Libertarians: Are public parks hurting your freedom?

[MoSurveyor]

I think it was in line with the Obamacare numbers I see bandied about. It was about $90 per month for me and $700 per month for my wife. If people are denied coverage then it must be for something that is excluded in the policy. Otherwise it is a breach of contract on the part of the insuror.

Have you looked at Medicare's contract, lately? Or did you just assume it covered everything under the sun?


Many things in medicine are borderline, which always results in being turned down by private companies.

 

[MoSurveyor]

I think we disagree on whether the people at large would allow such an individual to flout the law.

And who, exactly, is going to tell them?

 

[Federalist]

And who, exactly, is going to tell them?

Tell whom? Tell them what?

 

[MoSurveyor]

I'm not complaining about medicare. But it isn't better and it would be bankrupt without the government subsidizing it.

Wrong. The SSA has plenty of money.

 

[MoSurveyor]

Tell whom? Tell them what?

Tell the people at large that someone was flouting the law, of course. That's what I quoted.

 

[MoSurveyor]

There is nothing in there about parks.

There's nothing in there about property rights, either, except a few scattered references like the government not being able to take property without due process. And ...?

 

[Henrin]

Wrong. The SSA has plenty of money.

With an ever shorting supply of people paying in it would be fun to know exactly how they in turn deal with an ever growing of people taking out. Schemes such as this generally do not work very well under such situations.

 

[Federalist]

Tell the people at large that someone was flouting the law, of course. That's what I quoted.

I imagine pretty much the same people who bring the people at large the news now.

 

[MoSurveyor]

With an ever shorting supply of people paying in it would be fun to know exactly how they in turn deal with an ever growing of people taking out. Schemes such as this generally do not work very well under such situations.

The SSA discloses everything - all you have to do is search and read.

 

[MoSurveyor]

I imagine pretty much the same people who bring the people at large the news now.

LOL! Yeah, I can see the news outlets telling everyone how their owners are "flouting the law". LOL!


In other words, you can break the law as long as you're rich enough. Hell, that's the way things work right now.

 

[Goshin]

You truly own that which you can defend against being taken from you; or else that which you can persuade someone else to defend for you.


The way we do it in modern times is that government is the guarantor of private property claims, and establishes the standards under which one holds title... in most cases through purchase from the previous owner.


When America was populated by hundreds of warring Native tribes, who "owned" the land (or the use of it) was whoever had enough sufficiently determined warriors to hold onto it against any enemy tribes. This is default state of property in primitive cultures, which also applied in early European history. Later came feudalism where the land-lord owned the land and charged you for the privilege of farming a meagre living off it.

So you could say we've made some definite progress....


Personally, I like having parks and such. I enjoy them and it would be a shame if they were all paved over and turned into apartment blocks. I did a study once on whether private parks/forests would be economically viable compared to developing the land, and the answer was a resounding "no" unless you think being charged $700 a night to camp in the woods sounds reasonable...

 

[RGacky3]

Sure. Any system of property is merely the rules that govern people's access to and control of things like land, natural resources, the means of production, manufactured goods, etc.

Libertarians think that property should only be transferred voluntarily, not forcibly taken.

Yeah, and I think that more things belong in the commons, and since society makes the rules that govern what is and is not private property, you can't claim its being "forcibly taken" since what makes it private property in the begining is the rules that govern access to resources.

 

[RGacky3]

That's odd. How do you separate economic issues from "the issues of freedom"? People are free - or not free - to make their own decisions is "the issue of freedom". Whether they are "personal" or "economic" decisions makes no difference, and there's no clear border between the two categories.

My point is that not having the right to have EXCLUSIVE rights to a swath of land isn't an infringement on freedom .... you don't have a RIGHT to property.

It depends on how they are funded, of course. It's not parks (or any other form of public property) that "takes away our freedom", it is the fact that at this point in history they are created and maintained mostly via coercive taxation.

Now, for the foreseeable future, I would advocate expansion of the system of American national parks and of conservation in general.

