Refuting The Lies Of Looters

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

If you are so against "government" employees...then you should stop using public roads, public libraries, public schools, police department, fire department. You should never visit national parks or monuments...never collect social security or medicare. You should not have a drivers license, passport, or social security card. You should never vote or contact your senator or representative. YOU SHOULD NOT BE ON THE INTERNET. You should not own a firearm. You should not own a business. You should not use electricity or any oil products. You should not eat food grown by American farmers. Basically you should live in a powerless shack and grow your own food...while illegally squating on land you don't own and not paying taxes on.

All the above takes GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES to run smoothly. And yes...they should be paid by tax money.

I find arguments like this hypocritical because you are complaining about this...but I am sure you are enjoying all the benefits that government employees have provided you with.

This deserves to be dissected in its own post because it is full of the common arguments in favor of government violence directed against innocent people that have caused harm to no one.

So, let us go through each claim:

-public roads
Roads would be better maintained and far safer if they were privately owned. Economist Walter Block explains just how many people die on our highways due to government running our roads here.

-public libraries
We don't need them. We have the internet. However, private libraries that are funded by private trust funds or charity could take their place. We also see large libraries in private colleges and schools.

-public schools
They are consistently worse than private schools. They are the reason our inner-cities have 50% dropout rates. Public schools should be eliminated entirely. The demand for schooling can be met by the private sector easily. Charity can make up for those families that are too poor to pay full price tuition.

-police department
Private security firms can do a far better job at providing security services than public police, who don't give a flying crap about you as a customer. They are revenue generators for the State. If they acted like the Fire Dept. where they only came out when called it might be a different story, but they don't.

-fire department
There is no reason we couldn't have private fire services that people could subscribe to. If there were no public fire departments, private fire departments would crop up all over the place that people could either subscribe to for a recurring fee or they could pay for services rendered if they need it. We have private ambulance companies now, we could have private fire as well.

-national parks or monuments
Are a massive waste of resources. National parks are used to secure resources for massive multi-national corporations. The government leases out land to private mega corporations who loot the land over a set contract period. There should be no national monuments to government. If someone wants to erect a private monument that's their business, but I should not be forced to pay for public idolatry.

-social security
Is tens of trillions in the hole and is run like a gigantic Ponzi scheme. If a private investment house tried to operate a scheme like socialist security, they would be arrested for fraud. See Bernie Madoff. I am more than capable of investing for my own retirement. I don't need a government gun in my face forcing me to put money into a Ponzi scheme.

-medicare
Is also tens of trillions in the hole. This criminal Ponzi is the sole cause of the massive price inflation in medical care. Without medicare/medicaid, healthcare prices would be affordable to everyone.

-"You should not have a drivers license, passport, or social security card."
I'm not sure this has to do with anything. They are violations of my personal freedoms. I hate them. I don't want them. You can keep them. Unfortunately I am forced to have them at gun point if I want to travel or get a job.

-"YOU SHOULD NOT BE ON THE INTERNET. "
Why not? I pay for it out of my own pocket. Most networks are privately owned.

-"You should not own a firearm. "
Why not? I paid for that out of my own pocket as well. All the gun manufacturers are privately owned.

-"You should not own a business. "
Why not? If I work hard, I should be able to start a business that provides a profit for myself and a benefit to the society.

-"You should not use electricity or any oil products."
Why not? I can buy those things in the private market with my own money. If government wasn't involved in the markets, the prices would be far cheaper than they are now.

-"You should not eat food grown by American farmers. "
Why not? I can buy food in the private market with my own money as well. If government wasn't involved in the markets, the prices would be cheaper for most agricultural goods as well.


-"Basically you should live in a powerless shack and grow your own food...while illegally squating on land you don't own and not paying taxes on."

How about I get to keep what I earn. This way I can buy a nice house, fill it full of stuff, and live a nice life. If I work really hard, I might get to live in a house as nice as a politicians or a central bankers.






[edit on 2-6-2010 by mnemeth1]

I see what you are getting at here. However why not just pay taxes and probably save a lottle money instead of paying for all of these services individually? Ill agree that there are some major changes that need to be made but we have a good system here. If it werent corrupted by greed it might be the best around.

MessOnTheFED!

Originally posted by MessOnTheFED!
I see what you are getting at here. However why not just pay taxes and probably save a lottle money instead of paying for all of these services individually? Ill agree that there are some major changes that need to be made but we have a good system here. If it werent corrupted by greed it might be the best around.

MessOnTheFED!

Because taxes require the use of force against innocent people.

Violence against the innocent is wrong.

reply to post by mnemeth1


How so? Im not trying to be a smart ass i promise.

MessOnTheFED!

So when your local town replaces the public fire and police with private firms, what would you replace the 911 service with?
How would you recommend these private firms go about ensuring their subscribers can actually get through to them in a time of emergency? (ie- phone lines aren't busy, and there's someone to answer your call)
How can you ensure these private firms will actually be able to respond when they are requested (ie- enough manpower, and resources to deal with the emergency)?
What about water distribution for the private fire fighting firms? Do you just assume they would be allowed to use an existing public water system?
Who would train, regulate, and certify these private companies for these emergency services?


These are MAJOR flaws in this concept.

