I didn't mean to be dishonest, at any rate. I honestly want to know what your alternative is, I listed all possible alternatives I could think of and I cannot see how any of them are better.

Whatever, you seem to continually get bogged down in irrelevant side points. Suit yourself.

My local anarchist collective works pretty well.

@Putin33 There was state planning in this case. White people got the subsidies, African Americans got the planning:

From http://www.civilrights.org/publications/reports/fairhousing/historical.html :

---

But as Commission Co-Chair Henry Cisneros testified before Congress in 1995, HUD had been "complicit in creating isolated, segregated, large-scale public housing" and "HUD has traditionally been part of the problem."[57] Most of the public housing built from the 1950s to the 1970s was comprised of large, densely populated "projects," often consisting of high-rise buildings located in poor, racially segregated communities.[58] Public housing became, in effect, a "second ghetto" subsidized by the federal government, where "government took an active hand not merely in reinforcing prevailing patterns of segregation, but in lending them a permanence never seen before."

---

When faced with abuses of state power such as this, do you think it's wise to try to prevent them by increasing the state's power? If you could guarantee that the people wielding that power were perfectly moral, perhaps. But that's a dream. In reality when you create institutions that powerful, there is high potential for them to fall into the wrong hands. If that is the case, should institutions that powerful be constructed?

LOL! I've worked in anarchist collectives, they actually are the *worst* form of collective possible. Decision-making is completely paralyzed. People are obsessed with process rather than getting anything done. Total deference is given to obstructionists and infinitesimal political minorities, while the majority is completely disenfranchised. OWS demonstrated the dysfunction of anarchist collectives to the planet. What a lost opportunity and a waste of a lot of people's time and energy thanks to anarchist process.

Tendmote and Mendax, you guys look like you are arguing the same side against each other. It is funny to read a Putin hijacked thread when one has Putin muted. :-)

Also in addition to what I wrote above, to respond to your mockery of my example:

"But yeah I guess your manufactured windshield wiper example is a bigger problem."

That actually was a big fucking problem in Russia in the 1980s! Some of the cars such as they existed had to actually sit idle because of this stupid-ass problem. This is why central planning fails - you actually *mocked* this problem as insignificant. As such "insignificant" problems start to pile up, life because an impossible chore.

Tendmote, if you want to get into the history of segregation, we can discuss the Civil Rights Act of 1875, which was gutted by the actions of private railcar operators who began initiating separate cars based on race. Lawsuits by African Americans led to the segregation going to the Supreme Court in which the judiciary acted on behalf of these private entities and overturned the action of the elected government to end discrimination.

The only reason there are any anti-discrimination protections of any kind are due to fact that we have government. If left in the hands of private interests we would have nothing at all.

And again you bring up the issue of subsidies and call it "planning". It's not planning. High-rise buildings were built in poor areas and African-Americans purchased this subsidized housing. You've provided not one iota of evidence that it was part of a plan.

" It is funny to read a Putin hijacked thread when one has Putin muted. :-)"

No one finds you humorous you sociopathic Malthusian thug.

"As such "insignificant" problems start to pile up, life because an impossible chore."

Automobiles are a massive waste of resources. So yes, compared to the problem of bad air quality and pollution that millions of people having automobiles has produced thanks to your beloved markets, the problem of windshield wipers is not significant.

You want to talk about impossible chores, how about not being able to get medical care when you need it. How about the fact that we have large numbers of children dying from problems related to tooth decay (very preventable) because we don't have access to dental care in this country.

You want to talk about impossible chore? The fact that I might have to ride my bike to work is not an impossible chore.

Hey Draug - I agree, the Putin silence is a thing of glory -- my only wish now is that, as the creator of a thread, I should have the ability to ban a voice from the discussion....that would be pure gold. I can only imagine the blathering nonsense coming from that 'tard.

"I don't disagree that humans should cooperate."

I humans are *cooperating* then it means the person that all you morons want to feed for not working IS NOT COOPERATING.

It's hillarious when the socialists, who are all about dividing up the wealth, refuse to demand that the labor be divided.

It just demonstrates that they are less about equality, and are more about punishing the wealthy who have worked hard for their wealth and redistributing it to the lazy and unambitious.

<cue the inevitable: "No rich person ever worked for his wealth" nonsense....strike up the band....put out some sand for the dancing monkeys....>

Damian is a poor hating neoliberal like you, doofus. He wants people to starve and die just as much as you do. Maybe you can all make snuff films together when you come to power.

