No, not “volunteers” in the sense that they’ll work for free, but people that you’ve entered into a voluntary arrangement with, as in, “if you provide this service for me, I’ll pay you x amount. Agreed? O.K., let’s work out the details.” There are countless examples of private businesses doing things that some maintain “only the goverment can do!” such as private security firms, private mediation/arbitration firms (instead of a monopolized legal system), private business evaluation/rating firms (e.g., A.M. Best, J.D. Powers, etc.), etc. These arrangments work and do not require that people who have no interest (either financial or otherwise) be compelled to pay for them.
As far as the example of “who’s going to prevent my car from being stolen,” the police (or any other government agency) has no obligation or duty to do any such thing. And the government has admitted this in countless court decisions; their words have been (and this is almost verbatim) “government has no obligation or duty to provide services, even as elementary a duty as protection,” for example, check the case of Bowers v. DeVito. And this makes intuitive sense; suppose your car gets stolen; you won’t find a lawyer in the world (unless he wants to be disbarred) who will file a suit against the gov’t/police dept. for “failure to fullfill duty to protect and/or prevent car from being stolen.” Sure, you could try filing such a suit on your own (if you can get past the “justice system’s” hatred of non-lawyers), but it will be thrown out for “failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted.”
So, ponder that: people are forced to pay for police, etc., ostensibly under the belief that the police, etc. are obligated to “do something;” then the gov’t comes out and plainly admits, with no shame whatsoever, they are not obligated to provide anything whatsoever. Suppose that a private firm did that. How long do you think it would be before the gov’t rounded them up and put them all in jail? What do you think the mainstream media would make of that? “Private firm takes money and doen’t provide anything in return!! Kill them all!! Burn down their houses!!”
whether they are obligated to or not, the police do prevent my car from being stolen by being part of a state run judicial system. When people are caught they are punished. This keeps future car thefts down because the people who steal them get locked up, and people that consider stealing them don’t steal because they don’t want to be locked up. The fact that cars still get stolen is not proof that the system has failed, its proof that without the system, it would be much worse.
Two responses: first, you wrote “would be much worse;” that’s a hypothetical statement because it’s not been tested. Who’s to say that in the absence of a police force, private initiatives wouldn’t be introduced to reduce car thefts: high-tech security systems; private security patrol firms; customized insurance coverage (and you know that an insurance company has a greater incentive than police departments to prevent car thefts if they’re obligated to pay in the event of theft). I live in an area where, if you call the cops, you’ll be lucky to get them to respond in one week. But we’ve lived there for over 7 years and there hasn’t been one car theft or home break in or even attempted break in. That’s because most of the people in our neighborhood, and adjoining neighborhoods, have guns and there’s a gun club in the area (and, no, I’m not trying to turn this into a “gun rights” issue, but only making the point that private solutions have formed in the absence of police presence).
But the main point is that everyone is coerced into paying for the police dept. whether they want to or not, or whether they want their “services” or not. To focus in on car thefts: suppose that someone has an old junker and they don’t care if it gets stolen; or someone has the latest high-tech security system that has been shown to be invulnerable to car theft; or someone never parks their car on a public street; or indeed has no car at all. These people would most likely not want to pay for the police in relation to their cars.
Let’s take a similar situation: suppose that there was a home improvement/fix-up contractor in a town. They say, “O.K., we’re going to force everyone into paying us, whether they elect to use our services or not. With the money we receive, we’ll go around and fix up homes that need repair; if we didn’t, the town would not be as attractive as if we didn’t. True, the people who have newer homes or who are handy themselves with tools, or who don’t even want their houses fixed up will not ask for our services, but that’s too bad. ‘Society’ must pay for the upkeep of the houses that need it. Oh, and by the way, even though you paid us, we’re not obligated to you in any way” Would you put up with that?
I’ll end this with the world’s shortest political quiz: Do you think that any services should be provided at the barrel of a gun? That is, do you think people should be forced, by violence or the ultimate threat thereof either to themselves or others, to pay for something they don’t want? If your answer is “yes,” then it’s unlikely that anyone can deal with you on a rational, logical, or peaceable basis. If your answer is “no,” then we have a foundation for discussion, and the starting point should be whether or not the “service” provider is offering their services on a voluntary basis (no, not “voluntary” as in free, but voluntary as in not coerced).