While we are trying to make coercive taxation less barbaric, and eventually eliminate it, money that is collected currently could be spent in many different ways. Right now, a good deal of it goes to government activities that are dubious in nature, or outright harmful - from the Idiotic War on (some) Drugs to market-distorting corporate welfare. Conservation of land and ecosystems (without violating anyone's property rights) is undeniably a positive thing, in itself.

Publicly held factories or schools suffer from numerous problems that boil down to (1) the dilution of personal interest and responsibility, and (2) the accumulation of errors in the absence of market feedback. But the basic job of preservation (not allowing interlopers) is a police job appropriate for government agencies. Socialist methods are quite effective, when your goal is to prevent things from happening.

Well they can be maintained through taxation, but for most people that really does'nt limit your freedom at all ... since the propery system is created and maintained by the state, but in the end, EVERYONE has access to the parks.

Publically held industries do very well ... just ask Norway, you still ahve personal interest and responsibility, the difference is, private is accountable to a few sahreholders who want to only maximize short term profit while ignoring negative externalities, public is accountable to ... the public, you also get market feedback as well ...but also democratic feedback.

 

[RGacky3]

Irrelevant.

Yes it is relevant, because your talking about government as if they are all the same.

Not the point and it is that simple. The point is that businesses must provide what their customers want or they go out of business. If Volkswagen made only cars that cost $150,000, they would go out of business. It is not what their customers want. If Bentley made only econoboxes, it would go out of business. It is not what their customers want. It might be possible for company to discard its customer base and develop a new one but few would survive the change.

It's not that simple, take housing, people WANT affordable housing, but guess what, poor people don't ahve that much money, so it isn't profitable.

Also with cars, people want cars that don't pollute, but it's only worth it for them to pay extra for one IF a significant amount of other people do to, so most people won't, they way you can fix that is democratic solutions (since markets can't deal with externalities).

NO, NO, NO. All wealth comes from business profits. The government is a net spender of wealth. While it does create some, it spends more than it creates. It is impossible for government to contribute to societal wealth. If it could, it wouldn't need to tax. That is not to say that government doesn't do some useful and helpful things but that isn't the point. We are talking about wealth.

Bull**** ... Ask Norway.

Not in my experience. I've always had better service with private health insurance. I'm not complaining about medicare. But it isn't better and it would be bankrupt without the government subsidizing it.

Its ... A GOVERNMENT PROGRAM, also public healthcare is leaps and bounds more efficient than private healthcare, I can find you study after study on this.

Yes, I'm aware that I can do that. I continue to have that freedom.

Given that you think Medicare stinks, why don't you do that?

 

[Cyrylek]

My point is that not having the right to have EXCLUSIVE rights to a swath of land isn't an infringement on freedom .... .

Unless you had those exclusive rights, and they are being taken away. The abuse of eminent domain certainly taken as an infringement on freedom, even by many on the Left.

Well they can be maintained through taxation, but for most people that really does'nt limit your freedom at all ... .

"Most people" would pay their taxes voluntarily?

Publically held industries do very well ... just ask Norway.

"Very well" comparing to what? You have another Statoil, held privately, for comparison? And it is "public" only in the sense that the government is the largest shareholder - about 65%. It is not run by the state, like a national park.

public is accountable to ... the public

That is, to everyone in theory, and no one in practice.

 

[RGacky3]

Unless you had those exclusive rights, and they are being taken away. The abuse of eminent domain certainly taken as an infringement on freedom, even by many on the Left.

Oh absolutely, it isn't black and white, but my point is exlusive rights to a piece of land are not fundemental, they are a social-contract.

"Most people" would pay their taxes voluntarily?

"most people" would respect property laws voluntarily?

"Very well" comparing to what? You have another Statoil, held privately, for comparison

Statoil is a state company.

That is, to everyone in theory, and no one in practice.

In some countries more than others.

 

[Cyrylek]

Bull**** ... Ask Norway.

Yeah, that's a good idea. Let's ask: If publicly run companies make perfect sense, why did Norway privatized most of them? - Telenor in 2000, Statoil in 2001, Statkorn in 2000...

