Why is income inequality bad?

[r3vbr]

If society is to award people according to their potential, then a lot of inequality is mandatory, because although there is massive inequality between rich/poor, there is arguably an even greater inequality between smart/stupid and competent/incometent.

Consider theoretical phisicist, nanotech engineer and then compare with ignorant wifebeating truck driving redneck with beer helmet who vegetates watching tv all day...

I also think that when stupid people by any chance happen to make money, it's a worse thing than a smart person being underpayed (think Michael Moore).

Unless of course you disagree with the concept of a meritocracy, thoughts?

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
If society is to award people according to their potential, then a lot of inequality is mandatory, because although there is massive inequality between rich/poor, there is arguably an even greater inequality between smart/stupid and competent/incometent.

Consider theoretical phisicist, nanotech engineer and then compare with ignorant wifebeating truck driving redneck with beer helmet who vegetates watching tv all day...

I also think that when stupid people by any chance happen to make money, it's a worse thing than a smart person being underpayed (think Michael Moore).

Unless of course you disagree with the concept of a meritocracy, thoughts?



[/ QUOTE ]

Most people’s sense of fairness is indeed along the lines of a meritocracy. The problem stems when ideologues try to define for everyone else who is meritorious and who isn’t . I could say that Paris Hilton doesn’t deserve her money, but am I right? She manages, through that dim witted, blonde brain of hers, to create entire economies around herself. Many, many people have jobs because of her existence, and many more people, for whatever reason, are entertained by her existence.

The same can be said for Michael Moore, whether you like him or not.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
...because although there is massive inequality between rich/poor, there is arguably an even greater inequality between smart/stupid and competent/incometent.

[/ QUOTE ]

I accept that you may only have a small fraction of the intelligence (IQ?) of Bill Gates, Soros, Buffet et al., but that is not the case for me. OTOH, I didn't quite have their luck in life, although I have had my share of it. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[tolbiny]

Does Paris Hilton make more than she spends? I'm a little curious to see if her net worth is increasing faster than inflation, or if her net worth outside of her trust is as least (i assume she has a trust).

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
Does Paris Hilton make more than she spends? I'm a little curious to see if her net worth is increasing faster than inflation, or if her net worth outside of her trust is as least (i assume she has a trust).



[/ QUOTE ]

I don’t know the answer to this. But when Paris Hilton buys something completely stupid, like a diamond necklace, when she gets bored of it, she can auction it off for more than she bought it for and give the proceeds to charity. Other people can’t do this. From what I understand, she is very charitable.

edit - maybe an expensive dress would be a better example than a diamond necklace, although I'm not sure. I do know that people go nuts over her worthless stuff.

[Silent A]

[ QUOTE ]
I also think that when stupid people by any chance happen to make money, it's a worse thing than a smart person being underpayed (think Michael Moore).

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think Michael Moore is underpaid.

[Silent A]

It's not so much that income inequality os bad, it's that it's possible for a society to have too much income inequality and this can (at a minimum) create gross inefficiencies (including social disorder).

[THAY3R]

[ QUOTE ]
Does Paris Hilton make more than she spends? I'm a little curious to see if her net worth is increasing faster than inflation, or if her net worth outside of her trust is as least (i assume she has a trust).

[/ QUOTE ]

She gets paid hundreds of thousands(maybe more?) just to show up at places.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I also think that when stupid people by any chance happen to make money, it's a worse thing than a smart person being underpayed (think Michael Moore).

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think Michael Moore is underpaid.

[/ QUOTE ]

Strange, I was gonna say I don't think he just happened to make money. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[CORed]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I also think that when stupid people by any chance happen to make money, it's a worse thing than a smart person being underpayed (think Michael Moore).

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think Michael Moore is underpaid.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not unless is income is negative.

[Hoi Polloi]

[ QUOTE ]
Does Paris Hilton make more than she spends? I'm a little curious to see if her net worth is increasing faster than inflation, or if her net worth outside of her trust is as least (i assume she has a trust).

[/ QUOTE ]

Do trust funds exist in a meritocracy?

