"Religious Liberty" ?

[Nakosis]

Such as?

You can be place in an environmental committee. Be paid as a consultant or adviser. Become part of a government think tank. There are many more non-elected positions in government than elected one's. You get appointed to a position.

But how does it function? How would a private police force be any different than private security is now? If I am poor and being robbed do I get a bill in the mail if I call the police? Do they not come if I have an outstanding debt? Who holds the police accountable if there is an issue with brutality? Would the people who have money and are able to hire the police automatically be allowed to have greatest say in what laws are enforced? Do they provide basic services such as scouting the areas and public for crime and catch offenders of that crime? If so then who pays them for that service? Is someone just going to have to be kind and donate the money?

How is this any different than what we have now? The rich get different judicial treatment than the poor.

It would depend on the contract. If you want to pay for patrolling an area you pay for it. If not you live with the consequences. Your choice.

The problem with a police force that is private rather than public is that they do the job for a client. A public police force does not have a clientele but a designated area in which they enforce laws.

They still do a job for a client, that client happens to be the government. If the public were their clientele then they would have to answer to the public. Now they just answer to some appointed official.

Can you explain to me how a private company could preform an area based task with equal time and effort spent on crime rather than private services to specific paying individuals?

No, it doesn't happen now. I don't expect it'd be any different if privately controlled.

I was listing the reasons why we can and often do promote systems of governance that isn't might makes right. No system is without its flaws and systematic and constant weeding of corruption is required. For a system to work well, not perfectly but well, it needs a level of transparency and public accountability.

Right, either accountability through votes or accountability through financial gain. Transparency would be needed for either system.

Christians often support the republican hard right concept of government because this political party has been taken over by religious fanatics that have very elegantly and skillfully tacked on god and Jesus to everything they wish to represent. They do this so well in fact that people can't see the difference anymore between fiscal conservatism and social conservatism. Being against gay marriage and being against high taxes have absolutely nothing to do with each other. However the concept of the two have been fused in the minds of the public. Its another causality of the two party system.

Yes, maybe but I don't see what this has to do with capitalism. This could be accomplished through socialism as well. That maybe the agenda, I just don't see the logical need of capitalism to pursue this.

I'm trying to find a logical connection. Maybe there isn't one, just not ready to give up on there being one yet.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

You can be place in an environmental committee. Be paid as a consultant or adviser. Become part of a government think tank. There are many more non-elected positions in government than elected one's. You get appointed to a position.

And you think that the campaign money being used would simply be funneled into these routes?

How is this any different than what we have now? The rich get different judicial treatment than the poor.

It would depend on the contract. If you want to pay for patrolling an area you pay for it. If not you live with the consequences. Your choice.

You have no choice if you are poor. If I am poor, and I have been, I can still call the police. I can still file a restraining order and have people enforce it. To no cost to me at all. However in a private system the poor LITERALLY have no say. Currently there is corruption and preferential treatment. In a private system it would be the GOAL not just the side effect of corruption. The poor still get protection from police. A private police force would be personal armies of the rich. Nothing more. There is no way it could work.

They still do a job for a client, that client happens to be the government. If the public were their clientele then they would have to answer to the public. Now they just answer to some appointed official.

You still haven't' answered how a private police would be any different than a personal private security force. Security forces have no incentive to help anyone that doesn't pay them. Private police forces would be the same way. The government isn't a "person". The government is a body that is elected and ultimately controlled by the people. Even a terrible corrupted version of this is better and more effective than a privatized version.

No, it doesn't happen now. I don't expect it'd be any different if privately controlled.

Then how do I have speeding tickets? Police drive around to enforce the law. They don't simply respond to 911 calls. They are a presence that act as a deterrent and force against crime. Imperfect by far but still do their job. A privately controlled force would NEVER do this unless paid to do it. And who is going to pay their money to have them protect someone else? Are we to throw ourselves at the mercy of some ultra rich overlord with a soft heart for the proletarians who will endlessly dish out money for a private organization of roughnecks to patrol our streets? No. They would not be for the common good.

Right, either accountability through votes or accountability through financial gain. Transparency would be needed for either system.

Indeed.

