If you had to pay?

Yup, that's some kind of old-fashioned human nature with the financial market distinct from the proprietorship markets.:biker:

 

do you think most people can be trusted with absolute freedom?

how will a free market cope with unpredicted changes and disasters?

does an absolutely free market include the freedom to buy and sell other human beings?

[waiting for more meaningless platitudes]

 

note re commercial vs government options - i live in a rural region with few commercial ventures, have not seen the options described in earlier posts - both services and charities are sorely lacking

government is here and it is helping

 

dreaming of the free market paradise, 75 million american households concerned only with their own well-being, desperately trying to beat their neighbors, no safety or security anywhere

[it's a nightmare]

 

Look around you and you have the answer.
When I look around my environment, I see most people who are making a living and living a mostly noble life. No one is perfect. No system is perfect. However if we as individuals do not strive for our level of perfection we will come no where near it.

I'm sure you've heard the saying that goes something like
'You miss every shot you don't try'

You need to stop being so negative and be the catalyst for change.
Or you can keep being fed by and feeding into the negativity you see around you.

In the end every choice is yours, even the choice to allow yourself to be brainwashed by those above you that want you to believe have no choice but to be where you are.

Seriously, you wica are you're own worst enemy.
It's written all over your posts.

More proof that you do not understand how a free market works.
In a free market, business will do what's in their best interest.
What do you think is in business' best interest in reacting to unpredicted changes and disasters?
This is a serious question I'm asking you.
From their think about the peices that make up any economy, the individuals. Here also, the individual will act in a way that is in their best interest. There are exceptions to this but now where getting into human development. See end of post for some interesting info about this.

Keep in mind that in the real world most if not all economies are mixed economies. And although the following are social systems, each does have a different way of handling economies. Either way, even the socio economic systems in the real world are mixed. These systems being Capitalist, Socialist, Communist, etc...


Human development.
Read about Masslow's Hierarchy of needs.
And watch this video:
[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc

 

answered yourself?

their best interest being of course short term profits

perhaps, and perhaps i am not alone in this, and perhaps that is why i should not be at the mercy of my own devices

as far as this goes, you know nothing about me and what i do, except perhaps that i do not work for my own personal gain

i try to be a catalyst for change, but not for competition or profit - ideas that belong in history's dustbin

 

What steps have you taken to look for these commercial options?
Also, keep in mind that unfortunately different regions do have differences in economies.

In a perfect world I suppose you'd have service offices set up in rural locations simply because one person needed that service. I know I would not want to be the person to own that business. Would you?

 

In today's world, not in a free market economy.
In a free market economy, their best interest is to be an ongoing concern, ie. Long term profitability.

 

That's the choice you've made.
Can't blame anyone else for that.

 

Not working for your personal gain is the mistake you're making.
If you truly are one who influences people in positive ways and contributes to a better world but have no aspect of personal gain, you will not be able to work positivity for long.

Even Mother Theresa had to include actions that kept food in her stomach - personal gain at the most basic level.

 

i'm mightily enjoying the spectacle of mister freedom telling me how to live . . .

 

Wow, took me a minute to read through this discussion. To the original poster, I feel that I would probably only pay half of what I am paying now from income tax. I feel that government services are needed, and for the sake of our fucking country, and the well-being of others, I can afford to give back. Although, I feel like I do not get to put all services to use. So, I would say roughly $150 a week. But this would be only if it was for services I truly felt were necessary and deemed my payment worthy.

 

And WICA, I like your statement a couple pages back about the basic needs in our lives that are basically hidden behind these corporate induced false necessities.

 

Corporate induced false necessities are great for the idea of energy development. No? Libertarianism truly has it's energy to work people by their educated hope.

 

This thread, IMO, was and is one of increasing relevance -- ' too bad it was derailed by those unable or unwilling to understand that.

Hopefully, Individual, isn't offended by my attempted revival.

 

Here we are talking of ‘government services’ in the universal sense, theoretically open to anyone, but probably limited by circumstance. It is not ‘personal service’ in the singular sense (for example from one individual to another) open only to that individual for a good or service.

So everyone within the system is getting the same amount in ‘government service’ it is just that due to circumstance they may or may not be using it at all or to the same extent or even be entitled to it. But it is still there, and if circumstances change, the system is still there.

For example let us take a road system that is publically built and maintained through taxation. Everyone pays in but not everyone is going to use the system to the same extent or every use all of it. Someone in New York may not even know about a road in New Mexico and may never use it but they might be thankful of it if circumstances change and they move to New Mexico. So the road built in New Mexico may not be directly necessary for a family living in New York and a road built in New York might not be directly necessary for family living in New Mexico but together they contribute to the whole system.

 

Let us imagine a plague, a disease that could affect anyone but will actually end up only affecting half of the population but nobody knows which half. (*)

In such a situation I think most sensible people would want the community’s government to try and do something about it and be willing to pay the taxes to tackle the situation.

Now lets say that half a population are born into disadvantage and half not. But since no one can choose beforehand to which half they are to be born, it basically means disadvantage could affect anyone.

The difference is that there is the problem of hindsight, when those born into advantage are taxed to help the disadvantaged, they may not be inclined to go ‘oh I could have been born disadvantaged myself’ they might go ‘why should I help’.

It is like knowing who would be affected by the disease and who not. Some might help out of compassion and for the good of society but others might think ‘I’m all right jack’ and decide it’s none of their business if others suffer - something I’m sure they wouldn’t think if they didn’t now they wouldn’t be effected.

(*And I’m not saying disadvantage is a disease, I’m just using the plague idea as an example)

 

Not at all. And thank you for recognizing that I was only trying to make people, especially those much younger than I, think about what effect Federal government spending is going to have on their future lives, long after I'm gone.

 

WOW........the value of services rendered to me by Goverment.

could think of trash collection, recyclables, sewer & water, but those are local services, not federal.

I could sure use less postal service, they can bring the mail once-a-week and I'd
Be happy.

I am unsure as to what portion of the twelve aircraft carrier fleets would be my expenses?

How about the interest on all of that Goverment Debt?

 

Would it help to restate the question once again?

"If the government services provided you and your family directly required you to pay for them, how much would you consider to be a fair price charged per family member to be paid to government per week? And what services does government provide that you feel necessary for you and your family that you would be willing to pay for?"