[Hoi Polloi]

[ QUOTE ]
Consider theoretical phisicist, nanotech engineer and then compare with ignorant wifebeating truck driving redneck with beer helmet who vegetates watching tv all day...

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice job with the strawman.

Let's consider what we might mean by meritocracy. Merit? What is that? One way of looking at it is really equivalent to scarcitocracy. That is, a market approach which rewards those with rare and critical skills. Anyone whose skills are easily found will have a race to the bottom in terms of compensation. But is that merit? What if my skills are common: I'm a janitor. But I provide an important (i.e., valuable) service, I do a good job, reliably and conscientiously. Do I have merit in a meritocracy? Or is this really just a question of who is best positioned to negotiate a sweet deal for themselves?

[samsonite2100]

I don't understand the point of the OP. Who exactly is saying income inequality is bad other than diehard communists?

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If society is to award people according to their potential, then a lot of inequality is mandatory, because although there is massive inequality between rich/poor, there is arguably an even greater inequality between smart/stupid and competent/incometent.

Consider theoretical phisicist, nanotech engineer and then compare with ignorant wifebeating truck driving redneck with beer helmet who vegetates watching tv all day...

I also think that when stupid people by any chance happen to make money, it's a worse thing than a smart person being underpayed (think Michael Moore).

Unless of course you disagree with the concept of a meritocracy, thoughts?



[/ QUOTE ]

Most people’s sense of fairness is indeed along the lines of a meritocracy. The problem stems when ideologues try to define for everyone else who is meritorious and who isn’t . I could say that Paris Hilton doesn’t deserve her money, but am I right? She manages, through that dim witted, blonde brain of hers, to create entire economies around herself. Many, many people have jobs because of her existence, and many more people, for whatever reason, are entertained by her existence.

The same can be said for Michael Moore, whether you like him or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Aside from your (excellent) arguments, I will point out that the question of whether or not Paris Hilton "deserves" her money has no bearing on the question of meritocracy. The question is, does Daddy Hilton, who made his money providing valued (by definition) services to millions of people, get to leave his daughter the rewards of his merit?

Any answer other than "yes" is clearly NOT based on any sort of meritocratic philosophy.

[NoahL]

Michael Moore media whore

[Hoi Polloi]

[ QUOTE ]
The question is, does Daddy Hilton, who made his money providing valued (by definition) services to millions of people, get to leave his daughter the rewards of his merit?

Any answer other than "yes" is clearly NOT based on any sort of meritocratic philosophy.

[/ QUOTE ]

If wealth is related to merit then how do we account for Paris' wealth? Just because pappa Hilton (or really grandpa Hilton) earned his wealth how does Paris merit it?

I'm not saying Paris shouldn't have the cash or that pappa shouldn't be able to give it to her, but it got nuttin to do with merit.

[MidGe]

Who is Paris Hilton???!!

What is his claim to fame?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Who is Paris Hilton???!!

What is his claim to fame?

[/ QUOTE ]
His got lovely rooms and located well for the city centre.

chez

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
The question is, does Daddy Hilton, who made his money providing valued (by definition) services to millions of people, get to leave his daughter the rewards of his merit?

Any answer other than "yes" is clearly NOT based on any sort of meritocratic philosophy.

[/ QUOTE ]
Wrong.

mer·i·toc·ra·cy / Pronunciation[mer-i-tok-ruh-see]
–noun, plural -cies.

1. an elite group of people whose progress is based on ability and talent rather than on class privilege or wealth.
2. a system in which such persons are rewarded and advanced: The dean believes the educational system should be a meritocracy.

Source: dictionary.com

It's worth pointing out that both definitions omitted "the children of the talented" being rewarded because of their parents' talent. It's also worth pointing out that this probably was not accidental.

That said, the economic and political effects of allowing giant inheritances are obviously pernicious, and there are no (non-theoretical) offsetting gains that I'm aware of:

1. The tendency of large inheritance to both create and entrench a plutocracy is antithetical to meritocracy, and even more important, antithetical to democracy. How many Kennedys need to be elected before we decide maybe it isn't so wonderful for the family to have permanent control of great grandpa's bootlegging fortune?