Yes, maybe but I don't see what this has to do with capitalism. This could be accomplished through socialism as well. That maybe the agenda, I just don't see the logical need of capitalism to pursue this.

I'm trying to find a logical connection. Maybe there isn't one, just not ready to give up on there being one yet.

There isn't a logical connection. You asked the question of why the religious right is the religious right wing of the country. In many countries the religious are the left wing that fight for social equality and social services for the good of the people. In our country a two party system has connected Jesus to lower taxes and free market. Its counter to pretty much every basic tenant of Christianity.

 

[Koldo]

Individual control of property is the basis of capitalism. The right to control that property. If I own a building, if I own equipment, I have the right to decide who gets to use it and what it is used for. If you own a house and have a right to be secure in that ownership, that's capitalism.

Which means that Capitalism requires the concept of private property and its enforcement. What about the other rights ?
Please explain to me how Capitalism protects the right to an adequate standard of living.

 

[Nakosis]

Which means that Capitalism requires the concept of private property and its enforcement. What about the other rights ?
Please explain to me how Capitalism protects the right to an adequate standard of living.

By allowing the individual to decide what that standard is. I've been homeless, living out it the woods. It was perfectly adequate for me.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

By allowing the individual to decide what that standard is. I've been homeless, living out it the woods. It was perfectly adequate for me.

You make it seem like homelessness is often a choice that people decide upon. Sure there may be the odd bird that does but the vast majority of homeless are not homeless by choice.

 

[Koldo]

By allowing the individual to decide what that standard is. I've been homeless, living out it the woods. It was perfectly adequate for me.

How does Capitalism prevent every single place from being claimed as private property ( which would render it impossible for you or anyone else to live in the woods )?

 

[Nakosis]

And you think that the campaign money being used would simply be funneled into these routes?

Not at all. They get paid through taxes. The state of Calif has a multi billion dollar budget. The lawmakers get to decided where that money goes. They just vote it in as part of the budget.

You have no choice if you are poor. If I am poor, and I have been, I can still call the police. I can still file a restraining order and have people enforce it. To no cost to me at all. However in a private system the poor LITERALLY have no say. Currently there is corruption and preferential treatment. In a private system it would be the GOAL not just the side effect of corruption. The poor still get protection from police. A private police force would be personal armies of the rich. Nothing more. There is no way it could work.

Or people could pay taxes and use that tax money to hire a private firm to provide security to the community. If the community could see the private wasn't provided the service it required, it could fire that fire and hire another.

You still haven't' answered how a private police would be any different than a personal private security force. Security forces have no incentive to help anyone that doesn't pay them. Private police forces would be the same way. The government isn't a "person". The government is a body that is elected and ultimately controlled by the people. Even a terrible corrupted version of this is better and more effective than a privatized version.

No the government is people. Someone gets put in charge and someone controls the police department. What I'm saying is the police department is no different. Elections are controlled by money just the same. No poor person is going to become president of the united states. No poor person is going to decide the policy of the police department. The government is a body that is controlled by money. The poor have no more control than if it were a private company.

Then how do I have speeding tickets? Police drive around to enforce the law. They don't simply respond to 911 calls. They are a presence that act as a deterrent and force against crime. Imperfect by far but still do their job. A privately controlled force would NEVER do this unless paid to do it. And who is going to pay their money to have them protect someone else? Are we to throw ourselves at the mercy of some ultra rich overlord with a soft heart for the proletarians who will endlessly dish out money for a private organization of roughnecks to patrol our streets? No. They would not be for the common good.

Tell you want. Lets stop paying the police and see if you get the same protection. The reason you get speeding tickets, in part is because they aren't paid enough.

Any way that's what you do. Throw yourself at the mercy of some rich overlord. The overlord is the government which forces you to pay them through taxes which you have no choice in the matter. You hope they do a good job, if not, too bad.

I'm not saying capitalism is better. I'm just saying different system, same results. You are paying one way or another for services. You believe you have more control over government, I don't. You have the same potential for control over business as the government. Individuals in business and government have the real control. Not you. What ever system you prefer, that's not going to change.

There isn't a logical connection. You asked the question of why the religious right is the religious right wing of the country. In many countries the religious are the left wing that fight for social equality and social services for the good of the people. In our country a two party system has connected Jesus to lower taxes and free market. Its counter to pretty much every basic tenant of Christianity.

Well we agree on that. Something must draw them. I'm not saying it is true but I think generally it's the feeling that socialism put control in the hands of the government. I don't think socialism has to be like that, but that's the perception.

Capitalism, your perception of it is... Bad? because it doesn't provide equality? Some feel it provides more equality between the government and the public. Equality is subjective I suppose.

 

[Nakosis]

How does Capitalism prevent every single place from being claimed as private property ( which would render it impossible for you or anyone else to live in the woods )?

How would socialism prevent every single place from being claimed as public property which would render it impossible for me to live in the woods.

Actually I was on public land, so I was arrested, sent to a public facility and force to conform to their rules and regulations.

 

[Nakosis]

You make it seem like homelessness is often a choice that people decide upon. Sure there may be the odd bird that does but the vast majority of homeless are not homeless by choice.

It's just anecdotal. I don't know that what you are saying is true. However nothing in capitalism prevents folks from deciding to use taxes to provide assistance to folks. Nothing in socialism forces people to provide shelter or adequate housing.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Or people could pay taxes and use that tax money to hire a private firm to provide security to the community. If the community could see the private wasn't provided the service it required, it could fire that fire and hire another.

You realize you just explained the social system of a public based law enforcement right? Unless you think that outsourcing is somehow better inherently than a regular police station? IF so why?

No the government is people. Someone gets put in charge and someone controls the police department. What I'm saying is the police department is no different. Elections are controlled by money just the same. No poor person is going to become president of the united states. No poor person is going to decide the policy of the police department. The government is a body that is controlled by money. The poor have no more control than if it were a private company.

Yes they do. There is no difference between a contracted private company that is hired by the government and a government agency in the way you are attempting to set this up.

Tell you want. Lets stop paying the police and see if you get the same protection. The reason you get speeding tickets, in part is because they aren't paid enough.

I'm not suggesting police work for free. I"m suggesting they have duties to the public not to a single person or clientele.

Any way that's what you do. Throw yourself at the mercy of some rich overlord. The overlord is the government which forces you to pay them through taxes which you have no choice in the matter. You hope they do a good job, if not, too bad.

Except it is an entity that is constructed by the public. Corrupt as it is we are not a monarchy or a dictatorship. We have multiple levels of government and multiple checks and balances. No one person or group gets all of the say. The government isn't a boogieman.

I'm not saying capitalism is better. I'm just saying different system, same results. You are paying one way or another for services. You believe you have more control over government, I don't. You have the same potential for control over business as the government. Individuals in business and government have the real control. Not you. What ever system you prefer, that's not going to change.

Socialism and capitalism are not inherently conflicting. America uses both right now. Technically the same program could be socialistic and capitalistic. We outsource something with a government contract paid for by taxpayer money you have a socialistic program that is delivered by a privately owned organization.

Capitalism is an economic system where people are able to own their own business or products. Socialism merely means that there are some services provided on the public level and paid for by the public rather than each and every individual for themselves. They are not conflicting.

It's just anecdotal. I don't know that what you are saying is true. However nothing in capitalism prevents folks from deciding to use taxes to provide assistance to folks. Nothing in socialism forces people to provide shelter or adequate housing.

Exactly. Socialism and capitalism are both necessary and not inherently conflicting.

 

[Koldo]

How would socialism prevent every single place from being claimed as public property which would render it impossible for me to live in the woods.

How would every land being public render it impossible for you to live in the woods ?
If every property was public ( which is not necessary in every form of Socialism ), it follows that everyone would be living in public property.

Actually I was on public land, so I was arrested, sent to a public facility and force to conform to their rules and regulations.

If you were on someone else's private property you would also be forced to comply.

 

[Koldo]

It's just anecdotal. I don't know that what you are saying is true. However nothing in capitalism prevents folks from deciding to use taxes to provide assistance to folks.

There wouldn't be money to do that under laissez-faire Capitalism.

Nothing in socialism forces people to provide shelter or adequate housing.

