"A theoretical social state in which there is no governing person or body of persons, but each individual has absolute liberty (without the implication of disorder)."[2]
"Absence or non-recognition of authority and order in any given sphere."[
Public is about the what of belonging to the people; relating to, or affecting, a nation, state, or community; opposed to private; as, the public treasury, a road or lake.
Frank Lloyd Wright said "I believe totally in a Capitalist System, I only wish that someone would try it.”
mightylittle, it is unfortunate that I can't name any because there aren't any.
It sounds proposterous to you and Ronin because you're not used a world where government doesn't take care of you from cradle to grave.
No one is. One has to look outside the box.
I also thought these ideas were crazy once upon a time, but I took the time to research them. If you do, you'll find that pure capitalism which I've summarized here is 100% economically and philosophically sound.
Unfortunately I can type for hours about this, so I'm going to cut this conversation short.
If this topic really interests you and you want to learn what capitalism REALLY is, I suggest the following reads:
For a moral/philosophical standpoint, I seriously recommend: "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal by Ayn Rand"
Will really open up your eyes.
For an economic standpoint, read articles at www.vonmises.com or anything by Ludwig von Mises. He coined austrian free market economics.
21Ronin, exactly the same accountability would exist in that system as what exists now. Only post offices aren't offered by government, but my many competing companies. The same goes for all other public services.
If you break the law, you're accountable to law enforcement. It's the exact same.
If there's the same accountability, how is it different? Is the government providing public services or not? Do they (govt) pay for it? If not, who pays for it? Who maintains it? What company in (with any intelligence) would want to pay to maintain the highway system? What stops the "free" (sounds really expensive to me) market from setting any price they want to drive down a street?
let me guess...no patents either? no standardization? nine different postal systems because there's nine different competing "brands?"
makes dvd-hd vs. bluray seem tame by comparison.
why the army? why the judicial branch? who pays their salaries if there's no taxes? if they don't go and win wars for resources, what will they have to build their tanks out of?
who pays for the maintenance of the buildings and machinery and equipment that supports the armies/police-forces and legal fees?
i could go on and on about how phony and theoretical this is. and you lost me when you quoted ayn rand.
the 1930's called...they want their provisional economic development package back.
i'm not saying i couldn't support what you're getting at, but you're not doing much to help your cause.
It sounds preposterous to you and Ronin because you're not used a world where government doesn't take care of you from cradle to grave.
careful with the condescension there...you don't know any of us dude...;-)
As I have said, government provides no services other than police,army and judicial.
You ask if government would pay for it.
Are you telling me you would not pay to have a police force?
I live in a country where the government police force is so bad that we have private security companies in almost all neighbourhoods.
People value their security.
Free markets are anything but expensive. It is basic economics.
If goods are offered at large profit margins, others will see this opportunity and rush to establish their businesses in the same place, driving down the prices due to competition. It is government regulations (as seen in the current US healthcare system) that cause inflated prices.
A good education in necessary to function in a democracy, especially one with a limited social "safety net" programs. You, I & everyone owes it to our country to be as smart as we can be. Does that mean Ph.D.s for everyone - emphatically no, it means everyone should work hard at what they feel is the best way to serve america. Please note, its the individual deciding on what their role is, not the government.
A laissez faire society cannot function for long as all of the costs for infrastructure (physical, social, environmental...) will not be paid for because nobody is requiring the company's involved to account for those costs in their accounting.
This is what you want:
Skies black at noon from all the pollution (Pittsburg in WWII)
You won't be able to eat anything you don't grow or raise yourselves (No FDA, no regulation of meat & veggies = workers & salmonilla in your burger)
Since your neighbor will have to raise his own meat too, get ready for a giant pile of cow manure tossed stinking up the neighborhood (no regulations applies to your neighbor too)
Hope you have your wallet with you when you go to the hospital. After they pump your stomach from you food poisoning they will charge you $1000 for an asprin - why not, you can hardly give it back.
Speaking of which - goodbye FDIC, hello usury.
You will have to pay for every highway, byway and bridge you travel on. (what, you think they'd build and maintain them for free?)
I also hope you're a good enough architect to make sure the contractor who built you house didn't cut any corners, because there's no code officials to check for you. Hope you checked you neighbor's house as well.
No worries, because if there's a fire, the fire-fighters who you don't think are worth paying... Um, on second thought maybe you should put some asbestos shingles on your house.
I should also point out that if the government does NOTHING ELSE than provide us with our armed forces, you would not even be able to cut your tax bill in half. And if there's nothing stopping AMC from charging $50M for each hummer (no laws against price-rigging in a laissez faire economy, capital above all remember) then all you will be doing is quickly paying the same tax amount for no services at all.
<sarcasm>
Yeah, sounds great. I wonder why we aren't doing this already.
</sarcasm>
here's your boy mises' famous quote from wiki about how easily one can quantify the benefits of capitalism over socialism...
The only certain fact about Russian affairs under the Soviet regime with regard to which all people agree is: that the standard of living of the Russian masses is much lower than that of the masses in the country which is universally considered as the paragon of capitalism, the United States of America.
If we were to regard the Soviet regime as an experiment, we would have to say that the experiment has clearly demonstrated the superiority of capitalism and the inferiority of socialism.
for this i counter...what about FRANCE? now granted, his comparison was between the USSR and the USA, but his ultimate conclusion was the inferiority of socialism. why do the french, including their many national issues, have such quality services for the citizenry? you're not american chopsky, you mentioned that, so where are you from?
i'd love to have HALF the access to health-care, child-care, education and beyond that the french take as a matter of due course.
mightylittle, I might not know you, but you've said enough that I can take that for granted.
I didn't come here to argue with you, Apparently you get a kick out of arguing with people on topics you know nothing about (as you yourself admitted).
By the way, Ayn Rand is one of the most influential american authors of all time. You can't knock her by saying she's from the 1930's. Or do you knock someone like Darwin as well because he's from the 1800s?
no, i get a kick out of debating issues on which i have more than simply a passing interest. i admitted not knowing much about the topic...but that doesn't mean i'm debating/arguing for the sake of trolling.
i may not know the nuance between the many varieties of economic and political theory out there, but that doesn't relegate me to non-participation in the discourse.
i think you're coming at this from a pretty righteous stance...one that has already chosen a preferred method, and i'm still looking at what's out there, from all sides.
especially given the current political climate in america today, we'd probably both agree that an informed and considered populace is in everyone's best interest. just doing my part to get myself informed, is all.
i'm not knocking mises or rand simply BECAUSE they're from the 30's, just commenting loosely that although at heart, there are many theories and philosophies that stand the test of time and are valid (from a theoretical stance) in any time, that we need considered opinions ABOUT THE CURRENT TIME PERIOD AS WELL.
chopsky, telling someone how much they know is an obvious sign of being a pompous ass. Cuidado! Just because a person has not read what you have read does not make you better than anyone. You emphasizing it just shows that you probably don't value a discussion. You just want to sit there and SOUND correct.
What you have proposed is impossible and it is why it will never happen completely. We are close right now (private military in Iraq, Haliburton, etc), but it will never reach the level that you speak of because it would only make the US more of a wasteland than it already it.
France is not the only country that is flourishing from socialism. Spain is doing fine. Bilbao will be a more influential city than Los Angeles in a century or two.
at the end of the day dude...i still think this is a valuable waste of my otherwise billable time. i consider myself more informed and educated on the matter than when this thread started, in part because of your comments, but more importantly because of my own deliberation in response to yours and others comments on the matter.
i read, listen, consider, comment, listen some more, deliberate some more, etc.
you've apparently already decided how everything should be run simply by reading ayn rand and LVW, or am i wrong? where is your margin of error? your ability to respond as new information comes to light?
or are you an economics professor at a prestigious university? i've admitted not knowing a tremendous amount about the subject as a matter of courtesy....where's your modesty?
and i wouldn't shudder at everything you say, just the stuff i find egregious, transparent and sophomoric.