2. Government revenues are necessary, and therefore must come from somewhere. Conservatives consistently argue that taxes provide an economic disincentive to work - which is true - but then object to inheritance taxes. Post mortem taxation is about as irrelevant as it gets, as far as incentive goes: inheritance taxes are the best, not the worst, form of taxation from this standpoint. Moreover, if wealthy parents knew that their children would have to stand on their own, they would be incented to pass along their skills (rather than just their money) to their children, thus increasing the likelihood that both society and the children themselves benefit from whatever skills or talents produced the wealth in the first place, even after the death of the original wealth-builder.

3. Conservatives believe (or at least pay lip service to) the notion of "equality of opportunity". Clearly, large post mortem wealth transfers from wealth-builders to their children increase the disparity of opportunity that already exists. (The children of the wealthy will of course automatically have disproportionate access to better education and healthcare, more useful contacts, etc. To add "free money" to the mix is obviously counterproductive.)

Hope this helps,
Jogger

[jogger08152]

Income inequality is good. Next question.

[J. Stew]

example of gross inefficiencies puleze

[Silent A]

First to mind ...

Feudal Europe, states with slavery, Apartheid SA.

[surftheiop]

"2. Government revenues are necessary"

Q:Says who?
A: The government

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
"2. Government revenues are necessary"

Q:Says who?
A: Anybody who's ever flushed a toilet.

[/ QUOTE ]

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
"2. Government revenues are necessary"

Q:Says who?
A: Anybody who's ever flushed a toilet.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[/ QUOTE ]

Do city folks need government assistance when flushing their toilets? When I flush mine, it flushes into a septic tank I built myself. How does yours work? Does a government bureaucrat wipe your butt?

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"2. Government revenues are necessary"

Q:Says who?
A: Anybody who's ever flushed a toilet.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[/ QUOTE ]

Do city folks need government assistance when flushing their toilets? When I flush mine, it flushes into a septic tank I built myself. How does yours work? Does a government bureaucrat wipe your butt?

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe not, but I'm sure he'd vote for that program if he could.

[Silent A]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"2. Government revenues are necessary"

Q:Says who?
A: Anybody who's ever flushed a toilet.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[/ QUOTE ]

Do city folks need government assistance when flushing their toilets? When I flush mine, it flushes into a septic tank I built myself. How does yours work? Does a government bureaucrat wipe your butt?

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's just say that I'm very glad that our city has a government in place to organize proper sewage treatment so that we don't all rely on sh-t technology (pun intended) like a septic tank, or worse.

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
I also think that when stupid people by any chance happen to make money, it's a worse thing than a smart person being underpayed ...

[/ QUOTE ]

What could possibly warrant this?

[gull]

Income inequality is bad because of the diminishing marginal utility of income. We maximize utility by spreading the wealth.

Income inequality is unavoidable and necessary (good).

[captZEEbo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"2. Government revenues are necessary"

Q:Says who?
A: Anybody who's ever flushed a toilet.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[/ QUOTE ]

Do city folks need government assistance when flushing their toilets? When I flush mine, it flushes into a septic tank I built myself. How does yours work? Does a government bureaucrat wipe your butt?

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's just say that I'm very glad that our city has a government in place to organize proper sewage treatment so that we don't all rely on sh-t technology (pun intended) like a septic tank, or worse.

[/ QUOTE ]i'm sure nobody would have thought of the current bathroom technology without the government!

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"2. Government revenues are necessary"

Q:Says who?
A: Anybody who's ever flushed a toilet.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[/ QUOTE ]

Do city folks need government assistance when flushing their toilets? When I flush mine, it flushes into a septic tank I built myself. How does yours work? Does a government bureaucrat wipe your butt?

[/ QUOTE ]
And does the bowl fill with water from the well you dug?

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"2. Government revenues are necessary"

Q:Says who?
A: Anybody who's ever flushed a toilet.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[/ QUOTE ]

Do city folks need government assistance when flushing their toilets? When I flush mine, it flushes into a septic tank I built myself. How does yours work? Does a government bureaucrat wipe your butt?

