3-
In a complete privatisation - where there is no remaining governmental intervention forcing the price up - if the result is that the cost of the service goes up, this is the same thing as saying that, under public ownership, it was being run at a loss.

“The first lesson of economics is scarcity: There is never enough of anything to satisfy all those who want it.
The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics.”
Thomas Sowell.

Government can’t magically make net benefits out of thin air by forced confiscations as you keep assuming.

*Evidence* doesn’t interpret itself. That requires theory. If your theory is wrong, you’ll get the wrong conclusion.

You need to show show *HOW* even a perfect government is able, by virtue of mere force or majority opinion, to overcome the problems of ethics, knowledge and economics that I have identified, and which you have not refuted.

Until then, you are not in a position to conclude that *partial* privatisations under current highly imperfect, corrupt and *interventionist* government, cannot possibly manage the efficiency of social relations based on freedom and property.

All the arguments of the statists so far can be summarised in one word: conjuring.

Perhaps we should discuss instead how best to transition from where we are now – an ugly amalgam of crony socialism and corporate capitalism - to a free society?

Direct Democracy:
As Voters are affected by market prices and trade capacity as consequence of their decisions- and of course were to undermine their own rights to private enterprise if they vote to do so, I'd say they are in an ethical position.
(though I love how you imply that it will definitely be a socialist system, despite the three times it has been used in recent history the results have been very democratic and personal-rights centered indeed- though I imagine you can't tell the difference between socialism and any system that is non-libertarian, so I will not press you for definition)

Furthermore, it would take a majority of individuals 'laborers' themselves to be required to come to such a decision.
If the majority of the public actually DOES feel that a socialised collective benefit is worth more to them than having autonomous rights, then it would create a new dichotomy- that the Libertarians would then be imposing their system on a nation that doesn't want it.
And therein lies the justification- either a system where the majority impose an all-encompasing system on themselves and others that a minority does not want, or a system where a minority are at liberty to impose what they want on everyone else.

It would further imply that if a person preferred to have their money spent on other means, they would be in a position to initiate a referendum with an argument why there should be expemptions in this field- and either enough people agree to remedy the problem, or it is another failed attempt at fringe imposition on the rest.
That also applies for changing service-providers or reforming the service.

Economically it's simple- infrastructure does run at a loss, regardless of how it is run. Under freedom to profit, it is run at an even greater loss. Under voluntary payments, the loss is carried by fewer, despite the benefits of that service trickling into non-direct recipients.

And I feel I have answered many of your points, but await substantiation of yours- your system and transition I am also interested in.

That’s like saying, because people are affected by the need to obtain consent to sex, therefore if they *don’t* obtain consent, they are in an ethical position. It is complete moral and intellectual confusion.

You seem to believe that people can have whatever economic reality they want, by virtue of majority opinion, or by changing the name of the “system”. They can’t. Reality imposes limitations on human action.

The economic chaos caused by common ownership isn't peculiar to states "called" socialist, like the USSR. The economic problems I proved inhere in common ownership, WHATEVER IT’S CALLED. That’s why you were COMPLETELY UNABLE to answer the questions I asked as to how the socialist – or whatever you want to call it – executive is to know how to economise?

“If the majority of the public actually DOES feel that a socialised collective benefit is worth more to them than having autonomous rights…”

Whether or not something is true doesn’t depend on how many people believe it.

It doesn’t matter how many people believe that rain dances improve crop fertility, or that common ownership makes society richer and fairer. If they can’t provide a rational vindication of their belief, and cannot refute the arguments showing it’s false, then it’s just as irrational and futile as if a majority didn’t believe it.

There’s no question of a minority, or of libertarians, imposing their opinions on others. But that doesn’t mean
a) that people who want to be free of others' violence are “imposing” their opinions on others;
b) that majoritarian theft and bullying are ethical or economical.

“Economically it's simple … non-direct recipients.”
Sorry, but that’s simple ignorance. According to that theory, common ownership is more physically productive. If what you were saying were true, then there would be no ethical or economic reason why *everything* should not be held in common.

So you haven’t answered my arguments; are just displaying your complete ethical confusion and economic ignorance; and are only demonstrating why democracy is an immoral system.

Like I said, the limitations are *ideas*.

Actually Peter I *have* answered your arguments, I simply have yet to entertain your absurd attempts to shift the debate onto 'socialism';
You on the other hand have not answered a single one of mine either.

Economics is affected by conduct in exchange of capital; a recent market failure, namely the global market crash, was a direct result of irresponsible trading of capital. Which rather weakens the case of success of unregulated voluntary conduct and trading.
Capitalism needs accountability and regulation to work, just like a society- to ensure a stable structured and sustainable market is maintained.

