Posted: Tue Jan 31, 2006 3:47 pm
Wheee.
This thread needs some Economics 101.
Needed definitions: "efficient", "better".
This thread needs some Economics 101.
Needed definitions: "efficient", "better".
That is not dead which can eternal lie, and with strange aeons bring us some web forums whereupon we can gather
http://www.octopusoverlords.com/forum/
Then there is clearly no satisfying him and his opinion is therefore irrelevent.Dogstar wrote:From what I understand, he's not saying that the idea of interstate highways isn't a good one, or that he'd be happier if they weren't there. He's simply stating that he perceives that the project itself isn't necessarily well-run, and might be run more efficiently if handled by the private sector.
I think you nailed it. For people with Brettmcd's opinion no government project, achivement, etc. can be "well run" Part of their definition of government is "cannot be well run." So by definition it can't be well run if it si a government achivement.noxiousdog wrote: If the most successful government achievement by human kind isn't deemed as "well run," then I fail to see how any government achivement could be.
Gee thanks SO much for deeming my opinions irrelevant, wonderful way to have an open debate on an issue, I guess its easy to 'win' if you automatically deem those who disagree with you to have 'irrelevant' opinions. Seems like you are talking lessons from Farley on how to debate an issue.noxiousdog wrote:Then there is clearly no satisfying him and his opinion is therefore irrelevent.Dogstar wrote:From what I understand, he's not saying that the idea of interstate highways isn't a good one, or that he'd be happier if they weren't there. He's simply stating that he perceives that the project itself isn't necessarily well-run, and might be run more efficiently if handled by the private sector.
Given: America has the most successful economy.
If it is true that the most significant factor in the development of that economy is the interstate highway system (which brettmcd has twice decided not to disagree with), then, the interstate highway system is the most successful government achivement by human kind since world war II.
If the most successful government achievement by human kind isn't deemed as "well run," then I fail to see how any government achivement could be.
You're welcome.Brettmcd wrote:
Gee thanks SO much for deeming my opinions irrelevant,
Open? There's no open. You have catagorically said government=bad. You have decided that the best government project mankind has produced is not well run. There's nothing open about that.wonderful way to have an open debate on an issue,
It depends on the opponent.I guess its easy to 'win' if you automatically deem those who disagree with you to have 'irrelevant' opinions.
Now that's a low blow. I shall report you for abuse.Seems like you are talking lessons from Farley on how to debate an issue.
noxiousdog wrote:Now that's a low blow. I shall report you for abuse.Seems like you are talking lessons from Farley on how to debate an issue.
Im done debating this issue, since I dont love big government my opinions have been deemed irrelevent so whats the point debating anymore.ChrisGwinn wrote:The government-created Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac created the entire secondary mortgage market in this country. The private market couldn't or didn't see the possibility there. Those organizations competed successfully with public companies and are now publicly traded.
No your opinions have most certainly not been deemed irrelevant, or we would have stopped responding to you ages ago. Seems more like to me that Chris finally found an example that even you don't doubt, no? And what about privatizing firemen, another question you've dropped?Brettmcd wrote:Im done debating this issue, since I dont love big government my opinions have been deemed irrelevant so whats the point debating anymore.ChrisGwinn wrote:The government-created Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac created the entire secondary mortgage market in this country. The private market couldn't or didn't see the possibility there. Those organizations competed successfully with public companies and are now publicly traded.
You opnions have been deemed irrelevant because, as usual, you don't back them up with anything other than a martyr complex.Brettmcd wrote:Im done debating this issue, since I dont love big government my opinions have been deemed irrelevent so whats the point debating anymore.
Really? I guess I just imagined someone specifically stateing my opinions are irrelevant. When that is used as a debate tactic there is no point wasting ones time answering questions and arguements. I can take the 'heat' as you call it, but wasting my time? No, I have better things to do then debate when the answer i get back is that my opinion is irrelevent.Enough wrote:No your opinions have most certainly not been deemed irrelevant, or we would have stopped responding to you ages ago. Seems more like to me that Chris finally found an example that even you don't doubt, no? And what about privatizing firemen, another question you've dropped?Brettmcd wrote:Im done debating this issue, since I dont love big government my opinions have been deemed irrelevant so whats the point debating anymore.ChrisGwinn wrote:The government-created Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac created the entire secondary mortgage market in this country. The private market couldn't or didn't see the possibility there. Those organizations competed successfully with public companies and are now publicly traded.
And no you're not special, we all get hassled about our views in RP from time to time irregardless of where we are coming from. If you can't take the heat though, maybe you are right and you should punt.
Suck it up, Nancy.Brettmcd wrote:Im done debating this issue, since I dont love big government my opinions have been deemed irrelevent so whats the point debating anymore.ChrisGwinn wrote:The government-created Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac created the entire secondary mortgage market in this country. The private market couldn't or didn't see the possibility there. Those organizations competed successfully with public companies and are now publicly traded.
I honestly cant think of anyone on here id like to meet up with anymore. At one time I did, but not a chance anymore. That you wouldwant to waste your time and debate someone who thinks your opinions are irrelevent or someone who specifically states they try to insult you whenever they can makes zero sense to me.Enough wrote:Brett, see Padre's response. I can get ND to say I and my opinions are wholly irrelevant quicker than you can (and that's when he feels like being nice to me ). But if ND ever showed up in Colorado he would instantly be on my short list for guys I want to go get a beer with. I guess this just wouldn't make sense to you.
I fail to see anything I am doing wrong other then daring to defend postions that arent 'popular' I dont think everyone 'hates' me, it just happens that people here dont seem to want to treat someone who defends an unpopular opinion with any shred of respect. I have no problem with people debating my opinion, what happens here is people want to debate the person, not the idea, and insult and act with total disrespect towards them.Padre wrote:Brettmcd:
Everyone on the forums appears to have a problem with the way you argue. Two possible hypotheses present themselves.
1) Everyone hates you, OR
2) You are doing something wrong.
If you sincerely believe 1), that we're all out to get you, why are you continuing to hang around here?
That's the problem - you don't present any sort of defense. You throw opinions out there and, if anyone dares to refute them, restate the same opinion while claiming that everyone disagrees because your opinions aren't "popular." Maybe they disagree because they've seen evidence that refutes your opinion?Brettmcd wrote:I fail to see anything I am doing wrong other then daring to defend postions that arent 'popular'
Yeah that's it. ND is so gosh-darned mean to me and I should hate him.Brettmcd wrote:I honestly cant think of anyone on here id like to meet up with anymore. At one time I did, but not a chance anymore. That you wouldwant to waste your time and debate someone who thinks your opinions are irrelevent or someone who specifically states they try to insult you whenever they can makes zero sense to me.Enough wrote:Brett, see Padre's response. I can get ND to say I and my opinions are wholly irrelevant quicker than you can (and that's when he feels like being nice to me ). But if ND ever showed up in Colorado he would instantly be on my short list for guys I want to go get a beer with. I guess this just wouldn't make sense to you.
In addition, you argue broad positions that can not be reasonably defended. When presented with examples of well run government programs, you neither re-examined your position nor presented evidence of why those agencies are not well run. You simply stated that they could be run better in the private sector. Is everyone here simply supposed to accept that because it's what you believe? That's not going to happen.Exodor wrote:That's the problem - you don't present any sort of defense. You throw opinions out there and, if anyone dares to refute them, restate the same opinion while claiming that everyone disagrees because your opinions aren't "popular." Maybe they disagree because they've seen evidence that refutes your opinion?Brettmcd wrote:I fail to see anything I am doing wrong other then daring to defend postions that arent 'popular'
I've ben active on OO's R&P forum since OO came into being, and on GGs R&P forum for about a year before it folded, and I have to say that what you have described has for the most part been entirely oppsoite to my experience.Brettmcd wrote: I fail to see anything I am doing wrong other then daring to defend postions that arent 'popular' I dont think everyone 'hates' me, it just happens that people here dont seem to want to treat someone who defends an unpopular opinion with any shred of respect. I have no problem with people debating my opinion, what happens here is people want to debate the person, not the idea, and insult and act with total disrespect towards them.
I guess I just dont see things as you do, but thats just perspective i guess. Part of the problem here most likely is being a strong conservative on a pretty liberal leaning board. As for taking things 'personally' i just point out when I think others are acting like jerks, and thats not going to change.Padre wrote:I've ben active on OO's R&P forum since OO came into being, and on GGs R&P forum for about a year before it folded, and I have to say that what you have described has for the most part been entirely oppsoite to my experience.Brettmcd wrote: I fail to see anything I am doing wrong other then daring to defend postions that arent 'popular' I dont think everyone 'hates' me, it just happens that people here dont seem to want to treat someone who defends an unpopular opinion with any shred of respect. I have no problem with people debating my opinion, what happens here is people want to debate the person, not the idea, and insult and act with total disrespect towards them.
Some people, perhaps out of frustration, have resorted to dismissing you entirely, but I think this has been based not on your opinions and their popularity, but on their means of expression.
In some cases I think what you're percieving as a lack of respect is really just the way in which this forum conducts itself, which is not always within the highest standards of decorum. Sometimes people will be cynical or sarcastic, and you just have to live with that. Personal atttacks are verboten, of course, but that doesn't preclude a quanityt of verbal jousting. That you'll simply have to get used to.
As it is, I'd advise trying not to take things so personally. I've been blasted on this forum before for views on an issue, and often when I examined the arguments it's turned out my detractiors had a point.
-------------
Back to the thread: another useful concept to look into is the idea of merit goods an public goods. Free markets will not provide all things optimally, and this go well beyone fire, police, defence and national security.
If it is left-leaning fantastic, use this as an opportunity to bone up on your ability to respond to viewpoints different than your own. Oh and I sure hope you don't view ND as a card-carrying liberal, heh.Brettmcd wrote:I guess I just dont see things as you do, but thats just perspective i guess. Part of the problem here most likely is being a strong conservative on a pretty liberal leaning board. As for taking things 'personally' i just point out when I think others are acting like jerks, and thats not going to change.
That's a pretty meaningless statement since about anything being done can be improved in some way.Brettmcd wrote:Saying something isnt well run does NOT mean I am denegrating the entire interstate highway system. I say it could be done better then it currently is.noxiousdog wrote:The interstate highway system is the most cited reason for the emergence of the US as a post WWII superpower. If he's going to denegrate that, he'll denegrate anything.farley2k wrote:You asked for a well run governmental agency - you were shown one!
When faced with that you tried to change the focus to "well it would exist without the government doing it"
That is a crappy debate technique.
Oh, please, drop this crap. Just because I don't agree with your idea that govt is the source of all our problems doesn't mean I think the govt is also the answer to everything. Everyone isn't an extremist.Brettmcd wrote:Sadly there is nothing I can say or no point you would accept that would get past your love of big government being the end all solution to every problem in the world.
And why am I supposed to believe this statement? What evidence have you provided? Or am I supposed to accept this just because you said it?MOST of what government does could be done better and more efficiently in other ways.
I didn't find any such qualification in your assertion that govt can't do much right. Are you partially recanting now?And some of the things you list are things that ONLY government is allowed to do, so putting them on any list is pointless as the private sector is not allowed to do their functions constitutionally.
Then let explain. Much of the ire of people like yourself is aimed at the govt "bureaucracy". My point is that our elected representatives create problems for the bureaucracy by imposing silly rules, contradictory directives, or changing rules in midstream. That was my point in drawing such a distinction, got it?Also what congress (the government) does is not the fault of the government???? That makes zero sense.
Wow both irrelevent AND meaningless!Grifman wrote:That's a pretty meaningless statement since about anything being done can be improved in some way.Brettmcd wrote:Saying something isnt well run does NOT mean I am denegrating the entire interstate highway system. I say it could be done better then it currently is.noxiousdog wrote:The interstate highway system is the most cited reason for the emergence of the US as a post WWII superpower. If he's going to denegrate that, he'll denegrate anything.farley2k wrote:You asked for a well run governmental agency - you were shown one!
When faced with that you tried to change the focus to "well it would exist without the government doing it"
That is a crappy debate technique.
And that's about true. Capitalism is a pretty crappy economic system - except when compared with all the others. Tremendous resources are wasted each year - look at all the thousands of small businesses that fail each year, not to mention large corporations. Look at all the factory closures and wasted resources. Look at the waste of skills and training of unemployed managers, professionals, skilled factory workers, etc. The system is tremendously wasteful.Poleaxe wrote:Yeah, but it's like saying that democracy is the worst form of government except for every other form.Grifman wrote:I think I pointed that out. But the self correction algorithm is extremely wasteful. And it oftentimes doesn't stop other wasteful corporations from developing. I think my point still stands.Poleaxe wrote:Capitalism is generally self-correcting. Govt. rarely is.Grifman wrote: Capitalism is extremely wasteful, as companies and investments are destroyed all the time. And we end up paying for it also. Companies go under leaving unpaid debts, shareholders lose investments, etc. All of this comes out of our GNP. Sure, this destructive process presumably makes things better overall in the long term as inefficient companies go out of business, but it's a bit messy and wasteful while it happens.
See, that right there, that's what irritates people.Brettmcd wrote: Wow both irrelevent AND meaningless!
The problem is he gives no evidence to support his assertions. He just asserts it as a brute fact. Sorry, but I think around here, people expect alot more evidence than just "Brettmcd said so"Dogstar wrote:From what I understand, he's not saying that the idea of interstate highways isn't a good one, or that he'd be happier if they weren't there. He's simply stating that he perceives that the project itself isn't necessarily well-run, and might be run more efficiently if handled by the private sector.
That's a very good example.ChrisGwinn wrote:The government-created Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac created the entire secondary mortgage market in this country. The private market couldn't or didn't see the possibility there. Those organizations competed successfully with public companies and are now publicly traded.
I'll say some of your points are irrelevent, or some of your facts are irrelevent. I don't think I've found your opinion to be irrelevent.Enough wrote:I can get ND to say I and my opinions are wholly irrelevant quicker than you can (and that's when he feels like being nice to me ).
