Nonprofit Organizations Are the Bane of Civilization

[bobevenson]

What do you mean by, "social integration"?

Basically, the government should be like a traffic cop, keeping people from running into each other. The government should not own, operate, support or promote anything. Everything should be privately owned, including the roads, bridges and other infrastructure. That doesn't mean the owner can do anything he wants. For instance, an electric company can't inflate charges for electricity just because there's no competition. The government can force the sale of the facility to the highest bidder offering a more realistic rate. In the same way, the owner of roads can't set up toll booths or restrict access. However, the government does pay the owner for its public use and upkeep. The government shouldn't operate anything, including the military. The U.S. postal service is a prime example why. Most people wouldn't ask the government for the time of day for fear of getting the wrong answer. Furthermore, why should the government support or promote anything, since that's not its function and only represents a misallocation of taxpayer money.

[Gary Childress]

What do you mean by, "social integration"?

Basically, the government should be like a traffic cop, keeping people from running into each other. The government should not own, operate, support or promote anything. Everything should be privately owned, including the roads, bridges and other infrastructure. That doesn't mean the owner can do anything he wants. For instance, an electric company can't inflate charges for electricity just because there's no competition. The government can force the sale of the facility to the highest bidder offering a more realistic rate. In the same way, the owner of roads can't set up toll booths or restrict access. However, the government does pay the owner for its public use and upkeep. The government shouldn't operate anything, including the military. The U.S. postal service is a prime example why. Most people wouldn't ask the government for the time of day for fear of getting the wrong answer. Furthermore, why should the government support or promote anything, since that's not its function and only represents a misallocation of taxpayer money.

So if the military is a private business what is to stop the owners of the business from having a coup and taking over? Or what is to prevent them from using the military to their own personal advantage?

[bobevenson]

So if the military is a private business what is to stop the owners of the business from having a coup and taking over? Or what is to prevent them from using the military to their own personal advantage?

The lines of authority don't change, operations are still controlled by the government. But I guarantee you that a private company is not going to buy $200 toilet seats like the government has done in the past.

[Scott Mayers]

So if the military is a private business what is to stop the owners of the business from having a coup and taking over? Or what is to prevent them from using the military to their own personal advantage?

The lines of authority don't change, operations are still controlled by the government. But I guarantee you that a private company is not going to buy $200 toilet seats like the government has done in the past.

The buying of such products are often by governments that actually prefer your form of government. They purposely opt for companies they have interest in. The high expenses are often a result of the private ownership taking advantage of government. For those in government who also own or have interest in such separate contracts also use this to 'launder'. [see Iraq for Sale: The War Profiteers, as an example of how this operates.]

You'd have to require that government officials NOT have private interests. Yet, you favor everything to be also owned up. What kind of politicians who lack ownership would serve interest to enhance private ownership?

What you don't seem to understand is that a private corporation is still a form of government. It is just a private one who only favors the owners. And when their interest is only to profit, they are unable to actually act with any compassion. Where some have actually tried, they've defeated their own interest as their stocks tumbled. I had a video recommendation in mind but cannot remember it. It was about some company who eventually responded to damage they'd done to people through media coverage. Eventually, the management of the company DID appear to recognize their fault and so attempted to rectify it by appealing to a socially compassionate campaign but immediately had lost their owners appeals and the stocks drastically plummeted.

[bobevenson]

When their interest is only to profit, they are unable to actually act with any compassion.

I'm sorry to inform you that it is not the function of either properly-run government or free-market capitalism to be compassionate. If you want to forcibly take money from one person to give to another, that's extortion or euphemistically speaking, socialism.

[Scott Mayers]

When their interest is only to profit, they are unable to actually act with any compassion.

I'm sorry to inform you that it is not the function of either properly-run government or free-market capitalism to be compassionate. If you want to forcibly take money from one person to give to another, that's extortion or euphemistically speaking, socialism.

Then HOW do you propose any such government to be functionally appropriate for any social function, like your "integration"?

I also happen to favor socialist ideas in government. What's your problem with this?

My point is that if you can't trust any compassion in the very private companies you prefer to see our government being transferred to, how can we trust your idea here? You also don't get that you can't actually get rid of government. ...You only TRANSFER who the government IS. In your world, this government WILL BE THE PRIVATE OWNERS ONLY! This is a return to a belief in Kings and Queens to rule us. This is a form of dictatorship you are proposing that hands over the government control to the particular whims of specific individual owners.

Do you think that non-owners are losers and worthless beings that should be subject to slavery?

