forum

ITT 2: We post shit that is neither funny nor interesting

posted
Total Posts
56,017
show more
DaddyCoolVipper

B1rd wrote:

I was just at a private conservation ground that gets about 1.6 million dollars of income from private donors from this state alone. Sort of deflates the argument that it's impossible to protect the environment without the government.
my uncle joe saw anti-overfishing regulations get set in place by law one time so that sort of deflates your argument that you can privately protect the environment (which largely takes place on gov't-owned land)
B1rd

DaddyCoolVipper wrote:

my uncle joe saw anti-overfishing regulations get set in place by law one time so that sort of deflates your argument that you can privately protect the environment (which largely takes place on gov't-owned land)
Wow did the government really set rules about what you can do on its land? Obviously if that land were privately owned the owners would let anyone come and fish until there was nothing left, because people don't care about their property or its value (only the government does).
DaddyCoolVipper
wait, do you not believe that public property should exist? I'd rather not have to pay a tollbooth for every 100m I walk on the street my dude
B1rd
I beleive that generally individuals use their property better and more efficiently than the government does.

You probably don't like waiting two hours in congested traffick either, but due to the economic calculation problem, it's impossible for central planners to allocate resources as efficiently as in a market pricing system, thus the supply of road infastrsucture doesn't meet up with demand. Paying for tolls isn't much of a problem in our current day, it can be done electronically, by a specific licence, payed by the property owners etc.

In other news, our "Liberal" party has finally dropped any pretense of austerity and launched a massive spending and taxing campaign, but it's OK because it's "good debt".
Mahogany
Efficiency generally doesn't mean good for anyone but the owner, lmfao
kai99
embrace

sagiri
DaddyCoolVipper
I just think you put far too much faith in private ownership to be SIGNIFICANTLY better than government ownership. In some ways it can be better, in some ways worse, most people understand and agree with that concept. Where do you get the idea that privatised ownership of resources would be so *significantly* better?

Would you also support a privately-owned and paid for police force? Fire department? Other community services like those?
Mahogany

DaddyCoolVipper wrote:

Would you also support a privately-owned and paid for police force? Fire department? Other community services like those?
B1rd has said in the past that he would absolutely support having everything, including Police and Fire Departments, being privately owned.
Endaris
How can we improve capitalism without exposing ourselves as filthy leftists?
DeletedUser_6709840
I'm procrastinating the act of procrastinating
-SayaKai

Endaris wrote:

How can we improve capitalism without exposing ourselves as filthy leftists?
cuz fuck leftists
Meah

kai99 wrote:

embrace

sagiri
dNextGen

Endaris wrote:

How can we improve capitalism without exposing ourselves as filthy leftists?
you cant
Mahogany
just be leftist tho
B1rd

Endaris wrote:

How can we improve capitalism without exposing ourselves as filthy leftists?


DaddyCoolVipper wrote:

I just think you put far too much faith in private ownership to be SIGNIFICANTLY better than government ownership. In some ways it can be better, in some ways worse, most people understand and agree with that concept. Where do you get the idea that privatised ownership of resources would be so *significantly* better?

Would you also support a privately-owned and paid for police force? Fire department? Other community services like those?
Argumentum ad populum.

The police force is one of the things that could most benefit from privitisation. Private security and police are generally cheaper, more effective, and less prone to police brutality. This is because they are subject to competition, thus companies are strongly incentivies to provide the best product so they get the contracts, and employees are strongly incentivised to provide quality labour so they get promoted and don't get fired. This is in contrast to public police which are pretty much guarenteed income no matter how poor or ineffectual at driving down crime they are, and police officers can get away with anything short of bloody murder with the only consequnce being a short time on payed leave or a switch to an anministrative role.
dNextGen

Mahogany wrote:

just be leftist tho
that's like the most cancerous thing after the cancer itself

why would you become one
Comfy Slippers
right is right
kai99
right is literally right
Mahogany
right is cancer
Railey2
some entities definitely shouldn't be run to turn a profit, such as a prison system.

Prison is a place where money should be invested for resocialization programs, pertaining to education and trades.

Does a private company have an interest in providing opportunities to prisoners to kickstart a better life for them? Clearly they don't, because its not as profitable as say.. to just make a deal with a company from the outside and let people work for below min wage in prison - without any focus on improving their situation.

