Sources and Sinks

[bgt]

On Sat, 2004-01-03 at 07:09, Michael Kalus wrote:

> > Where there is no governmental police force, their is demand for
> > private enforcement. And you know what? They regularly do their jobs
> > better than the police.
> 
> Of course there is no oversight body, so if they use "excessive force" 
> well, It's all part of doing business and after all they didn't smash 
> YOUR skull so what do you care, right?

The only necessary "oversight body" is the courts. Both public and
private police (should) operate under the Rule of Law just like everyone
else.  As with the public police, if private police have public
perception problems related to excessive force, abuse of power, or
whatever, they may opt to use a third-party interest to do
"self-policing" by fining, firing, etc (much like pro sports
organizations do... contractually).  This is strictly a business
management decision however, the only "legal" oversight should be 
the court.  Police (public or private) should be judged and punished 
(in the legal sense) in the same way any other citizen is.  
  
> > Show me a company that doesn't pay a dime in taxes, please, make it one
> > that actually has employees and does something useful and makes profit.
> > Amuse me and try it out.
> 
> I don't have a link ready right now, but there were several US 
> corporations as well as some in Germany who did NOT pay any taxes for 
> the past couple of years because of either "breaks" they got so not to 
> leave, OR because they posted such high losses that they did not post 
> any profit on the books, thus not pay any taxes.

Purely for the sake of argument, even if this is correct (which I'm not
conceding), a company that is truly in business to make a profit by 
doing something useful (creating a product, providing a useful service,
etc) pays employees who pay taxes, pays employee payroll taxes, pays
shareholders who pay taxes, and produces something (product or service)
which is almost always taxed, usually in several ways. Just because a
company does not pay an income tax DOES NOT mean it isn't heavily taxed
in other direct and indirect ways.  

> But all of you who seem to think that social services et al, should be 
> run on a profit maximiation basis, tell me this: How much are you worth 
> in Dollars and cents (or Euros)? I would like to know how much you 
> think you are worth to your friends, family, kids, spouses etc.?

I'm not sure what that's got to do with it.  (We're talking about 
"essential social services" meaning services designed to protect lives,
right?)  How I value my life is measured by exactly what I will do to
protect and enhance my life.  I am worth to other people exactly what
they would do /voluntarily/ to protect/enhance my life.

What that's got to do with whether these services should be privatized
or not I'm not sure.  Unless you're arguing that (by that definition)
I'm not worth very much to very many other people, and since that 
leaves the responsibility for my life squarely on my own shoulders 
(and on the shoulders of people I voluntarily engage to start caring
about me!).  Well, that's the only fair way... coercing other people
to care for and by extension pay for my own welfare is immoral and
evil.  If you care so much for everyone else's welfare, there's plenty
of charities you can voluntarily donate your money to that will be 
happy to look after everyone else.  Oh, most people are selfish and
wouldn't /voluntarily/ give 30-50% of their money away to total
strangers (favoring their own families and close friends instead)?  
Then please explain how it's moral to FORCE them!

(Jeez, I just recently got back onto this list after a several-year
hiatus.  How the hell did so many statists ever get the idea that
ubiquitous cryptography would ever further their goals?  Or are they
just here to distract us with statism vs liberty type political 
debates so we can't get any real work done??)

--bgt