nice chatting with you though...how's the weather in SA?
who said life was so frigg'n great in france and Spain? Is that why theyre always having riots and live in near poverty with no property? Maybe we Americans look at them in awe because when we are there we are on vacation so it just seems cooler?
c'mon guys, why are you even arguing with her/him? she's an Ayn Rand worshiper...show no mercy.
as to why there are no examples of countries run by corporations and private industries, well, there's not enough bullets for people to committ that many suicides.
ep - i've lived in both france and spain, and have family in france and have a bit more of a firsthand view than just from vacationing.
who says they live in near poverty with no property? what's that mean?
i think the recent riots have as much to do with strained relations between france and their former colonies, and the descendants of those colonies getting the short end of the stick right now. the periphery of paris is a pretty tough area, for sure.
maybe they're stuck in the middle, france that is, because they're falling behind economically compared to their neighbors in part BECAUSE they continue to provide these kinds of socialist services to their citizenry. and their lack of embrace of the more truly american mentality of profits before people is causing some major disenfranchisement there...sarko l'americaine sure has some 'splaining to do.
they ain't perfect, i sure am not saying that. but they do have some seriously awesome services available FREE to all citizens.
I've visited Spain for 3 months and I have had the opportunity to absorb the city as well as some political ideas there. Their attitudes are what democrats strive for, but can't completely ask for.
PM - from my perspective, having grown up 50 miles from manhattan, NYC has already priced out most of its vitality and quite a bit of its relevance too.
sadly.
not that it was necessarily intentional, but there's the "free market" at work i guess.
it would be interesting if americans understood something about socialism.
when someone says that Obama or Clinton are advocating socialist positions, they show a severe lack of understanding of social and political structures - at least based on a world-view.
the "socilaist" tendencies of Obama or Clinton are just to the political right of most "conservatives" in the political systems of the UK, France, Germany, the Netherlands and Australia.
in other words, what most americans fear as being "socialism" is seen in most other democratic, capitalist societies as being "centre-right".
there is no 'socialism' in the USA, so stop worrying.
PM - try san francisco. sure, the best restaurants in NYC (jean georges, daniel, aureole, 11 madison park, etc) are all better then the best ones in SF, but you can't rhwo a rock in this area and not hit a great bar or restaurant.
at the mid-level price-point, SF has NYC beat hands down. especially in the winter, when all the food in NYC is getting flown in from cali anyways. and although it's changing right now because of some SF-wide ordinances that are targeting mid-sized businesses, the restaurants here are an order of magnitude cheaper.
and yeah, i meant relevance and vitality in terms of culture, innovation, and music/design at the street level as you said. assuming there's 30+ million people who live within striking distance of the big apple, it will always be relevant from en economic stance.
Brooklyn is not done yet. There are still housing projects in Fort Greene and Bed-Stuy hasn't had its overhaul yet. Coney Island is just beginning its transformation and Park Slope along with Williamsburg have hit their saturation point. mightylittle™, I live in BK and have first hand knowledge of it.
Back to the discussion, does anyone think that it is ridiculous how Hilary Clinton has staged a political stunt in order to potentially change her position on health care? Obama has never tried to force everyone into his plan, but Clinton clearly did several times. He said it repeatedly on several televised debates. And now it's a problem?
OBAMARXISM
Ask Wiki.....
Anarchy (from Greek: ἀναρχία anarchía, "without ruler") may refer to any of the following:
"Absence of government; a state of lawlessness due to the absence or inefficiency of the supreme power; political disorder."[
Also from Wiki....
"A theoretical social state in which there is no governing person or body of persons, but each individual has absolute liberty (without the implication of disorder)."[2]
"Absence or non-recognition of authority and order in any given sphere."[
Yet again from Wiki.............
Public is about the what of belonging to the people; relating to, or affecting, a nation, state, or community; opposed to private; as, the public treasury, a road or lake.
Frank Lloyd Wright said "I believe totally in a Capitalist System, I only wish that someone would try it.”
mightylittle, it is unfortunate that I can't name any because there aren't any.
