On 27-Jun-06, at 6:24 PM, Devdas Bhagat wrote:
Funny. The Canadians I correspond with say otherwise.
http://www.liberty-page.com/issues/healthcare/socialized.html#canada
It's so bad, in fact, that there are plenty of Canadian health tourists
in India. India actually has fairly functional private health-care.
Mumbai transport isn't exactly controlled
out of existence. It just happens to be very well served by the
government
owned and run bus and train services.
For very dubious values of "well"!
Providing subsidized goods at low cost is one way to coercively destroy
market competition. I'm sure market competition in mass transit is
highly
controlled in other ways as well, such as requirements for licensing,
permits, guarantees, etc., if not outright outlawed.
The first WAN was created with almost zero funding by a single
individual.
So why didn't individuals actually create it in the first place?
It took
government funding for quite some time
The researchers who created the 'Net protocols probably figured that
since DARPA was there holding out free cash, why not take it? They
would have done it anyway, but it was nice to get some free cash too.
Incidentally, BBS networks were entirely created by private individuals,
with no government funding, and were in many ways way ahead of the
Internet. The first open-access online communities existed on BBSes,
and not the Internet. Most community-oriented Internet sites today are
modeled on the good ol' BBS.
Oh good. I want to have global warming growth stopped, and reduced to
the levels of a century ago. Care to show me _how_ that would be
achieved by private industry (at least the first part).
If enough people are convinced of the existence and urgency of global
warming, you can pressure companies through market forces (buying
environmentally conscious products in preference to the other kind, for
example) to work towards addressing the issue.
If not enough people are convinced, maybe more convincing is necessary?
Maybe the claims of global warming are unscientific and highly
politicized?
If there is incontrovertible proof of cause and effects, and proof of
an imminent
threat to your welfare, the issue can be addressed legally just as any
other threat to individual rights is, in court, by arbitration, etc.
(This last
can also be provided very well by private means).
I am not arguing that the government should do everything. But for
a lot
of things, the government is actually better than the short term
profit
driven private industry. As Eugen said, this is particularly true when
unpopular but necessary things have to be done.
Who determines these things are "necessary"? By what authority? Popular
opinion? But you just said these things were also "unpopular"? :-)
Capitalism doesn't only subsume "profit driven industry", but also ANY
voluntary association of human beings, including charities, co-
operatives,
non-profit organizations, and philanthropic organizations. As long as
there's no coercion involved, any of these entities is free, under
capitalism, to initiate steps to work towards "unpopular" but long-term
worthy goals, without imposing its will on others who may not share
their views.
In fact, the entire origin of this thread is the philanthropic
activities of
so-called short-term profit-driven capitalists, such as Bill Gates and
Warren Buffet, who with their profit-driven capital are in a position to
(and have actually committed to) invest more cash in long-term goals
like world health than any government has.
Capitalism is not only about short-term profit-driven industry. It is
about
voluntary associations, and individual rights.
Your argument fails to make the point that private enterprises do not
engage in non-profitable operations. Even if the cost to society is
higher than the cost of engaging in such practices.
See above.
Drugs to control diseases are more profitable than cures. Drugs to
control obesity are more valuable than drugs to cure malaria.
Viarga is
even more valuable :).
And your point is? Fine wines are more profitable per bottle than beer.
In a capitalist society, however, both are produced in sufficient
quantities
to meet any arbitrary level of demand. Just because Viagra is produced
does not mean cures for malaria will not be. Competition in the market
means a diversity of interests and approaches towards every problem.
or posturing and overly expensive ventures of dubious
worth, such as NASA space programs.
than a commercial one. Would you have invested in going to the moon 40
years ago?
Can you prove that this actually happened? Can you point out any
valuable R&D that justified the purported expense? Or was it precisely a
"posturing and overly expensive venture of dubious worth", as I
described
NASA projects above?
How many private organisations would have borne the risk
alone, or as a consortium?
Just as the government invented powered flight because private
organizations
could not bear the risk, right?
Private space initiatives are already making NASA look precisely like
the
bureaucratic deadweight it is, and has been all this time.
#!