But is that really to the best of society?
Razzy

Mahogany wrote:

right is cancer
and the three above you are also cancer
Mahogany

Railey2 wrote:

Clearly they don't, because its not as profitable as say.. to just make a deal with a company from the outside and let people work for below min wage in prison - without any focus on improving their situation.
Nevermind the fact that actually reforming these prisoners would actively damage their income. It's in their best interest to have as many prisoners as possible, so you bet they're going to do all they can to keep prisoners from reintegration into society, and try all they can to keep them locked up as long as possible.
Comfy Slippers
Ra
Ra
Rasputin
DaddyCoolVipper
DaddyCoolVipper

B1rd wrote:

Argumentum ad populum.
Only you would link this in response to "Most people can see that there are pros and cons" lol

also, Mahogany's point is interesting, considering that prisoner slavery is legal in the US, which has a notoriously awful prison system/high re-offender rates. Prisons in some European companies are "luxurious", and guess what, they end up reforming people a lot better.

But those just wouldn't be profitable, now, would they? Sure, they benefit society overall, but there's no way a private prison would shell out all that money to improve people's well-being if they didn't have to. This is the core reasoning behind "Private doesn't necessarily mean good"- profitability isn't necessarily maximum benefit for society overall, far from it, and generally leads to massive inequality until things escalate to the point where the rich are overthrown in revolution.

Same applies for when states misuse their power in general. Privatization offers no more protection from this. "Competition exists therefore the system will become perfect in order to survive" isn't a valid argument when competition can't necessarily exist for everything.

A private police force would be fucking retarded for a few reasons, namely the fact that you could just pay them as much as they wanted and get off of any crime scot-free. Especially true for large businesses that commit crimes on massive scale. They already do to some extent, but privatization of the police would essentially mean that instead of having a police force, you'd just end up with a bunch of henchmen of whichever corporations are the richest. How could you see that coming when you made your initial argument?
Zain Sugieres
How about we talk about Ajit Pai and the net neutrality stuff in the US right now
Razzy

DaddyCoolVipper wrote:

I think I'm gonna be sick

Zain Sugieres wrote:

How about we talk about Ajit Pai and the net neutrality stuff in the US right now
okay I'm definitely gonna be sick
DeletedUser_6709840
is that article even reliable?

But it does sound plausible.
DaddyCoolVipper

RoseusJaeger wrote:

is that article even reliable?

But it does sound plausible.
You can confirm it for yourself by clicking the link provided in it and seeing the massive list of bot comments, yes
DeletedUser_6709840
ah
Jordan

Mahogany wrote:

DaddyCoolVipper wrote:

Would you also support a privately-owned and paid for police force? Fire department? Other community services like those?
B1rd has said in the past that he would absolutely support having everything, including Police and Fire Departments, being privately owned.
Your morbid attachment to B1rd is hilarious

He's been ignoring you for months you just keep mentioning him in 3/4 of the posts you make here







































Mahogany
If b1rd stopped being a retard I'd have much less reason to point out how retarded he is
DeletedUser_6709840

Mahogany wrote:

If b1rd stopped being a retard I'd have much less reason to point out how retarded he is
amen
abraker

Mahogany wrote:

DaddyCoolVipper wrote:

Would you also support a privately-owned and paid for police force? Fire department? Other community services like those?
B1rd has said in the past that he would absolutely support having everything, including Police and Fire Departments, being privately owned.
Having the military privately owned without a government backed military would be a disaster.
GladiOol

DaddyCoolVipper wrote:

I love these. The recurring taco truck is honestly the best.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PzbusRK ... .be&t=6m2s
B1rd

DaddyCoolVipper wrote:

Only you would link this in response to "Most people can see that there are pros and cons" lol

also, Mahogany's point is interesting, considering that prisoner slavery is legal in the US, which has a notoriously awful prison system/high re-offender rates. Prisons in some European companies are "luxurious", and guess what, they end up reforming people a lot better.

But those just wouldn't be profitable, now, would they? Sure, they benefit society overall, but there's no way a private prison would shell out all that money to improve people's well-being if they didn't have to. This is the core reasoning behind "Private doesn't necessarily mean good"- profitability isn't necessarily maximum benefit for society overall, far from it, and generally leads to massive inequality until things escalate to the point where the rich are overthrown in revolution.

Same applies for when states misuse their power in general. Privatization offers no more protection from this. "Competition exists therefore the system will become perfect in order to survive" isn't a valid argument when competition can't necessarily exist for everything.