It sounds proposterous to you and Ronin because you're not used a world where government doesn't take care of you from cradle to grave.
No one is. One has to look outside the box.
I also thought these ideas were crazy once upon a time, but I took the time to research them. If you do, you'll find that pure capitalism which I've summarized here is 100% economically and philosophically sound.
Unfortunately I can type for hours about this, so I'm going to cut this conversation short.
If this topic really interests you and you want to learn what capitalism REALLY is, I suggest the following reads:
For a moral/philosophical standpoint, I seriously recommend: "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal by Ayn Rand"
Will really open up your eyes.
For an economic standpoint, read articles at www.vonmises.com or anything by Ludwig von Mises. He coined austrian free market economics.
watch that.
No need chopsky. 1. There is no accountability. 2. Your capitalist society assumes a level playing field. Civil war would begin.
21Ronin, exactly the same accountability would exist in that system as what exists now. Only post offices aren't offered by government, but my many competing companies. The same goes for all other public services.
If you break the law, you're accountable to law enforcement. It's the exact same.
By the way, did I mention no taxes? Yep, ZERO taxing what so ever.
Sounds crazy eh?
Bat shit crazy!
haha
btw, had the wrong link earlier. It's www.mises.org
If there's the same accountability, how is it different? Is the government providing public services or not? Do they (govt) pay for it? If not, who pays for it? Who maintains it? What company in (with any intelligence) would want to pay to maintain the highway system? What stops the "free" (sounds really expensive to me) market from setting any price they want to drive down a street?
Who controlls the interest rate?
let me guess...no patents either? no standardization? nine different postal systems because there's nine different competing "brands?"
makes dvd-hd vs. bluray seem tame by comparison.
why the army? why the judicial branch? who pays their salaries if there's no taxes? if they don't go and win wars for resources, what will they have to build their tanks out of?
who pays for the maintenance of the buildings and machinery and equipment that supports the armies/police-forces and legal fees?
i could go on and on about how phony and theoretical this is. and you lost me when you quoted ayn rand.
the 1930's called...they want their provisional economic development package back.
i'm not saying i couldn't support what you're getting at, but you're not doing much to help your cause.
It sounds preposterous to you and Ronin because you're not used a world where government doesn't take care of you from cradle to grave.
careful with the condescension there...you don't know any of us dude...;-)
As I have said, government provides no services other than police,army and judicial.
You ask if government would pay for it.
Are you telling me you would not pay to have a police force?
I live in a country where the government police force is so bad that we have private security companies in almost all neighbourhoods.
People value their security.
Free markets are anything but expensive. It is basic economics.
If goods are offered at large profit margins, others will see this opportunity and rush to establish their businesses in the same place, driving down the prices due to competition. It is government regulations (as seen in the current US healthcare system) that cause inflated prices.
As for a free market offering roads and highways, here's a nice long read for you: http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/3_2/3_2_7.pdf
A good education in necessary to function in a democracy, especially one with a limited social "safety net" programs. You, I & everyone owes it to our country to be as smart as we can be. Does that mean Ph.D.s for everyone - emphatically no, it means everyone should work hard at what they feel is the best way to serve america. Please note, its the individual deciding on what their role is, not the government.
A laissez faire society cannot function for long as all of the costs for infrastructure (physical, social, environmental...) will not be paid for because nobody is requiring the company's involved to account for those costs in their accounting.
This is what you want:
Skies black at noon from all the pollution (Pittsburg in WWII)
You won't be able to eat anything you don't grow or raise yourselves (No FDA, no regulation of meat & veggies = workers & salmonilla in your burger)
Since your neighbor will have to raise his own meat too, get ready for a giant pile of cow manure tossed stinking up the neighborhood (no regulations applies to your neighbor too)
Hope you have your wallet with you when you go to the hospital. After they pump your stomach from you food poisoning they will charge you $1000 for an asprin - why not, you can hardly give it back.
Speaking of which - goodbye FDIC, hello usury.