The majority principle is a matter of cultural conduct, while 'truth' in terms of 'correct' cultural conduct is nothing but a personal point of view.
In this case, that society wants to pay automatically for social stability rather than fall into anarchy, while a few people would sooner the latter simply because they don't feel like paying for it.
If a person lives within a town, they are automatically benefiting from the roads, water supply, representation, legal and emergency services, as well as the commercial system and law of that town. By exempting themselves they are in fact forcing everyone else to pick up his slack, and becoming a burden, while benefiting regardless (and you have not given a case to the contrary).

And your 'why don't we socialize everything' argument, after I actually explained why to you already, only proves to me that you don't want to address my points and instead avoid them- hence put up weak attempts to divert and insist that the topic goes to communism.
But because I'm so generous I'll explain it to you in even simpler terms.
People have a right to private exclusive ownership of privately-maintained property. People do not have a right to exclusively own public-maintained and dependent assets at the exclusion of the other shareholders (the public).

If you want to keep comparing it to Socialism- by all means continue!

THOUGHT FOR THE DAY!

" Many of us regard ourselves as mildly liberal or centrist politically, voice fairly pleasant sentiments about our poor children, contribute money to send poor kids to summer camp, feel benevolent.

We're not nazis; we're nice people.
We read sophisticated books. We go to church. We go to synagogue.

Meanwhile, we put other people's children
into an economic and environmental death zone.

We make it hard for them to get out.
We strip the place bare of amenities.

And we sit back and say to ourselves, "Well, I hope that they don't kill each other off. But if they do, it's not my fault."--

Jonathan Kozol, educator and author



Corporate Coup d'Etat In Wisconsin

Ralph Nader calls Washington corporate-occupied territory -

"every department agency controlled by the overwhelming presence of corporate lobbyists, corporate executives in high government positions, turning the government against its own people."

Nader also said corporations don't just control government, they are the government. "The corporation IS the government!"

They bought and own it at the federal, state and local levels, running it like their private fiefdom at the expense of working Americans, systematically stripping them of hard-won rights.

Webmaster's Commentary:
This attempted destruction of the middle class in America is no accident; it is an absolutely deliberate set of actions.

Read more: WHAT REALLY HAPPENED
The History The Government HOPES You Never Learn! http://whatreallyhappened.com
http://poorrichards-blog.blogspot.com/2011/03/only-18-of-americans-approve-of.html

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/169394.html
http://www.businessinsider.com/japan-missing-people-2011-3/
http://rense.com/general93/coup.htm

http://www.truthistreason.net/oil-were-here-for-the-heroin-at-19923200-per-barrel
http://www.truthistreason.net/heroin-the-cia-in-afghanistan-911-and-the-mujahadeen

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ruQ4GbjlPs
http://revolutionarypolitics.tv/video/viewVideo.php?video_id=14246

its the end of the world as capitalists know it
and so too to communism[we dont need bosses/masters
just direction for the greater good[peace love plenty]

let govt serve the people
and go to jail when caught serving capitalists
or communists seeking socialist terms..[grant gift bailout]
[for themselves or their corporation]

did you notice the billionairs have gone from
1000 last year..to 1200 this year
its time to tax them
[dic-traiters]
fat rats

*bring in a transaction tax

As you are defending common ownership of capital resources, it is not “absurd” to identify the economic problems of common ownership, however called, on which your argument completely fails.

You haven’t answered my arguments at all. You have lost the economic argument while ever you cannot answer *how* a bureaucracy is to a) *know how* and to b) *have incentive* to economise so as to devote scarce resources to satisfying the most urgent wants of the people, as judged by those people themselves, if not by using profit and loss? You simply assume government has magic pudding.

Go ahead: please answer without further evasion: How are they going to do it? An honest concession that you don’t know will do.

“[The GFC] rather weakens the case of success of unregulated voluntary conduct and trading. “

The market was not unregulated. On the contrary, government at all times controlled money’s price and supply, steering mechanisms of markets. This COMPLETELY DISPROVES your argument as to the GFC.

(In any event, the state has NOT increased accountability, it gave billions of dollars away to its favourite corporations, banks, and foreign governments, WITHOUT ACCOUNTING FOR IT WHATSOEVER. Not even Congress has been able to get an account of it, let alone Joe Public from whom the wealth was taken. So get your facts straight?)

The financial markets were and are extensively and intensively regulated by dozens of bureaucracies with thousands of pages of regulations; and one in particular – the Fed – prints and hands out money at will. I don’t know how you managed to swallow the belief that the market was “unregulated” but it’s obviously and grossly false.

So do what rational people do. Reject your false belief. Re-think your claim. And ask yourself this “Given that government controlled the money supply, that its supporters claimed it HAS the competence to manage the economy, and that its detractors claimed that this leads to economic crises and social injustice, which theory is proved true? And what effect might massive governmental manipulation of the money supply have had on the economy?"