Originally posted by MessOnTheFED!
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

How so? Im not trying to be a smart ass i promise.

MessOnTheFED!

''By having revenue agents come to your door if you dont pay up. They can fine you, imprison you, steal your bank accounts, and ruin your life in countless other ways.

That is not a symbol of a free country.

Originally posted by negativenihil
So when your local town replaces the public fire and police with private firms, what would you replace the 911 service with?
How would you recommend these private firms go about ensuring their subscribers can actually get through to them in a time of emergency? (ie- phone lines aren't busy, and there's someone to answer your call)
How can you ensure these private firms will actually be able to respond when they are requested (ie- enough manpower, and resources to deal with the emergency)?
What about water distribution for the private fire fighting firms? Do you just assume they would be allowed to use an existing public water system?
Who would train, regulate, and certify these private companies for these emergency services?



These are MAJOR flaws in this concept.

Hate to crush your little idealistic views, but numerous cities and counties use private companies for fire and ambulance services.

Evidence: Rural/Metro in Phoenix AZ.

[edit on 2-6-2010 by brainwrek]

reply to post by brainwrek


Well if people would just pay their taxes instead if trying to mook off of the system we they wouldnt be in that perdiciment would they?

MessOnTheFED!

reply to post by MessOnTheFED!


Youre right, everyone should just shut up, look the other way, and continue paying countless unconstitutional taxes to fund a criminally corrupt government.

That would be so much easier wouldnt it?

Originally posted by brainwrek
Hate to crush your little idealistic views, but numerous cities and counties use private companies for fire and ambulance services.

Evidence: Rural/Metro in Phoenix AZ.

[edit on 2-6-2010 by brainwrek]

Your example of Rural Metro Corp is a bit of a stretch. They are not offering a subscription based service like the original poster proposed. (but it seems that is how they got started)

The original post laid out how the poster would like to see EVERY aspect privatized. Rural Metro Corp, along with every other semi-private firm out there is using PUBLIC services like 911 and the water system to provide their services. If there were some sort of mass-scale privatization of these services nation-wide then why should anyone assume local governments and tax payers who've paid for these public services would just hand them over for use by the private firms?

[edit on 2-6-2010 by negativenihil]

reply to post by mnemeth1


Well said man, well said.....Great points all very legitimate as well. Solid destruction and analyzing of the post you began with.

reply to post by negativenihil


Because government doesnt own those services, the taxpayers do. The taxpayers funded the construction, maintenance, and continual use of a public utility. Government wouldnt have a say in the matter.

reply to post by brainwrek


No i dont believe i said that. The system we have is a good system. If you told everyone they could pay for things if they "wanted to", then you would be broke. And exactly would you enforce it? If i didnt pay for the upkeep of the roads yet drove to work on them every day would you "fine" me? That sounds a little like the pot calling the kettle black if you ask me. I do agree that the system is very corrupt and that a major overhaul is needed. If we could find a way to make man less greedy we would all be in a better place.

MessOnTheFED!

The only real solution is to abolish tax entirely and completely privatise everything. Sure a lot more would cost money, but it would be optional and no matter what, where there is money things get done better.

Though if anyone wants too see a world like this read this

en.wikipedia.org...

Its set in a world where entire nations and cities have become parts of multinational franchises, there are no laws and everythings privitised. The mafia also deliver pizzas, its awesome.

reply to post by MessOnTheFED!


Pay per use, such as toll roads.

Our government is like a cancer, and the only solution is to get rid of it.

reply to post by Johnze


Actually it would look more like this:

Hans Hoppe: A Private Law Society
www.youtube.com...

Walter Block: Lecture On Anarchism To Loyola University
www.youtube.com...

Here's a massive list of economists speaking on all manner of topics in support of a voluntary society:
fascistsoup.com...

reply to post by brainwrek


OK seroiusly? Your brillant scheme is to put toll roads everywhere. Isnt that about the same? Pay taxes for roads or use roads and pay? Either way you are being forced to pay. Whats the difference? "O but some people dont drive on teh roads" And? I bet some people would do absolutely nothing with themselves if they werent pressured into doing something productive.

MessOnTheFED!

Originally posted by MessOnTheFED!
reply to post by brainwrek

 

OK seroiusly? Your brillant scheme is to put toll roads everywhere. Isnt that about the same? Pay taxes for roads or use roads and pay? Either way you are being forced to pay. Whats the difference? "O but some people dont drive on teh roads" And? I bet some people would do absolutely nothing with themselves if they werent pressured into doing something productive.

MessOnTheFED!

No, you are not forced to pay.

Right now I pay for roads whether I use them or not.

I might drive a little, but I pay the same as a person who drives a lot.

If you think about it, this also supports the environment because it discourages excessive driving.

It forces those who use and abuse the roads to pay their fair share.

Private roads are better maintained, have less litter, and less traffic. They are superior in every way to public roads.




[edit on 2-6-2010 by mnemeth1]

reply to post by brainwrek


I do agree that the government is like a cancer though. It should be severly slimmed down to take care of only essential things. It should deffinately not have the power that it has today.

MessOnTheFED!

reply to post by mnemeth1


Yes but a world where the mafia run the nations most popular pizza delivery service is a hell of a lot more fun than law society links lol.

Will check them out, cheers buddy.