You will have to pay for every highway, byway and bridge you travel on. (what, you think they'd build and maintain them for free?)
I also hope you're a good enough architect to make sure the contractor who built you house didn't cut any corners, because there's no code officials to check for you. Hope you checked you neighbor's house as well.
No worries, because if there's a fire, the fire-fighters who you don't think are worth paying... Um, on second thought maybe you should put some asbestos shingles on your house.
I should also point out that if the government does NOTHING ELSE than provide us with our armed forces, you would not even be able to cut your tax bill in half. And if there's nothing stopping AMC from charging $50M for each hummer (no laws against price-rigging in a laissez faire economy, capital above all remember) then all you will be doing is quickly paying the same tax amount for no services at all.
<sarcasm>
Yeah, sounds great. I wonder why we aren't doing this already.
</sarcasm>
here's your boy mises' famous quote from wiki about how easily one can quantify the benefits of capitalism over socialism...
The only certain fact about Russian affairs under the Soviet regime with regard to which all people agree is: that the standard of living of the Russian masses is much lower than that of the masses in the country which is universally considered as the paragon of capitalism, the United States of America.
If we were to regard the Soviet regime as an experiment, we would have to say that the experiment has clearly demonstrated the superiority of capitalism and the inferiority of socialism.
for this i counter...what about FRANCE? now granted, his comparison was between the USSR and the USA, but his ultimate conclusion was the inferiority of socialism. why do the french, including their many national issues, have such quality services for the citizenry? you're not american chopsky, you mentioned that, so where are you from?
i'd love to have HALF the access to health-care, child-care, education and beyond that the french take as a matter of due course.
mightylittle, I might not know you, but you've said enough that I can take that for granted.
I didn't come here to argue with you, Apparently you get a kick out of arguing with people on topics you know nothing about (as you yourself admitted).
By the way, Ayn Rand is one of the most influential american authors of all time. You can't knock her by saying she's from the 1930's. Or do you knock someone like Darwin as well because he's from the 1800s?
no, i get a kick out of debating issues on which i have more than simply a passing interest. i admitted not knowing much about the topic...but that doesn't mean i'm debating/arguing for the sake of trolling.
i may not know the nuance between the many varieties of economic and political theory out there, but that doesn't relegate me to non-participation in the discourse.
i think you're coming at this from a pretty righteous stance...one that has already chosen a preferred method, and i'm still looking at what's out there, from all sides.
especially given the current political climate in america today, we'd probably both agree that an informed and considered populace is in everyone's best interest. just doing my part to get myself informed, is all.
i'm not knocking mises or rand simply BECAUSE they're from the 30's, just commenting loosely that although at heart, there are many theories and philosophies that stand the test of time and are valid (from a theoretical stance) in any time, that we need considered opinions ABOUT THE CURRENT TIME PERIOD AS WELL.
This conversation can go on forever. I'm ending it here (on my side).
mightylittle, whatever I tell you, you're going to shudder at, even after you have admitted to not knowing a tremendous amount about the subject.
I myself am from South Africa.
If you want to chat, send me a message and we can IM.
Cheers.
chopsky, telling someone how much they know is an obvious sign of being a pompous ass. Cuidado! Just because a person has not read what you have read does not make you better than anyone. You emphasizing it just shows that you probably don't value a discussion. You just want to sit there and SOUND correct.
What you have proposed is impossible and it is why it will never happen completely. We are close right now (private military in Iraq, Haliburton, etc), but it will never reach the level that you speak of because it would only make the US more of a wasteland than it already it.
France is not the only country that is flourishing from socialism. Spain is doing fine. Bilbao will be a more influential city than Los Angeles in a century or two.
at the end of the day dude...i still think this is a valuable waste of my otherwise billable time. i consider myself more informed and educated on the matter than when this thread started, in part because of your comments, but more importantly because of my own deliberation in response to yours and others comments on the matter.
i read, listen, consider, comment, listen some more, deliberate some more, etc.
you've apparently already decided how everything should be run simply by reading ayn rand and LVW, or am i wrong? where is your margin of error? your ability to respond as new information comes to light?
or are you an economics professor at a prestigious university? i've admitted not knowing a tremendous amount about the subject as a matter of courtesy....where's your modesty?
and i wouldn't shudder at everything you say, just the stuff i find egregious, transparent and sophomoric.
nice chatting with you though...how's the weather in SA?
cold and foggy in berkeley, california.