Anyway remember when Krellin was giving us this fairy tale story about how he supposedly works in urban poor soup kitchens? Now he says the should all die from starvation because they're lazy and unambitious.

What a fraud.

One last thing and then I'm out.

Tendmote, how come you didn't mention the Fair Housing Act of 1968 in your effort to blame segregation on HUD and the feds? The law prohibited discrimination and housing and mandated efforts to proactively integrate.

But I guess that doesn't comport with your narrative about government being the fifth column of Darth Vader and responsible for all evil in the world, so it didn't get mentioned. Once again a well meaning government agency like HUD is slandered.

@Putin33 The FHA of 1968 came later. For a long period of time the government was actively promoting segregation. In fact the FHA was actively administered by George Romney, who was otherwise a small-government conservative, as a remedy to the earlier misbehavior of the New Deal programs.

And stop splitting semantic hairs with the word "subsidy", in the U.S. public housing is state planning, built by government housing authorities delegated through states and cities. Segregated projects and selectively subsidized suburban housing is state planning, and it was a disaster.

This was a little way back, but I think the anti-statist mentality in the U.S. is largely a result of conservative electoral successes, who have largely been opposed to social welfare programs and expansion of government involvement even when clearly needed, like financial regulation reform and stricter oil/environmental oversight. If you elect people who are opposed to the idea of government to run government, then it is going to be run ineffectively and people will lose faith in it.

The Consumer Financial Protection Agency has sat without a director for more than 2 years because Senate Republicans refused to allow a floor vote for any nominee. Thus we have an agency that is essentially inactive, and all the voters see is more government incompetence when it is really an internally sabotaged effort.

We don't let people who hate children run day cares, why do we elect people who hate government to run it?

"Incompetent governments? Spending into oblivion? Private companies tanked the economy and then the government was left picking up their tab. Revenues declined overnight and automatic stabilizers kicked in, causing debt to skyrocket. Considering where we were, government action has been quite admirable."
The government shouldn't be going into debt to pay the bills of private corporations. Period. Collapse is preferable.

Regarding government incompetence, I'm thinking specifically of my local government, as an example. At present they are brining in record high revenues, recently voted themselves a 30% wage increase and were paying 250 thousand dollar bonuses to various former party members, and health officials. We have the highest number of administrators to front line workers in the country, long wait times, with doctors and nurses being let go due to lack of funds, schools being closed and the budget for both primary and post secondary education being cut sharply. All this while running the first deficit in years, (with record revenues) after our province worked its way out of debt in 2003. And tack on some huge bonuses to profitable transnational corporations for good measure.

When I'm talking about government incompetence, and reckless spending this is exactly what I'm picturing. Maybe you've been blessed with a competent government, but everywhere I turn I see examples of waste, the government needs to slim down, and competition with private corporations, by making its services voluntary would be a perfect way to do that.

I'm also sick to death of obscene import taxes, liquor taxes, dairy tariffs and quotas, various incentives given to raise prices of these products. Various regulations preventing the manufacture of distilled liquors, preventing people from choosing to purchase raw milk.

I want the government to go the fuck away, and focus on protecting people from real crimes, and protecting our nation from foreign threats.

"You can't have it both ways on spending & minimum wage. Government is right now subsidizing these franchises who pay their workers so little, pay them so little they need assistance to make ends meet. Collective bargaining is made nearly impossible because these corporations are franchised, so they behave and use the excuses of small businesses for why they must treat their workers like shit or else go out of business. The corporate offices call the shots but these corporations are able to abdicate responsibility for wage & benefit policy to the franchises."
But you can have it both ways, cut minimum wage and welfare. People and the market will adjust. The workers at a single franchised location can still team together to negotiate with the franchise owner.

"Voluntarism is a grossly inferior mechanism for distributing resources. If you think government is corrupt and wasteful, just take a look at charities and non-profits."
When it comes to charities and non-profits there is a huge variety. Some are ridiculously corrupt while others are just fine. The trend it typically towards the small local initiatives being more efficient than the large transnational bodies.

Of course you're missing not even arguing against my point, I was suggesting that government services should operate like any other business, meaning we choose to subscribe to them, or we find an alternative option we prefer. Making them voluntary, rather than coercive.

