There Is No Such Thing As Public Money

[SNACR]

This would my preferred method of providing infrastructure - independent, not-for profit companies run on a customer service basis. It's doable because, as I understand it, this how 'lean' companies work - providing customer service/product at lowest cost as a goal with profit as a by product - the profit is not the driver for company motivation.

I was thinking along these lines of govt retaining ownership of infrastructure and then placing online auctions for the work.

However, I'm unconvinced this doesn't just lead to unprofitable private businesses constantly collapsing unprofitably as businesses bid below cost for work. I don't think many eBay businesses are viable standalone and we run online auctions for suppliers and, while good for us in low prices, suppliers frequently regret their low bids and confess they lost on the deal. The result is a rosy cheeked new supplier almost every year.

This may appear to be a best value free market fantasy but ultimately I'd have to concede it's probably not sensible for a stable and viable economy.

[Nickolarge]

Quite a lot, but that's not really relevant to the point is it?

And the point is..........that Thatcher was full of nonsensical soundbites written for her by somebody else. To make matters worse her style of speaking made even the most well constructed ones sound stilted and false.

Still, what the hey, I'm sure someone's now going to tell me what a wonderful public speaker she was. Just like the "great communicator" Reagan. Just goes to show that if somebody is saying what you want to hear it sounds good to you.

[SNACR]

No, i am saying that the state always uses violence to achieve it's aims. That is why it's called "the state" and is treated differently than other organisations. i am saying this because it is true.

And it's not true of "any" organisation. Free market organisations operate on a take it or leave it basis, charities are different again.

Except, if you have young mouths to feed, and there's no welfare state. Is it really take it or leave it?

[Injin]

Except, if you have young mouths to feed, and there's no welfare state. Is it really take it or leave it?

You mean you should have thought on before having kids?

[SNACR]

And the point is..........that Thatcher was full of nonsensical soundbites written for her by somebody else. To make matters worse her style of speaking made even the most well constructed ones sound stilted and false.

Still, what the hey, I'm sure someone's now going to tell me what a wonderful public speaker she was. Just like the "great communicator" Reagan. Just goes to show that if somebody is saying what you want to hear it sounds good to you.

Socialists always have the best public speakers.

That fella at Nuremberg - talk about a show.

[shipbuilder]

No, i am saying that the state always uses violence to achieve it's aims. That is why it's called "the state" and is treated differently than other organisations. i am saying this because it is true.

And it's not true of "any" organisation. Free market organisations operate on a take it or leave it basis, charities are different again.

I don't understand what you meant by 'it's merely deferred violence', then. Can you explain?

[Authoritarian]

And there is no need to be violent, so we don't need a state.

Neither of thse things are part of a free market.

If used proportionately and appropriately violence (or the threat of it) could be a very useful social tool.

I know you believe that the state is the source of all our problems but you're wrong, most people -given the chance- would quite happily trample all over the rights of others. Pointing a gun in their face is the only way to prevent this happening.

The state offers your only chance of salvation

Edited April 14, 2011 by Authoritarian

[Injin]

I don't understand what you meant by 'it's merely deferred violence', then. Can you explain?

The state gets it's cash in by tax. Tax is extortion.

If it instead borrows money from someone, it is agreeing to extort someone later on.

Deferred violence.

[SNACR]

You mean you should have thought on before having kids?

I'd got my own house, car and was happily living within my means.

Then a tsunami swallowed it all.

Quite right, I really was the thoughtless architect of my own circumstances.

[Nickolarge]

My recollection is that the state owned concerns that made real money were mostly those that were given a state enforced monopoly (e.g. the Royal Mail). A bit like the Mafia and their "insurance service".

And your recollection would be wrong.

British Airways had to compete with other airlines and BP with other oil companies. Amersham International had no "state enforced monopoly". etc. etc.

[shipbuilder]

The state gets it's cash in by tax. Tax is extortion.

If it instead borrows money from someone, it is agreeing to extort someone later on.

Deferred violence.

But what if the borrowed money is used to then make a profit by selling in a market and it becomes self-funding, like a private company?

[Injin]

If used proportionately and appropriately violence (or the threat of it) could be a very useful social tool.

no, it cannot. it always fails society as a whole.

I know you believe that the state is the source of all our problems but you're wrong, most people -given the chance- would quite happily trample all over the rights of others. Pointing a gun in their face is the only way to prevent this happening.

Logic fail. Pointing a gun in their face is trampling over the rights of others.

The state offers your only chance of salvation

Doesn't work, not logically, empirically or historically.

[Injin]

But what if the borrowed money is used to then make a profit by selling in a market and it becomes self-funding, like a private company?

Then whoever should have got the borrowed money has lost out due to the promise of violence which displaced them.

This will always have been a more profitable venture than what occured.

[Injin]

I'd got my own house, car and was happily living within my means.

Then a tsunami swallowed it all.

Quite right, I really was the thoughtless architect of my own circumstances.

Your insurance bounced?

