Site Information
About Us
- RonPaulForums.com is an independent grassroots outfit not officially connected to Ron Paul but dedicated to his mission. For more information see our Mission Statement.
At least in the USA, in the times before the government thought it needed to rescue health care for the poor, doctors were greatly respected for their outright charitable behavior, or their willingness to accept very little payment from those that had very little to give (having in mind the so-called "country doctor"). The spirit of the oath they take was more greatly honored than the current system where they are damn near hamstrung in their attempts to behave in the manner of their forebears.
Schools are not altogether different in this regard. Communities often pitched in to obtain a schoolhouse and pay the salary of a teacher. Costs, unsurprisingly, were much lower. Costs could not exceed what the community could handle, so no rapacious behavior on the behalf of the educators could amount to anything. There was no government trying to throw inexhaustible amounts of money at them.
Whatever government touches turns to gold plated $#@!. All the cost, none of the function.
That's what the evidence shows. The world's poorest are choosing low-cost private schools over the government schools.
http://traffic.libsyn.com/tomwoodsshow/woods_01_09_2014_2.mp3
freedomisobvious.blogspot.com
There is only one correct way: freedom. All other solutions are non-solutions.
It appears that artificial intelligence is at least slightly superior to natural stupidity.
Our words make us the ghosts that we are.
Convincing the world he didn't exist was the Devil's second greatest trick; the first was convincing us that God didn't exist.
Welcome friend. One thing you should search your soul on is this fundamental question: What are rights and where do they come from?
I would contend that natural rights are life, liberty, and property. Governments are instituted among men to secure these rights, not to grant them. Rights do NOT come from government. A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you have... this is not freedom. Anything that requires another person to pay for it (Healthcare, for example) is NOT a right.
You have a journey ahead of you, to be sure, but a logical and clear thinking person will arrive at the conclusion that men are, and of right ought to be, free.
-Major General Smedley Butler, USMC,There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.
Two-Time Congressional Medal of Honor Winner
Author of, War is a Racket!
- Diogenes of SinopeIt is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours.
Good job, joining RPF is a great advanced studies course into the liberty movement.
Its not easy to swing from SJWism to classical liberalism, although it seems you came this way because you were eaten by your own.
Keep your mind open and I'm sure one day you will also finally understand that capitalism is not unfair and healthcare is not a human right.
THE SQUAD of RPF
1. enhanced_deficit - Paid Troll / John Bolton book promoter
2. Devil21 - LARPing Wizard, fake magical script reader
3. Firestarter - Tax Troll; anti-tax = "criminal behavior"
4. TheCount - Comet Pizza Pedo Denier <-- sick
@Ehanced_Deficit's real agenda on RPF =troll:
Who spends this much time copy/pasting the same recycled links, photos/talking points.
7 yrs/25k posts later RPF'ers still respond to this troll
Capitalism is the fairest system possible. This is because it's based on freedom. The freedom to agree or disagree and the freedom to choose. The fact that not every interaction in a capitalist system turns out to be fair, does not mean it is not the fairest system there is. Because, it is. If I have a product or a skill, and I get to choose to who I sell that, for how much, when and every other variable, then what could be fairer than that ?
"I am a bird"
Indeed, but when we agree on the fact that humans are not perfect it logically extends from there that no system ever will be perfectly fair.
By the way, welcome to the forums. Also, I've heard Beirut is an awesome city when it comes to the nightlife, is that still true ? I may have to visit some time. I don't speak Arabic though.
"I am a bird"
Go to the mises institue http://mises.org and read something everyday. Or if you enjoy listening to lectures start here: https://mises.org/library/audiovideo?page=1
I've spent the past decade listening to mises.org lectures - approx 3000 now.
It's very hard to compete with a service that gives itself away to the consumer for free.
For example, roads are multi-million dollar investments. What kind of person would buy up land for millions and pave roads for millions, when there's a free service with a similar offering throughout the country? He would hardly get any business.
That's why you don't see private roads very often. Although, you still see private toll roads in circumstances where the free market is still so much better than the $0 price road system that it's still profitable to make a private competitor. Imagine how bad the $0 price public system must be for the private toll roads to still be a better deal.
If a person had to pay a private fee for those private roads, we can apply free market economic theory to predict that the typical person would still be paying less than if his money were taken from him by taxation to pay for the project.
You may wonder about circumstances where it's not profitable for someone to invest, for example remote country roads. The reality is that those roads are already privately built, and the government didn't build them anyway. In many countries across the world, people simply clear a dirt road without any investment from the government. In places where traffic demand is more frequent, companies invest in the opportunity to provide infrastructure services.
I think the only legitimate argument against private roads is the reality that they receive some of their value from exclusive land titles, which is a monopoly given by the state. However, because roads exist among other road systems in a vast 2-dimensional grid, there are many possible alternatives in choices, which would make it more like a potential oligopoly. A market oligopoly would still provide better economic outcomes than a monopoly of the state.
Free market capitalism is not a panacea, but it provides empirically better results than other systems. Socialists promise a panacea, but that's how you know they are either lying or they never actually reviewed the evidence. If you look at the evidence, the free market always provides better quality (if necessitated by demand), more quantity (if necessitated by demand), and a lower price in the aggregate.
Last edited by MRK; 04-02-2017 at 10:58 PM.
Connect With Us