"Governments deserve some blame for their debt levels, that's for sure. But the irresponsible spending you're talking about? Its not any more egregious now than it was back in the 1950s and 60s."
See my description of my local government above. It's pretty abysmal here.
Frankly though, I think the only way a government should be able to run a deficit is by a referendum.

"I humans are *cooperating* then it means the person that all you morons want to feed for not working IS NOT COOPERATING.

It's hillarious when the socialists, who are all about dividing up the wealth, refuse to demand that the labor be divided."
I guess my position is less radical than yours then. Since I feel charity is often the best solution to help those who cannot work. I'll admit, I hate the idea of supporting those who will not work. But I'd prefer to continue to support charities that provide food and shelter to those without any. I just don't think the government should be taking my money to do so. Given how much of it gets wasted on paying various levels of bureaucrats. I'll admit charities aren't perfect either, but the ones I donate to, because of partnerships with grocery stores, are actually extremely efficient, and can obtain food for 1/3 or less the cost of what I could buy it for myself. Allowing me to amplify the strength of my donations.

@Putin33 "You want to talk about impossible chore? The fact that I might have to ride my bike to work is not an impossible chore."

Holy shit man, between your doctrine of state planning, preference for "illiberal effective" (i.e. oppressive) government, and anti-technology stances, you're starting to sound a little like Pol Pot. What about education? Is that also a "waste of resources" considering the masses of young healthy warriors in your ideal country would have an "effective government" to make their choices for them?

(I agree cars are inefficient and need to be greatly improved. But to suggest that cars be dispensed with as a solution to a mismanaged centrally-planned parts supply chain is fucking ridiculous.)

And mendax has a point about your intellectual dishonesty. I hadn't mentioned the FHA of 1968 before you did. *You* introduced it, then in the next paragraph said I "slandered" it. I DID NO SUCH THING BECAUSE I HADN'T MENTIONED IT AT ALL. The FHA is actually a good piece of legislation, which sat there doing NOTHING until Republican George Romney took it seriously and enforced it. It's a partial remedy to the government-planned public housing and loan subsidy disaster that led to the segregated sprawl across the country.

Anyway, maybe one day you'll find a place in an effective, illiberal, centrally planned, spartanized warrior country you're dreaming about. (Hopefully not the same country I'm living in.) Your place (and mine) might be in it's gulag or killing fields however, considering we're both probably "educated", talk too much, and can't even command respect on a web diplomacy forum. The difference is I wouldn't try to introduce that form of government.

"When I'm talking about government incompetence, and reckless spending this is exactly what I'm picturing."

I don't know what province you are referring to, but the picture here of Canada is one of the few who escaped the catastrophe of 2008-9 because they had sensible regulations of the banking industry in place. In the other words, it was precisely because of good decision-making by your political class that you didn't wind up with the problems that so many others did. They should get credit for that. But it seems that even places with high quality government like Canada is not immune from the pathology of anti-statism.

"Maybe you've been blessed with a competent government, but everywhere I turn I see examples of waste, the government needs to slim down, and competition with private corporations, by making its services voluntary would be a perfect way to do that."

If you're unconcerned about things like access to services, then this might sound like a good idea. But for instance where government services compete with private corporations or where private competition has been introduced where it didn't exist before, this has usually meant shoddier/reduced service, limited access, and higher prices. The privatization of education in the USA certainly hasn't improved its quality, quite the opposite. Privatization of airlines and utilities hasn't improved service or quality, quite the opposite. I don't know where this grand faith in the inevitable improvement caused by privatization and private competition comes from, but it doesn't really match with what the record is.

"I was suggesting that government services should operate like any other business, meaning we choose to subscribe to them, or we find an alternative option we prefer. Making them voluntary, rather than coercive. "

And what do we you do with the problem of access. Or does that problem get wished away, like it does with your callous indifference to the crippling poverty you are going to force people into if you insist on exceedingly low wages with no social safety net?

So your solution to the supposed 'problem' of overspending and government waste is to make sure that only those who can afford to get any services of any kind whatsoever.

Yeah sorry your ideal society sounds like a nightmare.

" I think the only way a government should be able to run a deficit is by a referendum. "

Deficits aren't a problem if you can issue your own currency, which Canada can and does. Canada will never not be able to pay off its obligations. The bigger problem is withholding spending at a time when private spending in the economy has evaporated. The economy runs on consumption & production. This apparently has escaped the notice of hardcore budget hawks who want to starve masses of people rather than pay for anything.