[shipbuilder]

Then whoever should have got the borrowed money has lost out due to the promise of violence which displaced them.

This will always have been a more profitable venture than what occured.

Why would there need to be a promise of violence? They're borrowing money like anyone else.

[Executive Sadman]

LOL

"you dont grow any richer by ordering another chequebook from the bank"

In 21st Britain you did. In fact you didnt grow any richer by not ordering another chequebook.

I liked Maggie; she was erudite in her speeches, had conviction, and put the great back in Britain. And yet now, looking back, she seems naive and innocent. The shopkeepers daughter put out of business by the big banks.

I can only hope if maggie were in power today she'd do to the banksters what she did to the miners.

[Injin]

Why would there need to be a promise of violence? They're borrowing money like anyone else.

The only way they can pay the borrowing is tax, which is extortion.

The only difference between the state and other organisations is it's ability to physically assault people with impunity.

[Authoritarian]

no, it cannot. it always fails society as a whole.

Logic fail. Pointing a gun in their face is trampling over the rights of others.

Doesn't work, not logically, empirically or historically.

lol, I see you're a graduate of the Burying Your Head In The Sand school of philosophy.

Well I disagree, there are a lot of mad, bad and crazy people out there and the most effective way of dealing with them is to have a few simple rules backed up with state coercion.

There is no other way I'm afraid.

[Injin]

lol, I see you're a graduate of the Burying Your Head In The Sand school of philosophy.

Well I disagree, there are a lot of mad, bad and crazy people out there and the most effective way of dealing with them is to have a few simple rules backed up with state coercion.

There is no other way I'm afraid.

Empircally, the mad, bad and crazy always wind up in the state.

Heres the logic of the 3 scenarions

1) All people are good - we don't need a state.

2) All people are bad. The state is pointless.

3) Some people are good and some people are bad. The state is then insanely dangerous because sooner or later the bad will control the state and ****** everyone and everything to smithereens.

3) is what actually happens, over and over again. This is history.

[SNACR]

Your insurance bounced?

Unlike the other credulous twerps in 'Free Market Fantasy Land'^TM I didn't take any out. Thank f*ck.

Unbeknownst to everyone the insurers had secretly formed a cartel and have run off with all the premiums. What's the point of paying out for a huge natural disaster you could never recoup the money on.

Particularly, when, if there are no countries, there's no extradition and you've got plenty of loot to spend on guns.

[Injin]

Unlike the other credulous twerps in 'Free Market Fantasy Land'^TM I didn't take any out. Thank f*ck.

Unbeknownst to everyone the insurers had secretly formed a cartel and have run off with all the premiums. What's the point of paying out for a huge natural disaster you could never recoup the money on.

Particularly, when, if there are no countries, there's no extradition and you've got plenty of loot to spend on guns.

And no one had thought of that beforehand or done anything about it.

Fancy.

[miko]

[

I can only hope if maggie were in power today she'd do to the banksters what she did to the miners.

And an even bigger lol from me .

" Do to the banksters what she did to the miners "

Get real she paved the way for the banksters to do what they got away with did you never hear of BIG BANG ? . It might have been on GB and TB watch that the banksters came unstuck and had to be bailed out by the tax payer but the pot had been coming to the boil long before and was set in motion by her BIG BANG.

If MT had done for the miners what she did for the banksters you would have miners now earning £250k per year for a half day week and collecting their pensions at 35.

[Authoritarian]

Empircally, the mad, bad and crazy always wind up in the state.

Heres the logic of the 3 scenarions

1) All people are good - we don't need a state.

2) All people are bad. The state is pointless.

3) Some people are good and some people are bad. The state is then insanely dangerous because sooner or later the bad will control the state and ****** everyone and everything to smithereens.

3) is what actually happens, over and over again. This is history.

Not really, the history of the UK for example has been one of constant democratisation. Ending religious persecution, the maga carta, widening the francise, giving women the vote etc etc. Things aren't perfect, but are you saying they would be if we abolished the state? I find that very difficult to believe.

Edited April 14, 2011 by Authoritarian

[shipbuilder]

The only way they can pay the borrowing is tax, which is extortion.

The only difference between the state and other organisations is it's ability to physically assault people with impunity.

The borrowing could be paid with the profits of the organisation, as I said, like any other business. Tax wouldn't be required.

Say a rich bloke with a successful business decided to make himself king of an island somewhere, he could build stuff, give people money and so on, enforce his will with a army paid with his riches. He would be the 'state', and enact his will through violence, but wouldn't need to fund himself through violence, as per my earlier point.

[Injin]

Not really, the history of the UK for example has been one of constant democratisation. Ending religious persecution, the maga carta, widening the francise, giving women the vote etc etc. Things aren't perfect, but are you saying they would be if we abolished the state? I find that very difficult to believe.

Erm improvement is in accordance with how much the state has been put into it's box.

here is tyranny

x

here is freedom

..................x

We are here

....x

All am saying is why not carry on and go the whole way instead of arsing about.

Edited April 14, 2011 by Injin