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's just say that I'm very glad that our city has a government in place to organize proper sewage treatment so that we don't all rely on sh-t technology (pun intended) like a septic tank, or worse.

[/ QUOTE ]i'm sure nobody would have thought of the current bathroom technology without the government!

[/ QUOTE ]
Nobody would have paid for it. Nor the freeways. Unless you'd prefer privately owned toll roads?

[neverforgetlol]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand the point of the OP. Who exactly is saying income inequality is bad other than diehard communists?

[/ QUOTE ]

What the [censored]???

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
And does the bowl fill with water from the well you dug?


[/ QUOTE ] I contracted someone to dig the well.

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"2. Government revenues are necessary"

Q:Says who?
A: Anybody who's ever flushed a toilet.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[/ QUOTE ]

Do city folks need government assistance when flushing their toilets? When I flush mine, it flushes into a septic tank I built myself. How does yours work? Does a government bureaucrat wipe your butt?

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe not, but I'm sure he'd vote for that program if he could.

[/ QUOTE ]

Borodog:

Which of the following public sector items do you wish could be auctioned off and privately run for profit instead?

1. Water
2. Sewers
3. Police
4. Local and state roads
5. The military (all branches)
6. Interstate roads

Additionally, do you believe businesses should be free to sell product below its cost of production in order to drive competitors out of business and establish monopoly? If yes, please explain how this fits with your view of capitalism, and why you would prefer this system. If no, please explain who you believe should be empowered to prevent such activity, and how the "enforcers" should be funded.

I'll look forward to your answers.

Best regards,
Jogger
Der denkend Kapitalist

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And does the bowl fill with water from the well you dug?


[/ QUOTE ] I contracted someone to dig the well.

[/ QUOTE ]
And how did this contractor reach your property? Did he walk?

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
And how did this contractor reach your property? Did he walk?



[/ QUOTE ] No. He used the public roads for the most part. Until he reached our subdivision, in which case, he used our ( the communities ) road. The one we privately maintain. No speed limits or nuth'n baby on this road. Of course, the neighbors will have a stern talk with you if you do speed and cause damage ( most likely, you'll end up on the road with a shovel, fixing anything you destroy). And no, I didn't build the road myself, It was already there when I arrived. I just have to pay a maintenance fee to whoever decides to do maintenance.

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And how did this contractor reach your property? Did he walk?



[/ QUOTE ] No. He used the public roads for the most part.

[/ QUOTE ]
Thanks for the clarification. Next time that government beaurocrat stops over to wipe your ass, tell him I said hi.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"2. Government revenues are necessary"

Q:Says who?
A: Anybody who's ever flushed a toilet.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[/ QUOTE ]

Do city folks need government assistance when flushing their toilets? When I flush mine, it flushes into a septic tank I built myself. How does yours work? Does a government bureaucrat wipe your butt?

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe not, but I'm sure he'd vote for that program if he could.

[/ QUOTE ]

Borodog:

Which of the following public sector items do you wish could be auctioned off and privately run for profit instead?

1. Water
2. Sewers
3. Police
4. Local and state roads
5. The military (all branches)
6. Interstate roads

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you presume that I think they should be "auctioned off"? Why not just not outlaw the competition? The market will take care of shutting down those that cannot compete.

[ QUOTE ]
Additionally, do you believe businesses should be free to sell product below its cost of production in order to drive competitors out of business and establish monopoly?

[/ QUOTE ]

A) This "predatory pricing" crap has been debunked a thousand times. It doesn't work and can't work. Search my posts for "predatory pricing". And,

B) Do you believe that you have the right to use force to prevent others from freely and voluntarily exchanging goods and services at prices voluntarily agreed to by both parties?

[ QUOTE ]
If yes, please explain how this fits with your view of capitalism, and why you would prefer this system. If no, please explain who you believe should be empowered to prevent such activity, and how the "enforcers" should be funded.

I'll look forward to your answers.

Best regards,
Jogger
Der denkend Kapitalist

[/ QUOTE ]

It fits with my idea of capitalism because the idea that a firm can sustain indefinite losses in the vague hope that they can eventually jack up their prices to the point of not just making monopoly profits, but also recouping all of the losses without immediately re-inviting competitive investment is patently ridiculous. It has never worked, and cannot ever work. Monopolies are only created and sustained via coercive intervention in the market. Not to mention the fact that if Bob wants to sell his products at a loss, he has every right to do so, and his stupidity is a boon for consumers.

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks for the clarification. Next time that government beaurocrat stops over to wipe your ass, tell him I said hi.


[/ QUOTE ] Lol. I’ll tell him Jogger said hi. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

I somewhat understand where you are coming from. Theoretically, an efficient government should lower aggregate opportunity costs. I’m just not sure if there is such a thing as this fantasy type of government. Back in the 1860's here in the U.S. we had, for a short time, a brand new constitution that severely, limited government spending, and forced the government to set a time frame and pay for it's own projects. It didn’t get a chance to work. Maybe where you come from, the Government actually saves everyone time and money.

[neverforgetlol]

Anyone who believes you can make a priori statements about economics is full of crap. Saying things simply "can't happen" in AC is a convenient excuse.

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Borodog:

Which of the following public sector items do you wish could be auctioned off and privately run for profit instead?

1. Water
2. Sewers
3. Police
4. Local and state roads
5. The military (all branches)
6. Interstate roads

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you presume that I think they should be "auctioned off"? Why not just not outlaw the competition? The market will take care of shutting down those that cannot compete.

[/ QUOTE ]
This in no way answers the question. Let me simplify:
"Do you think the police should be a private workforce employed by a private owner with private control over their salaries, benefits and carreer opportunities?"

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
B) Do you believe that you have the right to use force to prevent others from freely and voluntarily exchanging goods and services at prices voluntarily agreed to by both parties?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, your use of "you" is inappropriate, but otherwise, the answer is an easy and obvious yes.

Let's see: First, as to whether or not "I" (society) has a right to regulate commerce - all commercial goods are moved by road, a public work. I've seen no alternative to public roads that I believe would be viable in the US.

Now, as to (a very tiny sampling of) some practical concerns that require society to exercise its right:

1. I don't want unregulated transportation of hazardous materials.
2. I do not want unregulated transactions involving materials that can be easily converted to WMD. For instance, if "Mohammed and Salim's Phramaceuticals and Viral Research Corp" wanted to purchase and import samples of Smallpox from Russia, I'd like there to be an entity empowered to stop them.
3. I also would prefer that the goods and services that you want to buy and sell be guarded by a public police force, rather than needing an armed guard riding shotgun over every containerload (and the expense and hazard he entails), ala payroll shipments in the old west.
4. I'd like to buy goods with money. Someone will need to mint it for me.
5. Intellectual properties, such as software, music, patents, pharmaceutical formulae, etc - cannot be protected even with armed guards. So far the only entities that have had even modest success protecting these properties and the enterprises that depend on them, are governmental.
6. To borrow from a recently-dead author, "...and on and on..."

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Additionally, do you believe businesses should be free to sell product below its cost of production in order to drive competitors out of business and establish monopoly?

[/ QUOTE ]

A) This "predatory pricing" crap has been debunked a thousand times. It doesn't work and can't work. Search my posts for "predatory pricing". And,

[/ QUOTE ]
I'll respond to this below.


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If yes, please explain how this fits with your view of capitalism, and why you would prefer this system. If no, please explain who you believe should be empowered to prevent such activity, and how the "enforcers" should be funded.

I'll look forward to your answers.

Best regards,
Jogger
Der denkend Kapitalist

[/ QUOTE ]

It fits with my idea of capitalism because the idea that a firm can sustain indefinite losses in the vague hope that they can eventually jack up their prices to the point of not just making monopoly profits, but also recouping all of the losses without immediately re-inviting competitive investment is patently ridiculous.

[/ QUOTE ]
The losses are never indefinite: the amount of time a business can survive while a large competitor sells below cost (which will generally be lower than the start-up's cost because of economics of scale) is calculable, proportional to the amount of financial leverage employed by the startup, and generally discernable from public documents (EG SEC filings).