"Holy shit man, between your doctrine of state planning, preference for "illiberal effective" (i.e. oppressive) government, and anti-technology stances, you're starting to sound a little like Pol Pot."

You're becoming hysterical. I'm not anti-technology. I'm anti-destroying the planet. Transportation technologies which are cleaner and displace the automobile I am 100% in favor of. I could say your anti-government rants make you sound like Rand Paul, but that'd be stupid. How about you stick to what I'm actually saying, since you're so keen on intellectual honesty.

"What about education? Is that also a "waste of resources" considering the masses of young healthy warriors in your ideal country would have an "effective government" to make their choices for them?"

No, unlike in your market utopia, I think the big bad government should invest in its people, and education should be a top priority - along with with healthcare and infrastructure. You know, those silly things that our captains of industry don't seem to be able to provide very well.

"But to suggest that cars be dispensed with as a solution to a mismanaged centrally-planned parts supply chain is fucking ridiculous.)"

Why on earth does anyone need a private vehicle? Provide one rational justification for the existence of personal vehicles that transport a handful of people at most to any given destination. Why are using so much steel, plastic, aluminum, rubber, and glass for vehicles that can barely transport anybody? This is the equivalent of the backyard furnaces that the Chinese used in the 60s that were so ridiculed.

"*You* introduced it, then in the next paragraph said I "slandered" it. "

I said you slandered the HUD. Read again.

"I DID NO SUCH THING BECAUSE I HADN'T MENTIONED IT AT ALL."

No kidding, that was my point.

"It's a partial remedy to the government-planned public housing"

You once again haven't explained how the segregation was all part of a government plan. That they willfully and forcefully segregated people via the HUD.
You want us to believe that the government was both responsible for the initial *planned* segregation and then worked to actively integrate communities.

"Your place (and mine) might be in it's gulag or killing fields however, considering we're both probably "educated", talk too much, and can't even command respect on a web diplomacy forum"

Trite anti-communist taunting.

Your free market paradise has been a hell on earth for millions of people. I notice you haven't bothered answering my point about the fact that 150 million Americans lack dental coverage, and children die from problems stemming from tooth decay & oral disease, completely preventable. This is happening because your morally pure pirivate individuals (dentists) fought to preclude dental care from being covered by Medicaid and Medicare, so very few dentists take it.

Now under evil centralized planning, this would not happen. But since you're all about voluntarism and private initiative, this is the inevitable result. A dental system that is inferior to many developing countries.

Naturally, this doesn't get your attention as much as your beloved automobiles does.

Your priorities are truly breathtaking.

@Putin33

Why do you prefer an "illiberal, effective" government to "liberal, ineffective" government?

What are the limits of illiberality that you would tolerate?

Do you not find it risky to expect that highly powerful government institutions will always be in the hands of responsible, moral decision makers?

And please don't try to put up an extremist straw man called "tendmote" and deride it. I'm definitely anti-state at the extremes of state power YOU describe, but very middle of the road when it comes to establishing penalties for violating peoples rights (FHA 68) or providing food, shelter and health care for everyone. I draw the line at state-controlled enterprises though, for the very reason you recently embodied: they tend to be run by political operatives who don't think it's a big deal when there's no windshield wiper blades. That and things like it are a big deal. When supply chains break down because someone decides to fuck with things that work adequately in order to "perfect" them politically, it's a disaster.

I should say providing food money, shelter money, and health care money. Actually building the the housing projects and subsidizing the suburbs turned into the segregationist disaster I pointed out, for the reason I just described: highly powerful government institution in immoral hands.

Actually I support the basic income. Redistributing wealth in any more complicated way ends up with an unfair distribution.

@Putin33 Re: "You once again haven't explained how the segregation was all part of a government plan. That they willfully and forcefully segregated people via the HUD.
You want us to believe that the government was both responsible for the initial *planned* segregation and then worked to actively integrate communities. "

Not via HUD, which I never referred to nor slandered, but via the Federal Housing Administration. HUD was created later after the FHA’s policies had created the urban/suburban wreckage.

Some pointers:

—

The FHA, created in 1934, was intended to alleviate the substantial risks that banks had undertaken on mortgages. The FHA's support of racially restrictive covenants began with its development of an appraisal table for mortgages that took into account home values. For a home to receive the highest rating in this table, the home had to be located in an all-white neighborhood.
http://www.northcarolinahistory.org/encyclopedia/309/entry

—

‘In addition, federal agencies "endorsed the use of race-restrictive covenants until 1950" and explicitly refused to underwrite loans that would introduce "‘incompatible’ racial groups into White residential enclaves.’

