Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
Topic closed!!!
Subject: »NEWS AROUND THE WORLD
Because the freedom to buy the goods one desires seems like a freedom I like.
Ok, finally a partial answer.
I don't agree, 'cause I think benefits that comes from a "welfare" state is much bigger for everyone than the freedom to decide (btw: who will decide not to cure himself..?) and the global price you pay in the end is inferior.
The argumentation is that every person should be free to decide what private goods he wants to buy and should pay only for those private goods he buys. You can think that's poor argumentation, I beg to differ.
Benefits / costs: well, taxes would drop to a very low percentage, expenses by the state would drop to a minimum (just the costs of the public goods; certain public goods can even be produced by private companies).
I think this is a partial answer because you don't do the comparation of costs and benefits of both proposals.
I think this:
1-some thing must be public because of profit logic doesn't fit them (f.e. army, sanitary cures, police)
2-some thing can be public or private, but need a strong regulation (f.e. public services as energy, water, transports) because market logic without regulation fail to realize a satisfactory situation
3-some things must be left free at market logic, regulated only on profit searching of people (everything else that there's no motivation to regulate in another way)
What to put in 1, 2 or 3?
that's the question!
Every case must be evalutated, analizing benefits/costs balance (but doing it right).
Let's do an example: free vaccinations for kids.
You will say: "I won't pay for someone else's kid vaccination!"
but do you realize that your kid will go at school with a not vaccinated guy at his side?
Do you think that the cost you'll pay as society when a not vaccinated man get hill and stay at home from work for weeks is comparable?
I can do a lot of examples like this, I think that an ideological view on things are unavoidable, but we must always remember common sense, before proclaiming "truths" that are valid only in theory!
Ok, finally a partial answer.
I don't agree, 'cause I think benefits that comes from a "welfare" state is much bigger for everyone than the freedom to decide (btw: who will decide not to cure himself..?) and the global price you pay in the end is inferior.
The argumentation is that every person should be free to decide what private goods he wants to buy and should pay only for those private goods he buys. You can think that's poor argumentation, I beg to differ.
Benefits / costs: well, taxes would drop to a very low percentage, expenses by the state would drop to a minimum (just the costs of the public goods; certain public goods can even be produced by private companies).
I think this is a partial answer because you don't do the comparation of costs and benefits of both proposals.
I think this:
1-some thing must be public because of profit logic doesn't fit them (f.e. army, sanitary cures, police)
2-some thing can be public or private, but need a strong regulation (f.e. public services as energy, water, transports) because market logic without regulation fail to realize a satisfactory situation
3-some things must be left free at market logic, regulated only on profit searching of people (everything else that there's no motivation to regulate in another way)
What to put in 1, 2 or 3?
that's the question!
Every case must be evalutated, analizing benefits/costs balance (but doing it right).
Let's do an example: free vaccinations for kids.
You will say: "I won't pay for someone else's kid vaccination!"
but do you realize that your kid will go at school with a not vaccinated guy at his side?
Do you think that the cost you'll pay as society when a not vaccinated man get hill and stay at home from work for weeks is comparable?
I can do a lot of examples like this, I think that an ideological view on things are unavoidable, but we must always remember common sense, before proclaiming "truths" that are valid only in theory!
I don't agree, 'cause I think benefits that comes from a "welfare" state is much bigger for everyone than the freedom to decide (btw: who will decide not to cure himself..?) and the global price you pay in the end is inferior.
You still don't get my point: I'm not choosing for the system that maximizes total welfare (believe me, I study maximizing the total welfare in public finance and macro economics). The total welfare is not at all important for me. To maximize total welfare, one might even say the income inequality is still way too high and taxes should redistribute even more. That's not what I'm looking for. I'm looking for freedom, even if that costs society some of its welfare.
1-some thing must be public because of profit logic doesn't fit them (f.e. army, sanitary cures, police)
Army and police are public goods, so yes, they should be public (although parts of what the police does can be produced (production and distribution of public goods are not the same!) by private companies.
2-some thing can be public or private, but need a strong regulation (f.e. public services as energy, water, transports) because market logic without regulation fail to realize a satisfactory situation
I partly agree on this. Some markets need relative strong regulation too ensure free market economy. For instance, energy market in Belgium used to be a state monopoly. When the energy market was liberalized, regulation was necessary.
Every case must be evalutated, analizing benefits/costs balance (but doing it right).
No, no, no. You think (not 'every case must') products must be evaluated by a cost-benefit analysis. I don't. So no, in my opinion we don't need to have a cost-benefit analysis on every product. We just need 1) public supply of public goods (water, transport, etc. are no public goods by definition!!!) and 2) regulation on markets where free market conditions are threatened.
Let's do an example: free vaccinations for kids.
I'm not following your logic in making a cost-benefit analysis about this. There is no need to make vaccinations 'free' (they are never free, someone has to pay for it eventually). Who buys them, pays them.
You still don't get my point: I'm not choosing for the system that maximizes total welfare (believe me, I study maximizing the total welfare in public finance and macro economics). The total welfare is not at all important for me. To maximize total welfare, one might even say the income inequality is still way too high and taxes should redistribute even more. That's not what I'm looking for. I'm looking for freedom, even if that costs society some of its welfare.
1-some thing must be public because of profit logic doesn't fit them (f.e. army, sanitary cures, police)
Army and police are public goods, so yes, they should be public (although parts of what the police does can be produced (production and distribution of public goods are not the same!) by private companies.