Correction..........Barcelona will be a more influential city that LA in years to come.....not Bilbao.
who said life was so frigg'n great in france and Spain? Is that why theyre always having riots and live in near poverty with no property? Maybe we Americans look at them in awe because when we are there we are on vacation so it just seems cooler?
c'mon guys, why are you even arguing with her/him? she's an Ayn Rand worshiper...show no mercy.
as to why there are no examples of countries run by corporations and private industries, well, there's not enough bullets for people to committ that many suicides.
ep - i've lived in both france and spain, and have family in france and have a bit more of a firsthand view than just from vacationing.
who says they live in near poverty with no property? what's that mean?
i think the recent riots have as much to do with strained relations between france and their former colonies, and the descendants of those colonies getting the short end of the stick right now. the periphery of paris is a pretty tough area, for sure.
maybe they're stuck in the middle, france that is, because they're falling behind economically compared to their neighbors in part BECAUSE they continue to provide these kinds of socialist services to their citizenry. and their lack of embrace of the more truly american mentality of profits before people is causing some major disenfranchisement there...sarko l'americaine sure has some 'splaining to do.
they ain't perfect, i sure am not saying that. but they do have some seriously awesome services available FREE to all citizens.
I've visited Spain for 3 months and I have had the opportunity to absorb the city as well as some political ideas there. Their attitudes are what democrats strive for, but can't completely ask for.
Also, the way that NY is going, it will soon be like Paris where the poorer people live far from the center.
Ok. My point was I bet the same thing could happen here that happened in Paris a little while ago.
But, I understand what you're saying.
PM - from my perspective, having grown up 50 miles from manhattan, NYC has already priced out most of its vitality and quite a bit of its relevance too.
sadly.
not that it was necessarily intentional, but there's the "free market" at work i guess.
Well, as the trends show, Brooklyn is next.
brooklyn's done. staten island is next.
it would be interesting if americans understood something about socialism.
when someone says that Obama or Clinton are advocating socialist positions, they show a severe lack of understanding of social and political structures - at least based on a world-view.
the "socilaist" tendencies of Obama or Clinton are just to the political right of most "conservatives" in the political systems of the UK, France, Germany, the Netherlands and Australia.
in other words, what most americans fear as being "socialism" is seen in most other democratic, capitalist societies as being "centre-right".
there is no 'socialism' in the USA, so stop worrying.
PM - try san francisco. sure, the best restaurants in NYC (jean georges, daniel, aureole, 11 madison park, etc) are all better then the best ones in SF, but you can't rhwo a rock in this area and not hit a great bar or restaurant.
at the mid-level price-point, SF has NYC beat hands down. especially in the winter, when all the food in NYC is getting flown in from cali anyways. and although it's changing right now because of some SF-wide ordinances that are targeting mid-sized businesses, the restaurants here are an order of magnitude cheaper.
and yeah, i meant relevance and vitality in terms of culture, innovation, and music/design at the street level as you said. assuming there's 30+ million people who live within striking distance of the big apple, it will always be relevant from en economic stance.
Fight The PoWeR!!!
Brooklyn is not done yet. There are still housing projects in Fort Greene and Bed-Stuy hasn't had its overhaul yet. Coney Island is just beginning its transformation and Park Slope along with Williamsburg have hit their saturation point. mightylittle™, I live in BK and have first hand knowledge of it.
Back to the discussion, does anyone think that it is ridiculous how Hilary Clinton has staged a political stunt in order to potentially change her position on health care? Obama has never tried to force everyone into his plan, but Clinton clearly did several times. He said it repeatedly on several televised debates. And now it's a problem?
lol @ pimpanzee
pigstick
hello pimpman
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.