Marketing the Free Market: State Intervention and the Politics of Prosperity in Metropolitan America, in The New Suburban History

—

So, YES, government was both responsible for the initial *planned* segregation. In the aftermath of that disaster, it worked (inadequately) to actively integrate communities. Central planning failure.

"And please don't try to put up an extremist straw man called "tendmote" and deride it."

I'll do that when you stop comparing me to Pol Pot and blaming housing programs for segregation.

"Why do you prefer an "illiberal, effective" government to "liberal, ineffective" government? "

I already explained this. Effective governments raise living standards, regardless of their liberality. Ineffective governments lead to worsening living standards, regardless of their liberality.

"What are the limits of illiberality that you would tolerate? "

That depends on the social goods being provided. Singapore is a classic case of a highly illiberal government with all sorts of regulations that people like you would likely find odious, yet citizens of Singapore love their country and most people visiting find it to be a wonderful place. The city-state is remarkably clean, organized, well-run, and corruption-free. That they don't have Tendmote's standards of liberality and political competition doesn't seem to concern the people much.

"Do you not find it risky to expect that highly powerful government institutions will always be in the hands of responsible, moral decision makers?"

No, I don't find it risky. Paralysis is much more risky than the notion that leaders will be less than moral - there's a reason why Lincoln is universally lauded as a leader while Buchanan is derided despite the former being authoritarian and the latter being a strict constitutionalist, ditto for why Gorbachov is derided and Putin is not; or for why Hoover is derided and Roosevelt is not; or for why the French 3rd Republic is derided and De Gaulle is not). One leader acted and others did not. Somehow Europe and other areas of the world survived centuries living under more or less absolutist kingships and managed to progress. They faced difficulties during the rare times when decision-making became unclear or broke-down (dynastic succession; division of power between court eunuchs (as in China) and the emperor, etc).

If you raise the price of fast food 40- 50% to compensate.for the massive wage increase you will lose 40-50% of your sales and stores.go under. What moron is going to spend $40-$50 to feed a.family of 4 a lousy McDonald's meal.

You silly liberals with your STATIC view of economies are.truly silly. Cause an and effect. You raise wages...prices go up....sales go down..

Remember when government wants less of.something....smoking for example....they RAISE PRICES via taxes.

Seriously....what don't you silly monkeys grasp about that concept.

Posting something twice doesn't mean it's going to be less incorrect the second time.

@Putin33 Re:

“Paralysis is much more risky than the notion that leaders will be less than moral”

Really? I see you really are an advocate of strongman government. OK, if Lee Kuan Yew is the strongman. But what about Stalin, Pol Pot, Kim Jong-Il, Stroessner, Gaddafi, Marcos, Galtieri, Noriega, Pinochet? You can’t judge risks by looking only at the favorable outcomes; you have to consider the likelihood and impact of an unfavorable outcome. If you’ve got the wrong strongman, you’re fucked. Do you take that chance and build an authoritarian system? I wouldn’t want to.

"Really?"

Yes, really. Paralysis leads to crisis in virtually all cases. The very reason why so-called "strongmen" come to power in the first place in most cases is because they get their countries out of crisis. In every single case of military take-over that I can think of, that is the reason. Virtually all coups are preceded by a political crisis of some kind, and very often these crises resulted in large-scale violence.

"ou can’t judge risks by looking only at the favorable outcomes; you have to consider the likelihood and impact of an unfavorable outcome"

So do you, but thus far you've paid very little attention to unfavorable outcomes of the liberal sort (or really much of any of the counter-points I've made regarding planning vs anarchy of production), nor have you bothered to consider the conditions which led to this list of bogeymen you produced, or what economic and social condition they left their countries in as compared to how they were prior to their coming to power, or what happened after they left (whether it was better or worse).

At any rate, you asked me a question and I answered it. How much illiberality am I willing to tolerate? That's dependent on how effective the government is.at providing social goods.

Now how much ineffectiveness are you willing to tolerate from a liberal government? Or is that unlimited? Better for nobody to get any services whatsoever, and for living standards to decline, than to ever have to suffer under the rule of a government that is illiberal, right?