How would you improve public education?

Rob Roy said:
If people had a choice of using or not using a security company, and there were many to chose from and one had lots of complaints of poor customer service such as being extortionists how long would people continue to use them ?

Your second question is a good one. If you think about it, it describes governments business model to a tee.
Click to expand...
You're assuming said security company would abide by your rules

What would prevent them from using violence against competition?
 
Rob Roy said:
How would you prevent it if it's already included systemically like in the here and now ? Oh wait, you can't...because it's impossible to have something as a fundamental part of something and then also have it cease to exist.


tumblr_mhf5idCirS1qm9r2to1_500.jpg
Click to expand...

The problem with your meme is that it is 100% factually inaccurate.

West of the Mason Dixon line in the early 1800s was pretty much "anarchy" and lawlessness. It didn't work out so well. Because, it was lawless and anarchy.

So much for history and facts and such.

*Mace some, dick some line.
 
Padawanbater2 said:
You're assuming said security company would abide by your rules

What would prevent them from using violence against competition?
Click to expand...

No, I'm assuming said security companies will act in their self interest by providing value to customers or they risk losing their business. By having multiple security companies from which consumers can chose from, what you fear, a single coercion based monopoly "taking over" is less likely to happen.

In a free market, consumers feedback is a component which must be considered by a service provider.

In an unfree market, which exists now, your feedback doesn't matter to the holder of the monopoly, since you have to pay them whether you like their service or not.

No offense, but you don't seem to understand the importance of how consumer choices act as a regulation on bad business practices.

Also, I'll point out that which you seem to ignore. In the present, the government does exactly what you fear. They use violence against any potential competitors.
 
see4 said:
The problem with your meme is that it is 100% factually inaccurate.

West of the Mason Dixon line in the early 1800s was pretty much "anarchy" and lawlessness. It didn't work out so well. Because, it was lawless and anarchy.

So much for history and facts and such.

*Mace some, dick some line.
Click to expand...


Your post smacks of platitude and regurgitation of doctored and erroneous history.

Would you like to go down that road conversationally and get your butt whipped, I don't mean I'd actually whip your butt, so please stop unbuckling your trousers and wipe that anticipatory smile off your face please.
 
Rob Roy said:
You just espoused two opposing points of view at once there. One that payment is voluntary, the other that a person will be harmed for noncompliance, which sort of disapproves the voluntary part.

I know it's hard, but please try to keep one side of your mouth from interrupting the other side.
Click to expand...

you are the one who wakes up everyday feeling that you are the victim of extortion.
if i felt that way, i would move to a different country that doesn't require me to pay taxes.
you choose to stay here of your own free will and to do so, you got to pay your fair share.

i know it's hard, but if you don't like it here, stop complaining with both sides of that pie hole of yours and hit the road.
 
Public education should be scrapped entirely. People were much more educated when they had to pay it themselves, and of course it would cost less with no government involvement than the taxes they forcibly extract from people now.
 
Rob Roy said:
Your post smacks of platitude and regurgitation of doctored and erroneous history.

Would you like to go down that road conversationally and get your butt whipped, I don't mean I'd actually whip your butt, so please stop unbuckling your trousers and wipe that anticipatory smile off your face please.
Click to expand...
Sure, I'd love to hear your delusions.
 
rkymtnman said:
i know it's hard, but if you don't like it here, stop complaining with both sides of that pie hole of yours and hit the road.
Click to expand...

@Rob Roy : i guess i should clarify since the extortion you face has clouded your reality.

when i said hit the road, i hope you don't plan on using any of the highways or airports that my tax dollars pay for when you leave the USA.
 
Rob Roy said:
No, I'm assuming said security companies will act in their self interest by providing value to customers or they risk losing their business. By having multiple security companies from which consumers can chose from, what you fear, a single coercion based monopoly "taking over" is less likely to happen.

In a free market, consumers feedback is a component which must be considered by a service provider.

In an unfree market, which exists now, your feedback doesn't matter to the holder of the monopoly, since you have to pay them whether you like their service or not.

No offense, but you don't seem to understand the importance of how consumer choices act as a regulation on bad business practices.

Also, I'll point out that which you seem to ignore. In the present, the government does exactly what you fear. They use violence against any potential competitors.
Click to expand...
Any company's self interest lies in the profit margin. They exist to make money for their executives and shareholders. You're assuming everyone in your ideal world would follow the rules when it's clear, they wouldn't. They would do what virtually all businesses do today, even with the regulations put in place by the government; cheat to get ahead.

The fact that you can't see this yourself shows you're either oblivious to it or naive about it. In any case, you should work on the problem of ensuring how companies don't extort their customers in a world without enforcement against it if you ever wish to sway anybody's opinion, rather than just relying on the honor code.
 
Padawanbater2 said:
Any company's self interest lies in the profit margin. They exist to make money for their executives and shareholders. You're assuming everyone in your ideal world would follow the rules when it's clear, they wouldn't. They would do what virtually all businesses do today, even with the regulations put in place by the government; cheat to get ahead.

The fact that you can't see this yourself shows you're either oblivious to it or naive about it. In any case, you should work on the problem of ensuring how companies don't extort their customers in a world without enforcement against it if you ever wish to sway anybody's opinion, rather than just relying on the honor code.
Click to expand...


No, I'm not assuming as you stated. Your last paragraph is an erroneous assumption of my thoughts on your part too.

I agree people act in their self interest, which is why allowing multiple service providers, is the key to PREVENTING what you fear.

In the present, government which is itself a monopoly abets other monopolies or grants virtual monopolies to their friends. That fact, means customer feedback is minimized and the things you fear can happen more easily.

Under what I propose, a free market, customer feedback is a much bigger component and acts to prevent what you fear.

The best way to "enforce" your dislike of a service provider and to "keep them in line" so to speak is to be able to walk away from them and use somebody else, presently that option is reduced by government which is a monopoly and abets them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top