Media Mogus,
Why is it that you’re always trying to make every issue a Republican vs Democrat debate. Fact is almost every politician out there that make is above a 1-term local city/town council position is out for themselves.
In this case the both parties were pushing the development/building of new houses. Dems did it to look good to the poor/middle class by creating jobs and Reps because it makes the economy look good and that helps big business. The people who are suffering because of it are the idiots who actual believe the government is here for the People today.
I think services need to be provided to society and infrastructure needs to be maintained. For example there is a bridge in Minnesota that needs replacing. That bridge is important to people in that town, and a bigger area, but its not important to me ( I live in Boston )so if I had the choice, I would choose not to pay for that bridge. But I know it needs to be replaced and someday a bridge near me will need to be replaced and those people in Minnesota will help pay for the bridge that I value.
Your example of the mandatory home improvement company is a good one, but in order for that to happen, enough people would have to implement that plan. If everyone wanted it that way, it would be that way. If most people don’t want it that way, you couldn’t implement it. I think most people agree that a police and fire department are necessary, a public school is a good thing to have, higway sigs and traffic signals are beneficial, etc.
I find it odd that you have the viewpoint that you do since you work in insurance. The whole theory of insurance is that if you get everyone to pay for it, it’s beneficial. You may not need insurance this year, but you pay for it. Some guy in Florida might get his house blown away and he gets a new $200k house for $1500 bucks a year…..it works over a long enough time frame and a big enough sample of people….just like the public services provided by our government. I think our government is rife with problems ( ineptitude, dishonesty, etc ) but until I hear a better idea, I am willing to accept the current system and strive for improvements rather than abolishing the system and hoping for peace out of the enusing anarchy.
what you are describing is a ‘utopian’ society, where there is no evil. organized religion was founded all over the world to help us strive for this utopian society. the reality is there is evil in peoples heart and that is what we must protect ourselves against. as a society we must band together in defense of this evil. the role of government must be to identify these people and help us protect ourselves from them. i would love to live in your world and not pay taxes, including federal, state and local but i know that if i do not i will leave myself open to the evil inherent in man. i am not so naive that i do not realize that some or most of the money will be wasted but, as an individual, i cannot stop the onslaught of evil by myself-i need the inefficient help of governement. they should be kept in check by our elected representatives and by our vote but this is our only protection. your utopian world is wonderful to comtemplate and we should all strive to reach it but until we reach utopia this is the next best thing.
No need to revamp the most successful economic and social experiment in the history of humankind. Home ownership in America is at an historic high, about 70%. That means more folks have achieved the American dream than ever before. That has indirect benefits that affect us all. If the foreclosure rate goes up slightly due to more participation, I am OK with that. The net benefit to society exceeds the net cost. Can any other society make the claim of 70% home ownership? And how does anyone assign a political party aspect to this topic?
Lastly, when a person calls a real estate broker or agent, isn’t it reasonable on the part of the realtor to assume the potential buyer is sophisticated enough to understand the pro’s and con’s of buying real estate? Don’t tell me that the realtor should be expected to handhold someone who wants to buy property?
I have been wanting to buy some investment property and with this happening, some of these houses will be ripe for the picking. If I can save 25-40% off the price they were 12 months ago, I might even buy a few. And with all of these people on the street from losing their homes, there will be more renters out there, hence, rental prices will go up and I can charge more for rent!. So, where is the bad news in the housing crisis.
I’m afraid what your suggesting is impossible on this earth. However, when you leave this world, assuming you are a Christian, you will find the place your looking for.