To each according to his contribution. This is one of the defining principles of Socialism. If a worker doesn't have shelter, then it is either not Socialism, or the country has failed miserably at Socialism.

 

[Nakosis]

You realize you just explained the social system of a public based law enforcement right? Unless you think that outsourcing is somehow better inherently than a regular police station? IF so why?

The point is I don't think it is necessarily different. It depends on the people that run it.

Yes they do. There is no difference between a contracted private company that is hired by the government and a government agency in the way you are attempting to set this up.

Ok.

I'm not suggesting police work for free. I"m suggesting they have duties to the public not to a single person or clientele.

They have duties to whoever pays them basically.

Except it is an entity that is constructed by the public. Corrupt as it is we are not a monarchy or a dictatorship. We have multiple levels of government and multiple checks and balances. No one person or group gets all of the say. The government isn't a boogieman.

Right, neither is business the boogieman. Capitalism believe is a natural set of checks and balances, Socialism believes in a contrived? set of checks and balances... Just no gurantee were humans are involved that either will actually work out as imagined.

Socialism and capitalism are not inherently conflicting. America uses both right now. Technically the same program could be socialistic and capitalistic. We outsource something with a government contract paid for by taxpayer money you have a socialistic program that is delivered by a privately owned organization.

Socialism is community of property and the means of production. Like at my work, everyone has equal ownership of the building of the equipment of the profits. Paying taxes to a government to provide services is neither socialism or capitalism. The government is run by the constitution which is neither a socialist nor capitalist document. I don't see real socialism here. Socialism and capitalism are economic systems not governmental systems right?

Capitalism is an economic system where people are able to own their own business or products. Socialism merely means that there are some services provided on the public level and paid for by the public rather than each and every individual for themselves. They are not conflicting.

Socialism is also an economic system.

Here's the definition I have.

1. Socialism is a social and economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy, as well as a political theory and movement that aims at the establishment of such a system.

Exactly. Socialism and capitalism are both necessary and not inherently conflicting.

Ok, I guess I see here using the government to manage the economy. Managing the economy is minimum wage, control of leading, control of interest rates. Don't know why police got brought up.

Socialism believes in a, well, "governmental" control of the economy. Capitalism believes in a market control of the economy.

Minimum wage is socialism, welfare isn't. Safety regulation isn't. Having a police force is not socialism.

 

[Nakosis]

There wouldn't be money to do that under laissez-faire Capitalism.

Why not? The government could still exist along with taxes.

To each according to his contribution. This is one of the defining principles of Socialism. If a worker doesn't have shelter, then it is either not Socialism, or the country has failed miserably at Socialism.

That sounds more like communism than socialism. Socialism just says that the community, I guess basically a governing body will manage production. It doesn't say that governing body has to put everyone to work.

 

[Nakosis]

How would every land being public render it impossible for you to live in the woods ?
If every property was public ( which is not necessary in every form of Socialism ), it follows that everyone would be living in public property.

Well it depends on the rules they decide on. In this case it was illegal to reside in the woods on public land.

If you were on someone else's private property you would also be forced to comply.

Yep, no difference. It depends on whoever is in charge to allow it or not. The governing body or the individual who owns the property.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

The point is I don't think it is necessarily different. It depends on the people that run it.

It does matter if its a private security for some guy vs a public law enforcement office.

They have duties to whoever pays them basically.

That isn't police. That is private security.

Right, neither is business the boogieman. Capitalism believe is a natural set of checks and balances, Socialism believes in a contrived? set of checks and balances... Just no gurantee were humans are involved that either will actually work out as imagined.

And there are certain things that cannot be privatized. Capitalism is awesome. I own my own business on the side and hope that it becomes my regular day job. I am working towards owning my own house. I like owning my own car. I like having the investments that I have. Capitalism is great. Free market capitalism and anti-socialism is bad for the economy. Its bad for a nation in general.

Socialism is community of property and the means of production. Like at my work, everyone has equal ownership of the building of the equipment of the profits. Paying taxes to a government to provide services is neither socialism or capitalism. The government is run by the constitution which is neither a socialist nor capitalist document. I don't see real socialism here. Socialism and capitalism are economic systems not governmental systems right?