A private police force would be fucking retarded for a few reasons, namely the fact that you could just pay them as much as they wanted and get off of any crime scot-free. Especially true for large businesses that commit crimes on massive scale. They already do to some extent, but privatization of the police would essentially mean that instead of having a police force, you'd just end up with a bunch of henchmen of whichever corporations are the richest. How could you see that coming when you made your initial argument?
America vs Scandinavia isn't a good example of Capitalism vs Socialism as it's made out to be. Scandinavian countries have far less crime, a homogenous white population. Nationalise the prisons if you want, but try implementing the same policies and the same level of funding per prisoner and you're gonna be in for a rough time, probably bankrupt the nation.
Who do you think funds the prisons in America? The taxpayers via the government. It's not a free market system at all, its just another example of the unholy matrimony of big government and corporate interests. The government makes a whole load of laws to put innocent people in jail, the jail benefits and receives funding increases for the extra prisoners, and in turn the prisons fund the campaigns of the politicians. The "war on drugs" is the best example of these policies to increase prison populations, over 50% of prisoners are in there because of drug-related offenses. 86% of prisoners are in there because of victimless crimes. That's 86% of prisoners who are in jail to pad the pockets of a few select people. It's nothing to do with any fundamental flaws of Capitalism, it's all to do with the fundamental flaws of the state and the perverse incentives offered to the private sector by the state. America suffers these problems more than these small European countries because it's bigger and more centralised.

And who are you to say in what ways the private sector can make profit? If you could do that you should be a billionaire by now. If the ones who were directly funding the prisons were the ones who had a vested interest in their effectiveness, the community, then the prisons in turn would respond to that incentive by trying to provide the best reformation rates at the lowest prices. In fact, I doubt that locking people in a cage for years in the most effective means of deterring undesirable behaviour, I think prisons should be relegated to incarcerating people who post a real physical threat to people, like murderers and rapists. Voluntary economic penalties and ostracisation are likely better and cheaper deterrents.


Saying that the unregulated free market leads to inequality and revolution is nothing but a socialist fantasy. If you look at the French revolution, it was caused by the decadent aristocracy, nothing to do with the free market. The free market based on private property rights and Capitalism has been the single greatest thing to improve the human condition. Socialist are just hangers on from intellectuals of the industrial revolution when certain things did create inequality, and when there was a very low GDP per capita, but since then the progress of industry has made it so even the "poor" in the West live like kings compared to a few centuries ago. The free market did that, not government, not socialism; the way to improve the lot of the poor is the innovate production and increase wealth for everyone. Socialist policies are nothing but economic populism and decrease the net wealth for everyone, however they are implemented because the overwhelming majority of people are short sighted and don't know economics, they don't vote for the best long-term policies, they vote for their own short-term gain.

And socialism isn't just bad for the economy, it's one of the greatest threats to freedom and liberty. Nothing else has caused as much death and tragedy in the recent era as the idealism of socialism. The fact is that economic freedom and personal freedom are intrinsically related. The state claws its way to power under the pretense of benevolence. Trust the Left to overlook the ones with the guns and the armies and demonise the people trying to sell you iphones and burgers.
Not that wealth distribution is inherently bad, but it should be voluntary. Using coercion to steal someone's money is not moral, and the ends don't justify the means.


Now I don't know what you mean by your last sentence, but no the "the corporations will take power" argument is not something new. It's nothing but an knee-jerk reaction without any actual real consideration. If a corporation can lose millions of dollars from one video of security dragging a man out of a plane, then having henchmen beating people up is going to definitely be bad publicity. Corporations are not self-sufficient entities, they rely on voluntary trades from millions of people. People will not trade with entities trying to kill them. There is plenty of competition on the free market to make any company, private police or whatever, extremely conscious of public image. Even if some corporations did try and take power like this, and let's say that there were no economic consequences somehow, they still wouldn't have the manpower or resources to take on the whole of the rest of society, who have their own private security and their own guns. Private citizens are as much, or larger, a consumer of security than big business, from the security company's point of view it makes no sense to marginalise your biggest consumer base. Violent conflict is extremely unprofitable and almost certainly ruinous, there is no logical reason to assume that just because of privatisation of the police that corporations would engage in such an activity.

This is what a privatised police force would look like:

Mahogany
hahahahahahaha
Mahogany
Mara
So, why haven't mods renamed this thread into "ITT: We post political shit"?
Mahogany
That's pretty much what it is called though
show more
Please sign in to reply.

New reply