I almost to the point....

[henry quirk]

As I (unavoidably) share the water main with the others, for that one time repair, yeah, I'd pay my share of that half-price service.

The problem you present, of course, illustrates directly (and only) the flawed nature of living in such close confines with others (so close that shared water sources are unavoidable). Your problem doesn't, I think, negate my essential argument of paying for what one gets (and not paying for what one has no need or use for).

In fact: your problem, seen in a certain light, supports my position because, in your scenario, I pay for what I need (the water main) and don't pay for what I don't need (the general plumbing).

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by henry quirk

As I (unavoidably) share the water main with the others, for that one time repair, yeah, I'd pay my share of that half-price service.

The problem you present, of course, illustrates directly (and only) the flawed nature of living in such close confines with others (so close that shared water sources are unavoidable). Your problem doesn't, I think, negate my essential argument of paying for what one gets (and not paying for what one has no need or use for).

In fact: your problem, seen in a certain light, supports my position because, in your scenario, I pay for what I need (the water main) and don't pay for what I don't need (the general plumbing).

They took away the Unibomber's shack, but you might get a good deal on his (former) property.

[Undertoad]

OK, now the neighbors are angry. You didn't participate in the plumbing deal they made, so they expect you to pay your share... but pay it at full price.

[henry quirk]

"These people are my representatives, not my leaders"

For 'reps': those folks sure do hand 'down' a god-awful number of directives.

#

"One of the biggest criticisms of him, by conservatives, is that he isn't a strong leader."

First: I'm not a conservative...I don’t give a flip what 'they' have to say about anything.

Second: in my assessment. Obama is no different than any other sitting politician, that is, he wants power, has power, uses power to gather more power...to get and maintain power, he kisses the (collected) asses of some and directs others...for me: except as obstacle, he isn't relevant.

#

"You can protect yourself against the nukes coming from Iran, North Korea, and Pakistan? Wow!"

Insofar as I'm aware: no atomics are en route to America from any of those places... ...more seriously: the possibility of atomics from one of those places is made all the more possible by the insistent intrusion of American 'governors' into the business of other countries when said intrusion was and is uncalled for and unjustified...tend to the esoteric and physical infrastructure of 'here', leave 'there' alone, and -- maybe -- 'there' will leave 'here' 'be'...also: I have no problem paying for civil defense since, of course, I benefit...as I say: send me the bill for the specific services rendered and -- if all is in order on the invoice -- I'll be glad to pay it.

#

"Then others won't pay for that which offers them no benefit. Like your roads, your mail, your water, your sewage treatment, and whatnot. Good luck with those all by youself."

Lots of folks don't use the roads, the postal service, public water, public sewerage and whatnot, so, why should those folks foot part of the bill for those that do?

For myself: I (currently) use roads (send me the bill), the postal service (send me the bill), public water (send me the bill), public sewerage (send me the bill) and whatnot (send me the bill).

But bill me for the water I use, the specific roads I use, the specific sewage I produce, etc.; don't bill me as you would, for example, a long-haul trucker whose use of the roads is significantly large than mine.

#

"You've opted in by living our beloved US of A."

HA! An accident of birth (that I should 'be', 'now', in 'this' place) obligates me to jack.

#

"you might get a good deal on (the Unibomber's) property"

HA! Since my life is 'here', why the hell would I go 'there'?

Make no mistake: I live where I choose....I go where I choose...tough shit on any one who doesn't like it.

##

"...they expect you to pay your share... but pay it at full price."

We could...

1-go to court and let some schmuck decide things.

2-use a private arbiter to decide things.

3-go to war...I shoot at 'them'...'they' shoot at me...folks die.

4-'they' could come to 'their' senses and accept, what is to me, fair: that is, my paying of my share of the collected half-price bill for the repairs. Keep in mind: that the neighbors came together to seek out this half-price deal doesn't make any of them my proxy, obligates me to nothing (other than paying what is, for all intents, the market value of my share of repairs).

*shrug*

Which do YOU prefer?