Your attitude is just what the economy needs now and if more people think like you we will pull through this crisis, but if you read todays financial papers, people are standing in line to pull their money out of Countrywide and other lenders. This is very bad-1929’s bad. It is psychological now. People are pulling out. Try getting a conventional loan today and see what happens. Even main stream lending institutions have backed off. It is next to impossible to get a loan unless you are willing to pay 22 percent interest. I hope you keep your optimism because we need more positive thinkers like you.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
No, not “volunteers” in the sense that they’ll work for free, but people that you’ve entered into a voluntary arrangement with, as in, “if you provide this service for me, I’ll pay you x amount. Agreed? O.K., let’s work out the details.” There are countless examples of private businesses doing things that some maintain “only the goverment can do!” such as private security firms, private mediation/arbitration firms (instead of a monopolized legal system), private business evaluation/rating firms (e.g., A.M. Best, J.D. Powers, etc.), etc. These arrangments work and do not require that people who have no interest (either financial or otherwise) be compelled to pay for them.
As far as the example of “who’s going to prevent my car from being stolen,” the police (or any other government agency) has no obligation or duty to do any such thing. And the government has admitted this in countless court decisions; their words have been (and this is almost verbatim) “government has no obligation or duty to provide services, even as elementary a duty as protection,” for example, check the case of Bowers v. DeVito. And this makes intuitive sense; suppose your car gets stolen; you won’t find a lawyer in the world (unless he wants to be disbarred) who will file a suit against the gov’t/police dept. for “failure to fullfill duty to protect and/or prevent car from being stolen.” Sure, you could try filing such a suit on your own (if you can get past the “justice system’s” hatred of non-lawyers), but it will be thrown out for “failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted.”
So, ponder that: people are forced to pay for police, etc., ostensibly under the belief that the police, etc. are obligated to “do something;” then the gov’t comes out and plainly admits, with no shame whatsoever, they are not obligated to provide anything whatsoever. Suppose that a private firm did that. How long do you think it would be before the gov’t rounded them up and put them all in jail? What do you think the mainstream media would make of that? “Private firm takes money and doen’t provide anything in return!! Kill them all!! Burn down their houses!!”
whether they are obligated to or not, the police do prevent my car from being stolen by being part of a state run judicial system. When people are caught they are punished. This keeps future car thefts down because the people who steal them get locked up, and people that consider stealing them don’t steal because they don’t want to be locked up. The fact that cars still get stolen is not proof that the system has failed, its proof that without the system, it would be much worse.
Two responses: first, you wrote “would be much worse;” that’s a hypothetical statement because it’s not been tested. Who’s to say that in the absence of a police force, private initiatives wouldn’t be introduced to reduce car thefts: high-tech security systems; private security patrol firms; customized insurance coverage (and you know that an insurance company has a greater incentive than police departments to prevent car thefts if they’re obligated to pay in the event of theft). I live in an area where, if you call the cops, you’ll be lucky to get them to respond in one week. But we’ve lived there for over 7 years and there hasn’t been one car theft or home break in or even attempted break in. That’s because most of the people in our neighborhood, and adjoining neighborhoods, have guns and there’s a gun club in the area (and, no, I’m not trying to turn this into a “gun rights” issue, but only making the point that private solutions have formed in the absence of police presence).
But the main point is that everyone is coerced into paying for the police dept. whether they want to or not, or whether they want their “services” or not. To focus in on car thefts: suppose that someone has an old junker and they don’t care if it gets stolen; or someone has the latest high-tech security system that has been shown to be invulnerable to car theft; or someone never parks their car on a public street; or indeed has no car at all. These people would most likely not want to pay for the police in relation to their cars.
Let’s take a similar situation: suppose that there was a home improvement/fix-up contractor in a town. They say, “O.K., we’re going to force everyone into paying us, whether they elect to use our services or not. With the money we receive, we’ll go around and fix up homes that need repair; if we didn’t, the town would not be as attractive as if we didn’t. True, the people who have newer homes or who are handy themselves with tools, or who don’t even want their houses fixed up will not ask for our services, but that’s too bad. ‘Society’ must pay for the upkeep of the houses that need it. Oh, and by the way, even though you paid us, we’re not obligated to you in any way” Would you put up with that?
I’ll end this with the world’s shortest political quiz: Do you think that any services should be provided at the barrel of a gun? That is, do you think people should be forced, by violence or the ultimate threat thereof either to themselves or others, to pay for something they don’t want? If your answer is “yes,” then it’s unlikely that anyone can deal with you on a rational, logical, or peaceable basis. If your answer is “no,” then we have a foundation for discussion, and the starting point should be whether or not the “service” provider is offering their services on a voluntary basis (no, not “voluntary” as in free, but voluntary as in not coerced).