[bobevenson]

When their interest is only to profit, they are unable to actually act with any compassion.

I'm sorry to inform you that it is not the function of either properly-run government or free-market capitalism to be compassionate. If you want to forcibly take money from one person to give to another, that's extortion or euphemistically speaking, socialism.

Then HOW do you propose any such government to be functionally appropriate for any social function, like your "integration"?

I also happen to favor socialist ideas in government. What's your problem with this?

My point is that if you can't trust any compassion in the very private companies you prefer to see our government being transferred to, how can we trust your idea here? You also don't get that you can't actually get rid of government. ...You only TRANSFER who the government IS. In your world, this government WILL BE THE PRIVATE OWNERS ONLY! This is a return to a belief in Kings and Queens to rule us. This is a form of dictatorship you are proposing that hands over the government control to the particular whims of specific individual owners.

Do you think that non-owners are losers and worthless beings that should be subject to slavery?

Again, the only proper function of government is social integration, to keep people from interfering with one another, and to protect people and property from those who might otherwise cause harm. If the government helps anybody, everybody should receive the same amount of help. It is improper for the government to dole out favors as it sees fit. The only proper government income is a single tax on property, property being defined as anything with intrinsic market value.

[Obvious Leo]

Again, the only proper function of government is social integration, to keep people from interfering with one another, and to protect people and property from those who might otherwise cause harm. If the government helps anybody, everybody should receive the same amount of help. It is improper for the government to dole out favors as it sees fit. The only proper government income is a single tax on property, property being defined as anything with intrinsic market value.

This sort of thing used to happen all the time back in the good old days of vinyl records, Bob. Give your turntable a sharp kick and the needle should jump into the next track.

[Scott Mayers]

Again, the only proper function of government is social integration, to keep people from interfering with one another, and to protect people and property from those who might otherwise cause harm. If the government helps anybody, everybody should receive the same amount of help. It is improper for the government to dole out favors as it sees fit. The only proper government income is a single tax on property, property being defined as anything with intrinsic market value.

Your dismissing my arguments against you by reinstating your own without appropriate address. Your proposal makes your owners become the government and they will ONLY favor what benefits them by discriminating against others. How do you not see this as favoritism to the owners here? YOUR government would DOLE OUT FAVORS AS IT SEES FIT for itself as this 'government' would be the owners who lack accountability to the people. You already agree that private entities of business lack compassion. So this also means such government you propose is also incompassionate by default. So I nor anyone would rationally opt for your form of government except for equally selfish and non-compassionate people who would only behave disruptively especially against others lacking natural privileges of ownership.

[Gary Childress]

When their interest is only to profit, they are unable to actually act with any compassion.

I'm sorry to inform you that it is not the function of either properly-run government or free-market capitalism to be compassionate. If you want to forcibly take money from one person to give to another, that's extortion or euphemistically speaking, socialism.

I knew it. Another tool of neo-liberal economic doctrine spouting his nonsense about "free-markets" and austerity for the poor. So if it's not government's function to have any compassion and not the function of the profit sector to have any compassion where do you think your next welfare check is going to come from, Bob?

[Obvious Leo]

where do you think your next welfare check is going to come from, Bob?

All is not lost, Bob. When the whole AEP nonsense goes tits-up you can always get a free feed at my joint. Me and the missus have always done our best to help out any poor old tosser down on his luck.

[Scott Mayers]

Bob,

At least I welcome your honesty. I'm hoping that you don't simply give up if you still disagree and keep trying to prove your case. Like others here, I too would welcome you to dinner regardless and hope that by disagreeing at least we can have a motive to keep each other alive in our common desire to differ. If we all agreed, it would get boring as the closure we'd share would limit us to have any more further use for each other's company to entertain.

[bobevenson]

Your proposal makes your owners become the government...

I'm afraid I don't understand how you can possibly come to that preposterous conclusion.

[bobevenson]

I knew it. Another tool of neo-liberal economic doctrine spouting his nonsense about "free-markets" and austerity for the poor. So if it's not government's function to have any compassion and not the function of the profit sector to have any compassion where do you think your next welfare check is going to come from, Bob?

I'm sorry, but you still don't understand the theoretical underpinning of what I'm talking about. First, you have to understand the proper function of government, which I do, and you obviously don't. If you want to challenge my position, please do so, but spare me your gobbledegook.

[bobevenson]

Maybe I just need to write a book about my struggle communicating with fools. The AEP has an ideology, a modus operandi, a goal, a logo and a flag. I guess the only thing missing is a book.