The Cellar - View Single Post - How Do I Liberate Thee? Let Me Count the Ways

Kitsune · 12-24-2003, 03:24 PM

Fire Departments, Police, Roads and Infrastructure would still be paid for without the need for income-based taxes so this isn't a valid point. But anyone who has been on a private toll road knows it's usually in better repair than a public road.

Really? How would these public services be paid for? Why should they be paid for?

As for the toll road, you obviously haven't driven on any of them in and around Pittsburgh.

If you want the Grand Canyon preserved, you should make sure it's privately owned by a nature conservancy.

Do you think a nature conservancy, based on donations, would be able to out-bid a corporation attempting to slash-and-burn an area? Would any land be conserved at all if logging companies had the ability to bid on the plots?

Your comments are laughable. As I said, you think that if I'm against government paying for art, I'm against art. If I'm against government funded (theft) medical research, I'm against medical research. etc.

I didn't say you were against anything. I'm stating that if you remove government funding from certain forms of research, only the research that gets money will continue. An incredible majority of the people with HIV and AIDS have little income, so therefore that research will shrink as compared to, say, cancer research.

The best way to make sure companies are environmentally responsible is to make it impossible for them to pollute public lands, to hold them responsible for pollution they cause on others (this is trespass), to hold government responsible for pollution at thier hands, and the ultimate way...use your dollars to buy from clean companies.

I would love to see companies held responsible for the land, water, and air they pollute -- Piney Point currently holds Tampa Bay in check with overflowing water with a pH of 3. The phosphate company that caused the pollution moved to Texas and declared bankruptcy in the state of Florida, so they are under no obligation to clean up anything. Under your laws, how would this change? For that matter, what companies are "clean" and who would you buy from? Who would define "clean" and how would you know that a company wasn't lying when they told you they were? Certainly, there would be no government organization that forms these standards, nor any that would enforce them.

Some people come here that were doctors in another country. Why prevent them from giving healthcare? When more people are giving healthcare, the prices will be lower and the quality higher.

Umm... we might prevent them because they might not have proper training? They might be quacks cheating common citizens, who don't understand medicine, out of their money? I actually see quality becoming much lower if you allow anyone to practice medicine without a license and cut all the corners they can to make it as cheap as possible. Malpractice insurance would go through the roof, along with the prices patients have to pay.

You don't have a single valid point. Not one. Every single thing you've mentioned could be better done by private industry than by government.

I'm not stating that the government does an outstanding job at what it is attempting to do through its programs. I'm also not saying that a lot of these applications could be better handled by private industry. I'm saying that companies inherently cut as many corners as they can in a desperate attempt to make as much money up front as they are able in order to please the shareholders, and then run. I'm also stating that neither the public, nor corporations, hold many long-term views. With all of these factors, simply "flipping the switch" on the controls in society has the potential to completely ruin it. In the coming years, we're about to see a massive catastrophe as millions of baby boomers, who were planning on seeing social security see them through their final years, find out there is nothing for them. Now they are told that they should have opened 401Ks and IRAs and all that they were previously told was false. Do we just permit these people to suffer for the better of the coming generations? The issues of the interim are not easily ignored.

12-24-2003, 03:24 PM	#83
Kitsune still eats dirt Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Tampa, FL Posts: 3,031	Fire Departments, Police, Roads and Infrastructure would still be paid for without the need for income-based taxes so this isn't a valid point. But anyone who has been on a private toll road knows it's usually in better repair than a public road. Really? How would these public services be paid for? Why should they be paid for? As for the toll road, you obviously haven't driven on any of them in and around Pittsburgh. If you want the Grand Canyon preserved, you should make sure it's privately owned by a nature conservancy. Do you think a nature conservancy, based on donations, would be able to out-bid a corporation attempting to slash-and-burn an area? Would any land be conserved at all if logging companies had the ability to bid on the plots? Your comments are laughable. As I said, you think that if I'm against government paying for art, I'm against art. If I'm against government funded (theft) medical research, I'm against medical research. etc. I didn't say you were against anything. I'm stating that if you remove government funding from certain forms of research, only the research that gets money will continue. An incredible majority of the people with HIV and AIDS have little income, so therefore that research will shrink as compared to, say, cancer research. The best way to make sure companies are environmentally responsible is to make it impossible for them to pollute public lands, to hold them responsible for pollution they cause on others (this is trespass), to hold government responsible for pollution at thier hands, and the ultimate way...use your dollars to buy from clean companies. I would love to see companies held responsible for the land, water, and air they pollute -- Piney Point currently holds Tampa Bay in check with overflowing water with a pH of 3. The phosphate company that caused the pollution moved to Texas and declared bankruptcy in the state of Florida, so they are under no obligation to clean up anything. Under your laws, how would this change? For that matter, what companies are "clean" and who would you buy from? Who would define "clean" and how would you know that a company wasn't lying when they told you they were? Certainly, there would be no government organization that forms these standards, nor any that would enforce them. Some people come here that were doctors in another country. Why prevent them from giving healthcare? When more people are giving healthcare, the prices will be lower and the quality higher. Umm... we might prevent them because they might not have proper training? They might be quacks cheating common citizens, who don't understand medicine, out of their money? I actually see quality becoming much lower if you allow anyone to practice medicine without a license and cut all the corners they can to make it as cheap as possible. Malpractice insurance would go through the roof, along with the prices patients have to pay. You don't have a single valid point. Not one. Every single thing you've mentioned could be better done by private industry than by government. I'm not stating that the government does an outstanding job at what it is attempting to do through its programs. I'm also not saying that a lot of these applications could be better handled by private industry. I'm saying that companies inherently cut as many corners as they can in a desperate attempt to make as much money up front as they are able in order to please the shareholders, and then run. I'm also stating that neither the public, nor corporations, hold many long-term views. With all of these factors, simply "flipping the switch" on the controls in society has the potential to completely ruin it. In the coming years, we're about to see a massive catastrophe as millions of baby boomers, who were planning on seeing social security see them through their final years, find out there is nothing for them. Now they are told that they should have opened 401Ks and IRAs and all that they were previously told was false. Do we just permit these people to suffer for the better of the coming generations? The issues of the interim are not easily ignored.