And what I advocate is socialistic programs not a socialistic nation.

 

[Koldo]

Why not? The government could still exist along with taxes.

Because laissez-faire entails minimal intervention from the government. There wouldn't be enough money to provide assistance to people in need.
That's the most "pure" form of Capitalism.

That sounds more like communism than socialism. Socialism just says that the community, I guess basically a governing body will manage production. It doesn't say that governing body has to put everyone to work.

Why wouldn't work be provided ?

 

[Nakosis]

It does matter if its a private security for some guy vs a public law enforcement office.

Why?

That isn't police. That is private security.

Some people agree with you. The police is private security for the government. You want to say it's different, but in practice it works the same. There is no public control over the police. There is government control. The government is still individuals in control.

And there are certain things that cannot be privatized. Capitalism is awesome. I own my own business on the side and hope that it becomes my regular day job. I am working towards owning my own house. I like owning my own car. I like having the investments that I have. Capitalism is great. Free market capitalism and anti-socialism is bad for the economy. Its bad for a nation in general.

You're trusting individual in the government to control the economy for you because you don't trust an individual who isn't in the government to control it. You want someone in the government to say how much you can produce, how much you can charge and who you can and can't sell your product to basically.

And what I advocate is socialistic programs not a socialistic nation.

I don't advocate anything really, just trying to understand the "evil" folks see in capitalism or anti-socialism.

Anti-socialism is keeping the government out of economic control. I don't know that's necessarily a good idea but ok.

Folks don't trust people in the government to control the economy. You don't trust folks not in the government to control the economy. I just see it as you are still trusting somebody and the risks of placing that trust in somebody whether in the government or not remain the same.

 

[ether-ore]

Hi ether-ore,

What I'm not understanding is the principle you're using to decide what's a federal level task and what's a state level task? For example, how about auto-safety standards? Where would you place this task, and why?

The principle I am using is the original constitution which says that the federal governments powers are few and fixed, whereas state powers are many and undefined.
Right now, because of the 16th &17th amendments, the Butler Case (which said the federal government was no longer fixed and restricted to its original 20 powers), the office of president which before had not the power to make laws, is now by executive orders all over the place is creating laws and the Judiciary is also making laws rather that protecting the constitution. With all these things going on, protections for liberty are all but gone and there is no limit to the run away government arrogating power to itself.
Hopefully with the convention of states we can put a stop to all this corruption beginning with repealing the 17th amendment. With the passing of that amendment, the powers of the states became limited and defined by the federal government which is the reverse of what it should be. Senators were to supposed to be assigned by state legislatures to protect the states and Representatives to the House were to be elected by popular vote to give citizens representation, thus providing a balance to federal power and keeping the federal government answerable to the people. By making Senators elected by popular vote, they become agents for the federal government rather than agents for the state.
Where should auto safety standards come from? The states, because that had not been a power specifically defined for the federal government. An even better choice would be to let competition in the market decide.
That's my opinion and my hope is that the convention of states will be able to rectify this mess.

 

[Nakosis]

Because laissez-faire entails minimal intervention from the government. There wouldn't be enough money to provide assistance to people in need.
That's the most "pure" form of Capitalism.

The pure form of capitalism would be a separation of government and economy. It doesn't prevent government from imposing any form of tax aside from taxes for the purpose of economic reform.

Why wouldn't work be provided ?

Political reasons. Not enough resources, not follow the rules. For what ever reasons the governing body decides. You are still trusting people, individuals in the governing body to make these decisions. You choose to give someone else power to control your life. They just happen to be in the government so you feel safer about it for some reason. Because the government controls the economy they'll make sure everyone works. Maybe they will, maybe they won't.

If business controls the economy, why wouldn't they make sure everyone is provided work? Some reason you think it is gong to be different if we call that business government instead. I don't know why it'd be necessarily different.

Sorry, I'm not trying to just be argumentative here, it's just the way I see it.

You trust government to control the economy or you trust business to control it. It's still people I don't know and have no particular reason to trust. I trust myself more basically whether I was in business or government. I don't know why you'd trust me though.