For myself: I'm torn between 3 and 4...

[Undertoad]

You expect to get the benefit of collectivism, even if you don't participate.

[henry quirk]

How so?

And: define 'collectivism'...it's one of those words misused often.

[Undertoad]

Well, you demand the price the neighborhood got, even though you didn't participate in their plan.

Your non-participation made the plan less attractive to the market. In the bulk buying negotiation, you were one fewer buyer.

[henry quirk]

Here's the problem with, "You expect to get the benefit of collectivism"

I expect nothing...my expectation of others is zilch (more accurately: I expect each person to exercise his or her self-interest as he or she sees it...including the 'self-denying' types like Spexx who, though he says otherwise, is still motivated by his own wants and needs...that he includes as a want or need for everyone to play nice and 'give' despite lack of benefit is still an expression of his self-interest).


As for 'collectivism': while I'm certainly capable of idiosyncratically defining 'collectivism', in this case, I'm going with...

1.The practice or principle of giving a group priority over each individual in it.

2.The theory and practice of the ownership of land and the means of production by the people or the state.

What have I posted that would lead you to believe I support either position, or, that I seek to profit from either position while not participating in either position?


For a variety of reasons (none of which are germane here), I've taken on certain responsibilities for helping to raise my nephew. These commitments mean I live fairly close to the boy (a township in south Louisiana). I prefer a mobile life but -- for the past five years, and for at least the next five -- I'm rooted to the spot. I pay my bills (the ones I accrue) including water, garbage, etc. and have no problem doing so. By way of sales tax, other monies of mine funnel into local roads, libraries, and -- to an extent -- public education. As I see it: in no way am I supporting a collective, in no way agreeing to put the need(s) of any group over my own interests, in no way assigning control over 'me' to a governor or governors, in no way agreeing to be overseen in my work or my living.

From my perspective: I'm simply paying, locally, for what I use locally, paying for services rendered to me (and mine).

#

"you demand the price the neighborhood got, even though you didn't participate in their plan."

And they demanded initially that I participate in a plan I didn't want or need.

*shrug*

#

"Your non-participation made the plan less attractive to the market. In the bulk buying negotiation, you were one fewer buyer."

Not my problem. However, having given it some thought, ya know what I'd probably do? When the main cracked or broke, I'd probably find a plumber on my own and -- without consulting a soul -- pay for the expense out of my own pocket. It might be pricey, but (1) in the long run it'll cost me less than consistently forking up for the half-price maintenance I don't want or need, and, (2) not a soul amongst the 'collective' could tell me shit about shit then.

Win/win: I'm left alone, largely I keep my money, and the collective (and I) gets water.

If, however, it became a habit (the 'collective' actively fucking around with me, demanding my attention and money): I might just burn my house to ground one night, salt the ground, and book it out of town with my typewriter in one hand and my coachgun in the other...

#

The balance between 'I' and 'we' is never static...it wavers, sliding back and forth...what the 'we' must recognize is that the 'I' prefers its 'self'; what the 'I' must recognize is that not every one wants to 'be' 'one' and many prefer the safety and comfort of the 'we'.

[Undertoad]

Collectivism: I dunno, I guess what I'm driving at with the word is that it is a collective, whether it's big government, small government, a home-owners association or a voluntary bulk purchasing agreement.

Wikipedia says collective is defined as "a group of entities that share or are motivated by at least one common issue or interest" and collectivism is "any philosophic, political, religious, economic, or social outlook that emphasizes the interdependence of every human being", so I guess I have overextended the word collectivism here.

Still, there is a collective act in the bulk purchase and that is the part that interests me today.

[Undertoad]

"you demand the price the neighborhood got, even though you didn't participate in their plan."

And they demanded initially that I participate in a plan I didn't want or need.

*shrug*

No. If you had opt-out, it was not a *demand* on their part. But it turned out you wanted the benefit of the deal when the water main broke. I was surprised by that.

I'd probably find a plumber on my own and -- without consulting a soul -- pay for the expense out of my own pocket

You most certainly would not. You'd find the best deal you could.