Media Mogus,
Why is it that you’re always trying to make every issue a Republican vs Democrat debate. Fact is almost every politician out there that make is above a 1-term local city/town council position is out for themselves.
In this case the both parties were pushing the development/building of new houses. Dems did it to look good to the poor/middle class by creating jobs and Reps because it makes the economy look good and that helps big business. The people who are suffering because of it are the idiots who actual believe the government is here for the People today.
I think services need to be provided to society and infrastructure needs to be maintained. For example there is a bridge in Minnesota that needs replacing. That bridge is important to people in that town, and a bigger area, but its not important to me ( I live in Boston )so if I had the choice, I would choose not to pay for that bridge. But I know it needs to be replaced and someday a bridge near me will need to be replaced and those people in Minnesota will help pay for the bridge that I value.
Your example of the mandatory home improvement company is a good one, but in order for that to happen, enough people would have to implement that plan. If everyone wanted it that way, it would be that way. If most people don’t want it that way, you couldn’t implement it. I think most people agree that a police and fire department are necessary, a public school is a good thing to have, higway sigs and traffic signals are beneficial, etc.
I find it odd that you have the viewpoint that you do since you work in insurance. The whole theory of insurance is that if you get everyone to pay for it, it’s beneficial. You may not need insurance this year, but you pay for it. Some guy in Florida might get his house blown away and he gets a new $200k house for $1500 bucks a year…..it works over a long enough time frame and a big enough sample of people….just like the public services provided by our government. I think our government is rife with problems ( ineptitude, dishonesty, etc ) but until I hear a better idea, I am willing to accept the current system and strive for improvements rather than abolishing the system and hoping for peace out of the enusing anarchy.
what you are describing is a ‘utopian’ society, where there is no evil. organized religion was founded all over the world to help us strive for this utopian society. the reality is there is evil in peoples heart and that is what we must protect ourselves against. as a society we must band together in defense of this evil. the role of government must be to identify these people and help us protect ourselves from them. i would love to live in your world and not pay taxes, including federal, state and local but i know that if i do not i will leave myself open to the evil inherent in man. i am not so naive that i do not realize that some or most of the money will be wasted but, as an individual, i cannot stop the onslaught of evil by myself-i need the inefficient help of governement. they should be kept in check by our elected representatives and by our vote but this is our only protection. your utopian world is wonderful to comtemplate and we should all strive to reach it but until we reach utopia this is the next best thing.
No need to revamp the most successful economic and social experiment in the history of humankind. Home ownership in America is at an historic high, about 70%. That means more folks have achieved the American dream than ever before. That has indirect benefits that affect us all. If the foreclosure rate goes up slightly due to more participation, I am OK with that. The net benefit to society exceeds the net cost. Can any other society make the claim of 70% home ownership? And how does anyone assign a political party aspect to this topic?
Lastly, when a person calls a real estate broker or agent, isn’t it reasonable on the part of the realtor to assume the potential buyer is sophisticated enough to understand the pro’s and con’s of buying real estate? Don’t tell me that the realtor should be expected to handhold someone who wants to buy property?
I have been wanting to buy some investment property and with this happening, some of these houses will be ripe for the picking. If I can save 25-40% off the price they were 12 months ago, I might even buy a few. And with all of these people on the street from losing their homes, there will be more renters out there, hence, rental prices will go up and I can charge more for rent!. So, where is the bad news in the housing crisis.
I’m afraid what your suggesting is impossible on this earth. However, when you leave this world, assuming you are a Christian, you will find the place your looking for.
Your attitude is just what the economy needs now and if more people think like you we will pull through this crisis, but if you read todays financial papers, people are standing in line to pull their money out of Countrywide and other lenders. This is very bad-1929’s bad. It is psychological now. People are pulling out. Try getting a conventional loan today and see what happens. Even main stream lending institutions have backed off. It is next to impossible to get a loan unless you are willing to pay 22 percent interest. I hope you keep your optimism because we need more positive thinkers like you.