my income to the government. I can do that. Does that mean that I necessarily like what the government spends it on, well, I can stop donating at any time to tell them that. But, since its forced, I basically dont have a specific say in where my hard-earned money goes. The only catch is this: I have a say where my money goes. This 'don't arrest me' stuff is dumb because, if I dont want to obey the law, I can just as well leave the country, or state, or city.

No FDA? Who will make sure our drugs aren't fakes? In the nineteenth century there was no drug regulation and snake oil remedies abounded.

Let me ask you this: How do you know that the drugs out now arent fakes? I have heard that some FDA officals actually are on the bankroll of some food and drug companies and do them favors. One of these is that some dairy and meat companies develop the Food Pyramid that we "guide" our diet after.
Another one is the government subsudies to these industries. And, its not all the companies in the industry, but pre-selected companies chosen by these officals, and the competitors have regulations set on them and some innovation in that competitor may be stamped out as well.
Now, I dont know about you, but I think that these subsidies and letting the companies write the official books on diet, nutrition and medicine is a really really bad idea. Now, granted, my sources arent infallible (PETA and Kevin Trudeau), and I know that they try to pull an agenda on me, and I think their agenda is a bunch of bull****. But they do bring up an interesting thinking point: about the unholy alliance of meat, dairy, and drug industries with the government posing a serious threat to us.

No public schools? Let the poor fall into illiteracy and let the rich send their kids to the best public schools they can afford?

No, no, no, you misunderstand the concept of competition. As I tried to state before, if some select companies/organizations have special government privilege, and the competitors, what message does that send to the consumers?
Competition drives prices down. The companies compete for YOUR business. They want YOU as a customer. They want YOU to be satisfied enough with your product to REFER it to others. I
counter your argument about school quality with this: shoes, harmless shoes, are the middle-class and below without shoes, or computers, we're obviously talking on this forum because of computers. Are they only in the hands of the rich? NO, they are mass marketed to EVERYONE, everyone wants to have a computer. The modern-day 'computer revolution' was possible because of the free market and the companies who wanted to bring this to the people & they do this by selling.
Are you against selling and marketing and profits?
Are you against the market, or what?
I'm confused at what you are getting at here.

Deregulate all industry? They can pour their pollutants into rivers if they want?Pittsburgh's air can be opaque again? If a hundred thousand die ever year from air pollution, that's okay? If the gasoline we buy is thirty percent water, that's just "buyer be ware"? If you happen to get a catastrophic illness and lose all your savings, no one will help you get on your feet again?

One term: Private Property Rights. Air pollution is a violation of those rights. What I mean is that EVERYONE 'owns' the air. Its phyically impossible (unless you live in a pressured-dome, like in space) to seperate the air like siphoning off land or water to investors. Pouring toxins into the river is also a violation of these rights, IF the toxins touch your property unwillingly.
Let's say that I own 20 acres for my park thats open to everybody. If ACME manufacturing set up next door and used the river in between out lots for power, and I dont object, thats fine. But, the moment he puts toxins in and I dont want it to spread to my side, he should stop pouring the toxins in. But, with the government owning the land, they can do whatever on their land, and if it spreads to my land, thats my problem. Read the article, it discusses this further.
http://www.lp.org/issues/environment.shtml
As for the gasoline, again, COMPETITION, if I got jipped out of $25 for gas in my car, I will raise a compliant against the company. If they dont listen, I will take legal action. If that doesn't help, I'll buy gas elsewhere next time. I see it like this: if this company really is looking forward for themselves, they will get/produce low-price, high-quality, and sell it for a profit. If the need exists, the product will be bought. If not, it stays at the refinery. And, in turn, the gas station will sell the gas for lower prices so that MORE customers will buy, generating bigger profit In essence, everybody wins, provided that government stay out. Thats where the trem "lasieez-faire" comes in handy.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#51 2003-04-16 02:14:38

Re: Reduce Government Drag

#52 2003-04-16 07:55:50

Re: Reduce Government Drag

#53 2003-04-16 08:02:20

Re: Reduce Government Drag

#54 2003-04-16 10:02:56

Re: Reduce Government Drag

#55 2003-04-16 10:27:03

Re: Reduce Government Drag

#56 2003-04-16 13:03:15

Re: Reduce Government Drag

#57 2003-04-16 13:55:26

Re: Reduce Government Drag

#58 2003-04-16 13:59:32

Re: Reduce Government Drag

#59 2003-04-16 14:03:38

Re: Reduce Government Drag

#60 2003-04-16 15:26:17

Re: Reduce Government Drag

#61 2003-04-16 15:37:14

Re: Reduce Government Drag

#62 2003-04-16 15:49:03

Re: Reduce Government Drag

#63 2003-04-19 21:07:25

Re: Reduce Government Drag

#64 2003-04-19 21:21:44

Re: Reduce Government Drag

#65 2003-04-21 11:11:01

Re: Reduce Government Drag

#66 2003-04-21 11:15:37

Re: Reduce Government Drag

#67 2003-04-22 00:43:24

Re: Reduce Government Drag

#68 2003-04-22 08:28:32

Re: Reduce Government Drag

#69 2004-09-02 16:34:16

Re: Reduce Government Drag

#70 2005-10-16 09:33:20

Re: Reduce Government Drag

#71 2005-10-16 20:14:33

Re: Reduce Government Drag

#72 2005-10-16 23:39:37

Re: Reduce Government Drag

#73 2005-10-16 23:47:14

Re: Reduce Government Drag

#74 2005-10-17 17:14:02

Re: Reduce Government Drag

#75 2005-10-17 18:39:52

Re: Reduce Government Drag

Board footer