[Ibby]

first a minor point, henry:

es·o·ter·ic/ˌesəˈterik/
Adjective: Intended for or likely to be understood by only a small number of people with a specialized knowledge or interest.

So, you think that government SHOULD be involved in complex or obscure issues, and in physical infrastructure issues? What issues are esoteric enough for government involvement?

Moving on to broader issues:
How do you calculate your "bill" for your benefit when, for example, a student who attended public schooling and a public university (which you believe you shouldn't have to pay for without personal benefit) then uses that education directly to invent a process that increases manufacturing efficiency across a wide range of products, which you can then purchase much more cheaply than you did before, thus saving you money?

How do you calculate your "bill" for the fact that some potential criminals may have been deterred by the threat of prison? Should victims of crimes have to pay more in taxes because they used the criminal justice system more?
Playing devil's advocate earlier, UT mentioned that 911 is a joke - but while self-defense against violent crime is certainly a personal responsibility, there is MUCH more to the way a government-run law enforcement and criminal justice system can extend "protection" to citizens than the immediate protection from immediate physical threat of violence.

And what about a "safety net"? Do you think that the destitute, or homeless, or even just unemployed, should not have access to roads, or phone lines, or police protection, or education, or life-saving health care, or ANY government support whatsoever, until they can pay for it? If so, how do you expect them to become able to pay for them?
relatedly: what causes poverty? Are the impoverished ALL just unwilling to make the effort to rise out of poverty? Is it possible to have a country where every single person willing to "try hard enough" can and does rise out of poverty, or can Bad Luck or circumstances beyond their control cause poverty or keep them impoverished too?
And if the poor can be poor for reasons beyond their control - is that just too bad, so sad, talk to the hand, Not My Problem?

[henry quirk]

I use 'esoteric' in place of, and to point to, 'culture', that is the intangible infrastructure of a nation.

My use is idiosyncratic...apologies for the confusion.

'I' think nations should cease to exist, but, if the USA is to continue, it should follow the blueprint (the Federal Constitution) which largely empowers the 'government' to maintain the esoteric (intangible) and physical infrastructures that fundamentally make the nation 'nation', and not much else.

#

"How do you calculate your "bill"?

In the first case: the student (now inventor) is compensated by way of the profit he or she makes in the sale or lease or his or her work. My 'bill' comes due when I decide to buy his or her work.

In the second case: please provide evidence that any crime has been deterred by the threat of prison.

If you use law enforcement, then pay for it; if you don't, then why should you pay? Three times I've been held up...twice I screamed 'fire' and the mugger ran, the third time I kicked him in the nuts...in none of those cases did the police 'protect and serve'...I kept my money (and life) because of 'me'.

#

"there is MUCH more to the way a government-run law enforcement and criminal justice system can extend "protection" to citizens than the immediate protection from immediate physical threat of violence."

The notion of which scares the hell outta me.

#

"Do you think that the destitute, or homeless, or even just unemployed, should not have access to roads, or phone lines, or police protection, or education, or life-saving health care, or ANY government support whatsoever, until they can pay for it?"

Taking things as they are 'now': it's impossible to deprive a body of access to roads or education or the police or health care or other gov support...the mechanisms are already in place (public education, public roads, etc.)...gimme a time machine and I might fix that for ya…

As for phones: folks are deprived all the time...even a pay phone 'costs' to use.

#

"Are the impoverished ALL just unwilling to make the effort to rise out of poverty?"

No, but not ALL are deserving of a hand up either. You address the problem(s) of an individual by addressing 'that' individual, not by lumping him of her in a 'class' or 'group'.

#

"if the poor can be poor for reasons beyond their control - is that just too bad, so sad, talk to the hand, Not My Problem?"

The answer you get is dependant on who ask...looking for universal solutions is hooey. For myself: as I wrote over in Dissident Philosophy just a little while ago, 'fundamentally: if I'm gonna share 'my' resources, 'I' get to decide who I share with, and why.'