Philosophy Now Forum

You don't want rules, but it's government's job to make rules? You are all over the place, Bob.

Dalek Prime wrote:You don't want rules, but it's government's job to make rules? You are all over the place, Bob.

Please quit talking like the village idiot. I want to work for myself, OK? Problems between people have to be worked out, and that's the proper function of government, OK?

bobevenson wrote:

Skip wrote:If roads were all privately built and owned, you'd have to obey different idiosyncratic rules for each one, as well as pay toll.

No, that's not how it would work at all. Companies would build and maintain roads to government specifications, and be paid by tax dollars.

Exactly. The government pays for the road, owns the road and makes the rules of how its road is used. If you don't like the rules that prevail there, don't go there.

Please stop shouting Bill as it's hurting my eyes.

Thats not what your link was about but I've done some research and I agree that there is now a law in place.

I'm a bit lost as to why you are against such a thing? But I wouldn't worry yourself as from what I've read no-one is complying in America as apparently 1 in 6 of the cars on your roads are in breech of such recalls, with the bulk of them being American cars. No wonder your road death rates are so high.

bobevenson wrote:... This is not to say the government should not ensure that children receive an adequate education, in the same way it ensures that children receive adequate food, shelter and clothing. But just like food, shelter and clothing, education should be the full and total responsibility of their parents or guardians.[/size][/b]

Er!? Can you see the contradiction here?

Arising_uk wrote:

bobevenson wrote:... This is not to say the government should not ensure that children receive an adequate education, in the same way it ensures that children receive adequate food, shelter and clothing. But just like food, shelter and clothing, education should be the full and total responsibility of their parents or guardians.[/size][/b]

Er!? Can you see the contradiction here?

No, I don't see any contradiction. Why don't you point it out pray tell.

Skip wrote:

bobevenson wrote:

Skip wrote:If roads were all privately built and owned, you'd have to obey different idiosyncratic rules for each one, as well as pay toll.

No, that's not how it would work at all. Companies would build and maintain roads to government specifications, and be paid by tax dollars.

Exactly. The government pays for the road, owns the road and makes the rules of how its road is used. If you don't like the rules that prevail there, don't go there.

Unfortunately, for some reason you don't seem to grasp anything I'm saying. Again, under AEP political theory, the only proper function of government is social integration. Government should not own, operate, support or promote anything. I don't know how I can make that any clearer. Private companies buy all the roads from the government, and the government pays for maintenance through tax money. All new roads are built and owned by private companies. The government sets compliance standards through other designated companies and can force a sale to another company if these standards are not met. It's not that difficult to understand if you have an open mind, which you apparently don't.

bobevenson wrote:No, I don't see any contradiction. Why don't you point it out pray tell.

Er!? If the govt ensures something then how is it the parents and guardians full and total responsibility?

bobevenson wrote:For example, I believe if you suddenly want to become a taxi driver, you should be able to immediately start picking up fares, charging whatever you want, having no license to operate a taxi, driving a car on its last legs, and having no liability insurance. The rest of you don't.

Will you be telling your passengers that you have no insurance and that the car is a crock? If so then fair enough.

bobevenson wrote:... Private companies buy all the roads from the government, and the government pays for maintenance through tax money. ... The government sets compliance standards .

Yes. And whoever owns the roads makes the rules for their use. If it's the government, they're laws and you know exactly what they are, and you can influence their making. If it's the private companies, they make the rules, and you might or might not like the rules they make. In neither case is it you, all by your lonesome, who makes the rules. TT.

bobevenson wrote:By a free market, I'm referring to a buyer and seller mutually agreeing to a price for something.

Ok.

Arising_uk wrote:

bobevenson wrote:For example, I believe if you suddenly want to become a taxi driver, you should be able to immediately start picking up fares, charging whatever you want, having no license to operate a taxi, driving a car on its last legs, and having no liability insurance. The rest of you don't.

Will you be telling your passengers that you have no insurance and that the car is a crock? If so then fair enough.

Under the AEP, you can't sue anybody for anything, and so if you want protection from an accident, you better get your own insurance. Passengers can make their own determination about riding in your car.

Skip wrote:

bobevenson wrote:... Private companies buy all the roads from the government, and the government pays for maintenance through tax money. ... The government sets compliance standards .

Yes. And whoever owns the roads makes the rules for their use. If it's the government, they're laws and you know exactly what they are, and you can influence their making. If it's the private companies, they make the rules, and you might or might not like the rules they make. In neither case is it you, all by your lonesome, who makes the rules. TT.

No, the road owners don't make any rules at all; they operate under rules set up by other companies under government contract.

Arising_uk wrote:

bobevenson wrote:No, I don't see any contradiction. Why don't you point it out pray tell.

Er!? If the govt ensures something then how is it the parents and guardians full and total responsibility?

The government sets minimum standards of food, shelter and clothing for children, and removes children from an environment that falls below these standards. An educational standard should be added to this list.

bobevenson wrote:

Arising_uk wrote:

bobevenson wrote:No, I don't see any contradiction. Why don't you point it out pray tell.

Er!? If the govt ensures something then how is it the parents and guardians full and total responsibility?

The government sets minimum standards of food, shelter and clothing for children, and removes children from an environment that falls below these standards. An educational standard should be added to this list.

What a strange world you live in.
How many children would the government have to "remove" from parental control when they fail to provide an adequate education?
And since it is no one's responsibility but the market to provide this, how the fuck is it going to be made available?
What happens when it is not an economic proposition to run a school of the standard expected by the government?

All you would have is chaos and be back to square one, except that the million kids the government has "removed" from parental control would not only have to be educated at the government's expense but also fed, clothed and housed.