(I think you are confused by the Norwegian government holding good chunks of shares of these companies. That's because in Norway they are a sensible pension system - basically a sovereign wealth fund filled with diverse assets, including blue chips from home and abroad. In a sharp contrast with our idiotic Social Security).

 

[RGacky3]

Yeah, that's a good idea. Let's ask: If publicly run companies make perfect sense, why did Norway privatized most of them? - Telenor in 2000, Statoil in 2001, Statkorn in 2000...

(I think you are confused by the Norwegian government holding good chunks of shares of these companies. That's because in Norway they are a sensible pension system - basically a sovereign wealth fund filled with diverse assets, including blue chips from home and abroad. In a sharp contrast with our idiotic Social Security).

Those are not fully privitized ... infact they still have controlling portions and actively are involved.

 

[Cyrylek]

Controlling portions - yes, in Statoil or Telenor (not in Statkorn, 44% or DnB NOR, 34%). "Actively involved" - no. In fact, the government caretakers normally abstain from voting their shares - that would lead to corruption, wouldn't it?

And most companies privatized in the beginning of the 2000s were simply sold to existing private ones: Kristiania Bank to Nordea, Finnmark to Veolia, etc.

 

[fmw]

Yes it is relevant, because your talking about government as if they are all the same.



It's not that simple, take housing, people WANT affordable housing, but guess what, poor people don't ahve that much money, so it isn't profitable.

Yes, that, in effect is what I said. If the target customer wants cheap and a business provides expensive, then it will fail. I don't believe it is the role of government to provide housing.

Also with cars, people want cars that don't pollute, but it's only worth it for them to pay extra for one IF a significant amount of other people do to, so most people won't, they way you can fix that is democratic solutions (since markets can't deal with externalities).

If people wanted cars that don't pollute, then cars wouldn't pollute. People don't want cars that don't pollute. You want cars that don't pollute.

Bull**** ... Ask Norway.

All wealth derives from business profits, even if the business is owned by the government. If a government owns and operates enough business to earn more than it spends, then it is a creator of wealth.

Its ... A GOVERNMENT PROGRAM, also public healthcare is leaps and bounds more efficient than private healthcare, I can find you study after study on this.

Please, everything the government does always, always costs more than having the private sector do it. Always. Every single time.

Given that you think Medicare stinks, why don't you do that?

Because I didn't say medicare stinks. I said it would be bankrupt if it were a business.

 

[jonny5]

There's nothing in there about property rights, either, except a few scattered references like the government not being able to take property without due process. And ...?

Property rights are natural, same as right to live.

 

[jonny5]

Wrong. The SSA has plenty of money.

Technically it doesnt. It pays out more than it takes in. Theyve been cashing in loans they made to the rest of the govt, but the rest of the govt is likewise out of money.

Social Security’s total expenditures have exceeded non-interest income of its combined trust funds since 2010, and the Trustees estimate that Social Security cost will exceed non-interest income throughout the 75-year projection period. The deficit of non-interest income relative to cost was about $49 billion in 2010, $45 billion in 2011, and $55 billion in 2012.

Trustees Report Summary

 

[MoSurveyor]

Property rights are natural, same as right to live.

Suuuuurrrree they are ....

 

[jonny5]

Suuuuurrrree they are ....

Thats not a response.

 

[MoSurveyor]

Technically it doesnt. It pays out more than it takes in. Theyve been cashing in loans they made to the rest of the govt, but the rest of the govt is likewise out of money.

Social Security’s total expenditures have exceeded non-interest income of its combined trust funds since 2010, and the Trustees estimate that Social Security cost will exceed non-interest income throughout the 75-year projection period. The deficit of non-interest income relative to cost was about $49 billion in 2010, $45 billion in 2011, and $55 billion in 2012.

Trustees Report Summary

Non-interest income. Wow. You know, if rich people didn't count the money they made from their investments they'd be broke and bankrupt.
:lamo


And, of course, we wouldn't want to mention the $2.6 trillion in Treasury notes sitting in the SSA's vault, oh no. Heaven forbid this be a real discussion. :roll: