The government can't do anything right

[BluePriest]

Just because the market currently doesn't provide something doesn't mean it can't.  Universal education could be a market function,

No, it couldn't.  The market would inherently set a price for education -- and the instant you make people pay money for something, there will be people who cannot afford it.

Lol are you saying you dont have to pay for school now? Aside from the fact that a good portion of taxes goes to schools, which I will ignore, every single year we had school fees we had to pay. Then if we wanted to participate in extra curricular activities like sports, we needed to pay for that, and school events like dances needed to be paid for seperately as well, and if you didnt want to be in a sport team, but still wanted to go to the games, you had to pay as well.

So the school fees covered the classes and the books. Once again im ignoring taxes associated with it.

Perhaps you need to take a step back as OT suggested. Emotion (no matter how good intentioned) can make you look bad, and it is here.

[johannhowitzer]

Let's look at food for a minute.  There are very few people in this country who cannot afford to buy food - the ones who can't are usually begging on the streets.  But how often do people die of hunger, even in the inner city?  I've been there, and it doesn't happen often - because there are many charitable organizations that exist for the sole purpose of providing food to those who can't afford to feed themselves.  There are also many extremely cheap ways to purchase basic food; there is a market for very cheap services, so entrepreneurs will seek that market out and find a way to profit off providing for that extreme marginal consumer.

If it works with food, why not education?

[russianspy1234]

Let's look at food for a minute.  There are very few people in this country who cannot afford to buy food - the ones who can't are usually begging on the streets.  But how often do people die of hunger, even in the inner city?  I've been there, and it doesn't happen often - because there are many charitable organizations that exist for the sole purpose of providing food to those who can't afford to feed themselves.  There are also many extremely cheap ways to purchase basic food; there is a market for very cheap services, so entrepreneurs will seek that market out and find a way to profit off providing for that extreme marginal consumer.

If it works with food, why not education?

there is also government support for people who cannot afford to buy food.  if you take government out of it, especially the fact that a lot of those charitable organizations are government subsidized (if only by tax breaks) you would have FAR more people dying from hunger.

And the government is analogous to a large corporation.  It has costs and provides a variety of services and goods.  It has governing groups that make decisions about how to allocate it's resources.  I could keep going... But the government is LIKE a corporation (but technically is not).

corporations are legally required to turn the biggest profit it can.  if a drug company has two researchers, one comes up with a cure for diabites in the form of one pill, and another comes out with a new device which holds multiple doses of insulin for easy carrying, they are LEGALLY required to sell the second product and  never sell the first.  the government on the other hand, exists specifically to take care of things that shouldnt have to turn a profit.  the government (at least in theory) allocates resources towards the bottom so as many people as possible get enough to survive.  corporations cut costs and wages and raise prices to allocate as many resources as possible towards the top, to line the investors pockets.  now sure, if you vote in people who are former corporation CEOs and think government should be run like a business, it starts to resemble a corporations.  but if you look at parts that still work as they were conceived, like education, social security, and medicare/medicaid government is pretty much the exact opposite of a corporation.

[OldTrees]

corporations are legally required to turn the biggest profit it can.

I believe this is false. Please cite the law in question.

Corporations (when not distorted) are incentiveized to maximize economic profits. However economic profits are in the form of wealth not just currency. There are points where corporations would gladly forgo dollars in exchange for the surrounding community receiving new infrastructure or improved health.

[plastiqe]

http://whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com/ (http://whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com/)

[OldTrees]

http://whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com/ (http://whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com/)

Notice how many of those are the POTUS* undoing or mitigating government caused problems.
Notice how many of those are inefficient compared to private sector versions.
Notice how many of those are mundane bureaucratic appointments/funding adjustments.
Notice how many of those are "the POTUS did not veto bill so and so."
How many do you see left?
Promoted social responsibility through creation of serve.gov, a national database of volunteer opportunities
Provided travel expenses to families of fallen soldiers to be on hand when the body arrives at Dover AFB
Extended Benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees
*The link only refers to President Obama but the same criticism/filtering is appropriate for any president.

[johannhowitzer]

there is also government support for people who cannot afford to buy food.  if you take government out of it, especially the fact that a lot of those charitable organizations are government subsidized (if only by tax breaks) you would have FAR more people dying from hunger.

Are you talking about food stamps?  Because I don't think you realize how much welfare fraud takes place in this country - many people who get food stamps can afford food.  And that money is coming from somewhere; remove the taxes that support food stamps, and you provide the charitable few among the population with a lot more disposable income, as I said above.  Thus charitable organizations will have more to help out the people who really need it - and since those organizations can be closer to the people who are in need than the government can be, there will be dramatically less fraud.

Exemption of taxation is not government subsidy.  It sounds like it, but it's only necessary because we have unconstitutional taxes!  The only internal tax the United States Constitution provides for is sales tax - and charitable organizations are not exempt to that.  The taxes a charity is "exempt" from wouldn't exist in an honest government.

[Belthus]

corporations are legally required to turn the biggest profit it can.

I believe this is false. Please cite the law in question.

Dodge v. Ford Motor Co. (http://www.businessentitiesonline.com/Dodge%20v.%20Ford%20Motor%20Co.pdf) [emphasis mine]:

A business corporation is organized and carried on primarily for the profit of the stockholders. The powers of the directors are to be employed for that end. The discretion of directors is to be exercised in the choice of means to attain that end, and does not extend to a change in the end itself, to the reduction of profits, or to the nondistribution of profits among stockholders in order to devote them to other purposes.

Everything a for-profit corporation does must be justified as contributing to profit, sooner or later. Thus, it can make philanthropic donations, but only to the extent justified by long-term profit (e.g., that good PR helps sales).

[russianspy1234]

corporations are legally required to turn the biggest profit it can.

I believe this is false. Please cite the law in question.

Dodge v. Ford Motor Co. (http://www.businessentitiesonline.com/Dodge%20v.%20Ford%20Motor%20Co.pdf) [emphasis mine]:

A business corporation is organized and carried on primarily for the profit of the stockholders. The powers of the directors are to be employed for that end. The discretion of directors is to be exercised in the choice of means to attain that end, and does not extend to a change in the end itself, to the reduction of profits, or to the nondistribution of profits among stockholders in order to devote them to other purposes.

Everything a for-profit corporation does must be justified as contributing to profit, sooner or later. Thus, it can make philanthropic donations, but only to the extent justified by long-term profit (e.g., that good PR helps sales).

and if it doesnt, stockholders can (and often do) sue.

there is also government support for people who cannot afford to buy food.  if you take government out of it, especially the fact that a lot of those charitable organizations are government subsidized (if only by tax breaks) you would have FAR more people dying from hunger.

Are you talking about food stamps?  Because I don't think you realize how much welfare fraud takes place in this country - many people who get food stamps can afford food.  And that money is coming from somewhere; remove the taxes that support food stamps, and you provide the charitable few among the population with a lot more disposable income, as I said above.  Thus charitable organizations will have more to help out the people who really need it - and since those organizations can be closer to the people who are in need than the government can be, there will be dramatically less fraud.

Exemption of taxation is not government subsidy.  It sounds like it, but it's only necessary because we have unconstitutional taxes!  The only internal tax the United States Constitution provides for is sales tax - and charitable organizations are not exempt to that.  The taxes a charity is "exempt" from wouldn't exist in an honest government.

just because there are people out there that abuse it, doesnt mean no one needs it.  by your logic, people stealing from stores would be a condemnation of all capitalist.

also, Article 1 Section 8 of the constitution.

[CCCombobreaker]

Everything a for-profit corporation does must be justified as contributing to profit, sooner or later. Thus, it can make philanthropic donations, but only to the extent justified by long-term profit (e.g., that good PR helps sales).

Is not the same as

corporations are legally required to turn the biggest profit it can.

I agree to the first and think that government should run the same way, especially viewing tax payers as shareholders.  Governments can make a profit that benefits their taxpayers by handling resources well and providing goods and services to OTHER governments.  That profit can then be used to provide more services or income for the shareholders (taxpayers).

if a drug company has two researchers, one comes up with a cure for diabites in the form of one pill, and another comes out with a new device which holds multiple doses of insulin for easy carrying, they are LEGALLY required to sell the second product and  never sell the first.  the government on the other hand, exists specifically to take care of things that shouldnt have to turn a profit.

And this is just patently false.  ESPECIALLY if you consider they could sell the cure for more than a lifetime supply of doses of insulin and a carry case.  Even if it cost less, they could still sell the pills for profit.  Could they sell the carry cases and not the cure, sure, even obvious ethics are not mandated by law.  But maximizing profit isn't mandated either.

now sure, if you vote in people who are former corporation CEOs and think government should be run like a business, it starts to resemble a corporations.  but if you look at parts that still work as they were conceived, like education, social security, and medicare/medicaid government is pretty much the exact opposite of a corporation.

The government as a structure resembles a corporation.  Which is completely independent of how it is run.  You can run a corporation like our current bureaucrats run the government and you can run it into the ground.  A lot of corporations get mismanaged and fail.

[russianspy1234]

And this is just patently false.  ESPECIALLY if you consider they could sell the cure for more than a lifetime supply of doses of insulin and a carry case.  Even if it cost less, they could still sell the pills for profit.  Could they sell the carry cases and not the cure, sure, even obvious ethics are not mandated by law.  But maximizing profit isn't mandated either.

pills actually all cost roughly the same amount to manufacture.  if a company is selling one pill for 50,000 everyone would know they are inflating the price.  also most people wouldnt be able to afford it.  also, with a cure readily available, they are removing customers, where as releasing better insulin keeps people hooked.  and the formula for the drug could easilly be aquired, and generics could be produced (legally or possibly illegally)

[johannhowitzer]

just because there are people out there that abuse it, doesnt mean no one needs it.  by your logic, people stealing from stores would be a condemnation of all capitalist.

That was not my logic.  I did not say that welfare fraud condemns all welfare.  Currently, yes, some people need certain forms of welfare.  That was not my point either!  My point was that there is a better way, the way I described (and there may be better ways than that).  Please, if you're going to reply to my posts, don't take my words out of context.