Deal, but you ought to try for the July Atlantic City get together.But if ND ever showed up in Colorado he would instantly be on my short list for guys I want to go get a beer with. I guess this just wouldn't make sense to you.
There's more than one person in this thread. I'm pretty sure that some of us have never said that your opinions are irrelevant and have never stated our intent to insult you.Brettmcd wrote:I honestly cant think of anyone on here id like to meet up with anymore. At one time I did, but not a chance anymore. That you wouldwant to waste your time and debate someone who thinks your opinions are irrelevent or someone who specifically states they try to insult you whenever they can makes zero sense to me.Enough wrote:Brett, see Padre's response. I can get ND to say I and my opinions are wholly irrelevant quicker than you can (and that's when he feels like being nice to me ). But if ND ever showed up in Colorado he would instantly be on my short list for guys I want to go get a beer with. I guess this just wouldn't make sense to you.
As ive said there is little point in discussing the issues in this thread anymore, as noone bothers to actually read what is posted, even what youve just wrote isnt close to what ive said.noxiousdog wrote:I'll say some of your points are irrelevent, or some of your facts are irrelevent. I don't think I've found your opinion to be irrelevent.Enough wrote:I can get ND to say I and my opinions are wholly irrelevant quicker than you can (and that's when he feels like being nice to me ).
Deal, but you ought to try for the July Atlantic City get together.But if ND ever showed up in Colorado he would instantly be on my short list for guys I want to go get a beer with. I guess this just wouldn't make sense to you.
Brett: it's not that I find you irrelevent, it's that I think your take on government is so extreme that that particular take is irrelevent. I'm libertarian enough to hate mandatory social security, the war on drugs, the war on terror, I think the FDA hinders more than it helps, want to overhaul the tax system, think corporate income taxation is dumb (note: only applies to publicly held corporations), and generally dislike nearly all forms of government subsidy. Yet, I find your stand on this issue unjustifiable.
Not once have you come back with any response other than: "government bad, everyone is mean to me!"
I'd be happy to engage in a conversation, but you give us nothing to provide feedback on.
Brettmcd wrote: As ive said there is little point in discussing the issues in this thread anymore, as noone bothers to actually read what is posted, even what youve just wrote isnt close to what ive said.
Brettmcd wrote: Is there such a thing as a well run federal agency????? Sadly the rule at the governmental level seems to be waste and incompetance. FEMA is no different.
...
Please then name all these 'well-run' federal plans and agencies. I cant think of one that I would give that much credit to.
...
Government by its very nature is innefiecient in almost all things it does
...
Most of what the government does is done in about the most inefficient manor possible and wastes vast amounts of money. Again I fail to see all these 'well run' governmental agencies that you seem to think exist.
...
...
And good thing you decide to be insulting whenever possible.
...
Nice of you to admit you are just being a troll then.
...
Im done debating this issue, since I dont love big government my opinions have been deemed irrelevent so whats the point debating anymore.
...
I honestly cant think of anyone on here id like to meet up with anymore. At one time I did, but not a chance anymore.'
...
Wow both irrelevent AND meaningless!
Mr. Fed wrote:Dismissal of argument while presenting no counter argument. Statement asserting original statement as true. Accusation of wrongful and malicious persecution. Condescending remark.
Sound familiar?Wounded, self-dramatizing, non-traditionally spelled and punctuated riposte. Gratuitous reference to past conflicts. Characterization of disagreeing persons by group. Paranoid-delusional complaints of persecution.
Yes it does, its the familiar sound of people acting like jerks.Dogstar wrote:SuperHiro wrote:Mr. Fed wrote:Dismissal of argument while presenting no counter argument. Statement asserting original statement as true. Accusation of wrongful and malicious persecution. Condescending remark.Sound familiar?Wounded, self-dramatizing, non-traditionally spelled and punctuated riposte. Gratuitous reference to past conflicts. Characterization of disagreeing persons by group. Paranoid-delusional complaints of persecution.
Sweet, Farley, now we're in the same league as SH and Fed. Though, supes is much nicer than I am.Brettmcd wrote:
Yes it does, its the familiar sound of people acting like jerks.
Ill try this again.deadzone wrote:Brett - Do you think we would be better off with no government intervention in most things? Serious question for you, I am trying to understand your position better.
That being said, I think handing it all over to private industry is not really a good idea either. Well okay, I can concede that it may work - but it's a damn scary thing to think about for me at least. Private entities are based on profit only - nothing else seems to drive them.
When you factor in all the schmoozing that big companies do with the government so they can get certain things done that they want... Well it begins to get scary. You need to look no further than the state this country is in when you look at broadband deployment, technology, and speed. It sucks, and it's because of a lack of government involvement in my opinion.
That's getting off subject though. I could rant about just that for a while but I won't bore you guys or embarrass myself any further.