You claim the idea that unfair trade practices could do serious damage to competitors (and, thereby, to capitalism itself) is impossible, unworkable, and "debunked".

You are, of course, completely wrong.

"Antidumping" duties on imported goods - that is, increased tarrif rates charged on items that the government has A) found to be imported (bought) at rates below cost and B) found to do material harm to competing US businesses are both necessary and unfortunately, commonplace. Please see here (http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/import/add_cvd/program_guidelines/antidumping_and_countervailing.xml), here (http://www.lectlaw.com/files/for01.htm), here (http://www.mac.doc.gov/NAFTA/sacd.html), here (http://www.tuttlelaw.com/subjects/dumping.html), here (http://library.findlaw.com/1999/May/12/127356.html) and here (http://geneva.usmission.gov/press2002/1017%20basicconcepts.html) for more information. (There are many, many other sources of information on this topic as well. If you need more data in order to convince yourself of the error of your thought that dumping is harmless or even beneficial to consumers, let me know and I'll be happy to help you.)

[ QUOTE ]
It [dumping] has never worked, and cannot ever work. Monopolies are only created and sustained via coercive intervention in the market. Not to mention the fact that if Bob wants to sell his products at a loss, he has every right to do so, and his stupidity is a boon for consumers.

[/ QUOTE ]
Wrong: see above.

[jogger08152]

Re: the second part of your post - the government certainly does save people time and money, though it sucks in a great many ways as well.

Overall, yes, it needs massive improvement, however, removing it altogether is a worse remedy than the disease.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"2. Government revenues are necessary"

Q:Says who?
A: Anybody who's ever flushed a toilet.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[/ QUOTE ]

Do city folks need government assistance when flushing their toilets? When I flush mine, it flushes into a septic tank I built myself. How does yours work? Does a government bureaucrat wipe your butt?

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's just say that I'm very glad that our city has a government in place to organize proper sewage treatment so that we don't all rely on sh-t technology (pun intended) like a septic tank, or worse.

[/ QUOTE ]i'm sure nobody would have thought of the current bathroom technology without the government!

[/ QUOTE ]
Nobody would have paid for it. Nor the freeways. Unless you'd prefer privately owned toll roads?

[/ QUOTE ]
Why would no one pay for current bathroom technology? Does no one prefer it? Good thing the government monopolizes shoe production, otherwise no one would voluntarily pay for shoes!

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
Anyone who believes you can make a priori statements about economics is full of crap.

[/ QUOTE ]

I prefer fewer goods to more.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
Let's see: First, as to whether or not "I" (society) has a right to regulate commerce

[/ QUOTE ]
Government is not society.
[ QUOTE ]
all commercial goods are moved by road, a public work. I've seen no alternative to public roads that I believe would be viable in the US.


[/ QUOTE ]
Now you have (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Board=politics&Number=4672114&S earchpage=1&Main=4669180&Words=%26quot%3BHelp+me+r esearch%26quot%3B+Borodog&topic=&Search=true#Post4 672114). Everything currently monopolized by the government, has at one point been provided by the free market in a more effecient manner. Roads are a relatively easy example of this.
[ QUOTE ]
Now, as to (a very tiny sampling of) some practical concerns that require society to exercise its right:

[/ QUOTE ]
What is society and how does it derive rights?
[ QUOTE ]
1. I don't want unregulated transportation of hazardous materials.

[/ QUOTE ]
Perhaps those that own the roads will stop them. Can't imagine it would be good for business to allow dangerous chemicals on roads that could harm their consumers.
[ QUOTE ]
2. I do not want unregulated transactions involving materials that can be easily converted to WMD. For instance, if "Mohammed and Salim's Phramaceuticals and Viral Research Corp" wanted to purchase and import samples of Smallpox from Russia, I'd like there to be an entity empowered to stop them.

[/ QUOTE ]
Is it any suprise that the only WMDs created are created by governments? It's because it's not profitable to create WMDs, unless of course you unload the costs onto taxpayers.
[ QUOTE ]
3. I also would prefer that the goods and services that you want to buy and sell be guarded by a public police force, rather than needing an armed guard riding shotgun over every containerload (and the expense and hazard he entails), ala payroll shipments in the old west.


[/ QUOTE ]
Why do you think private police forces would operate in a model you think is ineffecient? Why is the government able to (in your opinion, not mine) adequetly guard things, yet private companys cannot?
[ QUOTE ]
4. I'd like to buy goods with money. Someone will need to mint it for me.

[/ QUOTE ]
Currency creation predates the states monopolization of it.
See this thread (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Board=politics&Number=8546755&S earchpage=1&Main=8546755&Words=-re%3A+%2BAC+%2Bmoney&topic=&Search=true#Post854675 5)
Market currencys are much more reliable, seeing as when the government has control of it any time they need money they just inflate the money supply to pay for it.
[ QUOTE ]
5. Intellectual properties, such as software, music, patents, pharmaceutical formulae, etc - cannot be protected even with armed guards. So far the only entities that have had even modest success protecting these properties and the enterprises that depend on them, are governmental.

[/ QUOTE ]
What makes government so special that it's the only one capable of this? What special powers do they have?

As it appears your not familiar, heres (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&Number=9428622&page=0&vc=1) a faq on many of the issues you may have questions about.

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"2. Government revenues are necessary"

Q:Says who?
A: Anybody who's ever flushed a toilet.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[/ QUOTE ]

Do city folks need government assistance when flushing their toilets? When I flush mine, it flushes into a septic tank I built myself. How does yours work? Does a government bureaucrat wipe your butt?

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's just say that I'm very glad that our city has a government in place to organize proper sewage treatment so that we don't all rely on sh-t technology (pun intended) like a septic tank, or worse.

[/ QUOTE ]i'm sure nobody would have thought of the current bathroom technology without the government!

[/ QUOTE ]
Nobody would have paid for it. Nor the freeways. Unless you'd prefer privately owned toll roads?

[/ QUOTE ]
Why would no one pay for current bathroom technology? Does no one prefer it? Good thing the government monopolizes shoe production, otherwise no one would voluntarily pay for shoes!

[/ QUOTE ]

Doubtless there would be lots of competing sewer systems, much like there are many competing cable TV companies in your neighborhood. Free enterprise offers excellent solutions to many problems. Unfortunately some things, like sewage, roads and cable television, don't make the list.

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
Now you do (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Board=politics&Number=4672114&S earchpage=1&Main=4669180&Words=%26quot%3BHelp+me+r esearch%26quot%3B+Borodog&topic=&Search=true#Post4 672114). Everything currently monopolized by the government, has at one point been provided by the free market in a more effecient manner. Roads are a relatively easy example of this.

[/ QUOTE ]
I read the linked post more or less with a straight face until I got to the part about how

[ QUOTE ]
if a homeowner doesn't like the decisions his the HOA company is making (about the roads or anything else), he can easily "vote with his feet" and simply move across town.

[/ QUOTE ]
My first reaction was, "Yep, we all know how easy it is to sell one's house (especially when the local homeowner's association is making irrational, expensive decisions relating to the local road), buy another house across town, pack up one's gear, and relocate. Piece of cake, right?

This was where I stopped reading the linked post. Let me know if I missed anything.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
Doubtless there would be lots of competing sewer systems, much like there are many competing cable TV companies in your neighborhood. Free enterprise offers excellent solutions to many problems. Unfortunately some things, like sewage, roads and cable television, don't make the list.

[/ QUOTE ]
Wait, what exactly is the reason why sewage, roads, and cable TV can't be provided by a free market?

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
My first reaction was, "Yep, we all know what a piece of cake it is to sell one's house

[/ QUOTE ]
Is this a joke? This is your *only* solution under the status quo, love it or leave it.
[ QUOTE ]
(especially when the local homeowner's association is making irrational, expensive decisions relating to the local road),

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, because private organizations that depend on making a profit are the ones that make "irrational, expensive decisions", not governments.

Both of your objections to privatization are objectively worse under government.

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Doubtless there would be lots of competing sewer systems, much like there are many competing cable TV companies in your neighborhood. Free enterprise offers excellent solutions to many problems. Unfortunately some things, like sewage, roads and cable television, don't make the list.

[/ QUOTE ]
Wait, what exactly is the reason why sewage, roads, and cable TV can't be provided by a free market?

[/ QUOTE ]
I suspect there are several reasons.

Here's the first one that comes to mind: Each of the above ventures (along with a few others, like railroads, electrical transmission lines, etc) requires extensive use of very, very large tracts of land.
/images/graemlins/diamond.gifThe cost and scarcity of these right-of-ways is such that the first person/corporation to construct even a semi-successful version will be extremely difficult to compete with because they will have used up much of the scarce, capital-intensive resources.
/images/graemlins/diamond.gifThis in turn will make it considerably more expensive for others to compete, such that potential competitors, even those with a more efficient system or process, might be forced to charge higher rates (or provide inferior service).
/images/graemlins/diamond.gifThis in turn will make the prospect of investing in a speculative attempt to compete with an entrenched provider quite off-putting for venture capital. (And with good reason: the competitor, simply by virtue of arriving late in the game, is quite unlikely to succeed.)

Situations like these result in "natural" monopolies, largely - and unfortunately, almost effortlessly - maintained by the formidable barriers to entry into competition with the big dogs who arrived at the party first.

Not coincidentally, there are analogous historical situations in 20th century businesses, usually among similarly capital-intensive enterprises. A good example is newspapers - virtually all small and medium-sized cities in the US became single-newspaper towns sometime after the 50's. Here's why I think this happened:
/images/graemlins/club.gifThe competition for readership and advertising revenues is cutthroat when there are multiple papers, but as soon as one predominates, the advertisers rush to that paper because of its higher circulation.
/images/graemlins/club.gif Immediately, consumers rush to this same paper because of the combination of its extra ads. Newspaper readers like both the advertising itself (I assume because of the coupons) and the larger news hole that the extra ad revenues will support.
/images/graemlins/club.gif Soon after, the paper(s) with falling readership collapse, because falling circulation and advertising revenues cannot be offset by reduced costs (remember: newspapers are inherently capital-intensive),
/images/graemlins/club.gifResult: the victor gains a monopoly which is extremely difficult - in practice, probably impossible, at least as far as other print media goes - to break.
/images/graemlins/club.gif Finally the endgame: once the monopoly is established, the surviving paper raises advertising prices (which has the incidental effect of driving up costs of products as these increased ad costs are often passed along to the consumer), newsstand and subscription prices go up (why not? we're the only game in town!), and the consumer reaps all the "benefits" of being on the receiving end of a fairly standard monopoly.

The shareholders of the newspaper do pretty well though, or at least did well until the 90's, when cable TV and the internet

(wait for it... wait for it... wait for it...)

ok: the internet is also a public work.

began eating away (somewhat) at their profitability.

As far as your larger question, I would guess that any time a service is either A) absolutely critical to the survival of humans or the functioning of society and B) expansive and capital-intensive in scope, it becomes reasonable to look at the possibility that the public sector is a better alternative than the private, mainly to avoid civil disorder, predatory competitive practices, price gouging, etc. (Note: "possibility" means just that - not certainty by any means.)

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My first reaction was, "Yep, we all know what a piece of cake it is to sell one's house

[/ QUOTE ]
Is this a joke? This is your *only* solution under the status quo, love it or leave it.
[ QUOTE ]
(especially when the local homeowner's association is making irrational, expensive decisions relating to the local road),

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, because private organizations that depend on making a profit are the ones that make "irrational, expensive decisions", not governments.

Both of your objections to privatization are objectively worse under government.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm responding to this under the assumption that you're somehow misunderstanding, rather than trolling.

Both of the above (linked) ideas, specifically 1) "the homeowner's assoc. is hosing things up" and 2) "therefore the solution is to move," ('love it or leave it' as you put it) are taken directly from the post you linked. They are not my ideas: they are Borodog's.

Please reread the post you linked, and my response to it, before responding.