2-some thing can be public or private, but need a strong regulation (f.e. public services as energy, water, transports) because market logic without regulation fail to realize a satisfactory situation
I partly agree on this. Some markets need relative strong regulation too ensure free market economy. For instance, energy market in Belgium used to be a state monopoly. When the energy market was liberalized, regulation was necessary.
Every case must be evalutated, analizing benefits/costs balance (but doing it right).
No, no, no. You think (not 'every case must') products must be evaluated by a cost-benefit analysis. I don't. So no, in my opinion we don't need to have a cost-benefit analysis on every product. We just need 1) public supply of public goods (water, transport, etc. are no public goods by definition!!!) and 2) regulation on markets where free market conditions are threatened.
Let's do an example: free vaccinations for kids.
I'm not following your logic in making a cost-benefit analysis about this. There is no need to make vaccinations 'free' (they are never free, someone has to pay for it eventually). Who buys them, pays them.
Some markets need relative strong regulation too ensure free market economy.
Even if i clearly understand what you want to express, that is completely a contradictory. If you regulate something, thus it is absolutely not free... The freedom (fo market here) is when nothing (no one) intervene.
Even if i clearly understand what you want to express, that is completely a contradictory. If you regulate something, thus it is absolutely not free... The freedom (fo market here) is when nothing (no one) intervene.
Even if i clearly understand what you want to express, that is completely a contradictory. If you regulate something, thus it is absolutely not free... The freedom (fo market here) is when nothing (no one) intervene.
No it isn't. Free market economy is not based on non-intervention by the government. A mistake people often make.
For instance: in a free market, it is not allowed for parties involved in the supply of products to make deals about the prices they ask.
(edited)
No it isn't. Free market economy is not based on non-intervention by the government. A mistake people often make.
For instance: in a free market, it is not allowed for parties involved in the supply of products to make deals about the prices they ask.
(edited)
Another answer about your point of view about public goods... If i understood well, your public goods are centralized around securtiy : police and law. Thus, other goods are private (water, transport, school etc...). This system will completely encourage, protect the richer faced to the poorest. Why, because private goods could be reachable only with money (with work it is obvisou but the money given with working could be not enough at all to have these private things). If you have don't have enough money to be healthy, thus you could easily become angry that only the richer (who pay you for your work) and police needs to be more present... Thus, to follow this idea, the richer will give more police (private and public) to be protected more and more and futhermore, we could imagine easily that this system will generate a very similar system as communism.
No it isn't. Free market economy is not based on non-intervention by the government. A mistake people often make.
Thus, if we make this mistake it could easily be because of the wrong term used here : Free. No ?
Thus, if we make this mistake it could easily be because of the wrong term used here : Free. No ?
You still don't get my point: I'm not choosing for the system that maximizes total welfare (believe me, I study maximizing the total welfare in public finance and macro economics). The total welfare is not at all important for me
I didn' t write "total"
I say i think that the best solutions is that because it realize what I prefer (and argumented why)
to maximizes total welfare is not something I will like to get so much.
I think benefits I get from a welfare state is bigger than every freedom I must give in exchange.
No, no, no. You think (not 'every case must') products must be evaluated by a cost-benefit analysis. I don't. So no, in my opinion we don't need to have a cost-benefit analysis on every product. We just need 1) public supply of public goods (water, transport, etc. are no public goods by definition!!!) and 2) regulation on markets where free market conditions are threatened.
I can't discuss like that. There's always a motivation missing in your speech..
WHY?
I'm not following your logic in making a cost-benefit analysis about this. There is no need to make vaccinations 'free' (they are never free, someone has to pay for it eventually). Who buys them, pays them.
You don' follow my example?
I was showing that the analisys of different choices effects, shows how sometimes is better to pay a little more tax, than to have a freedom (a freedom to suffer the lack of something.. what for?)
I think freedom is always been overstimated.
I think discussing about freedom without clarify "of what" is a loss of time (freedom itself has a very poor sense for basing an ideology in..)
I didn' t write "total"
I say i think that the best solutions is that because it realize what I prefer (and argumented why)
to maximizes total welfare is not something I will like to get so much.
I think benefits I get from a welfare state is bigger than every freedom I must give in exchange.
No, no, no. You think (not 'every case must') products must be evaluated by a cost-benefit analysis. I don't. So no, in my opinion we don't need to have a cost-benefit analysis on every product. We just need 1) public supply of public goods (water, transport, etc. are no public goods by definition!!!) and 2) regulation on markets where free market conditions are threatened.
I can't discuss like that. There's always a motivation missing in your speech..
WHY?
I'm not following your logic in making a cost-benefit analysis about this. There is no need to make vaccinations 'free' (they are never free, someone has to pay for it eventually). Who buys them, pays them.
You don' follow my example?
I was showing that the analisys of different choices effects, shows how sometimes is better to pay a little more tax, than to have a freedom (a freedom to suffer the lack of something.. what for?)
I think freedom is always been overstimated.
I think discussing about freedom without clarify "of what" is a loss of time (freedom itself has a very poor sense for basing an ideology in..)
I didn' t write "total"
I say i think that the best solutions is that because it realize what I prefer (and argumented why)
to maximizes total welfare is not something I will like to get so much.
But you meant it. Welfarism is about maximizing total welfare. There is only total welfare and individual welfare. Your "best solution" is about maximizing welfare (by minimizing the cost to society).
I think benefits I get from a welfare state is bigger than every freedom I must give in exchange.
Those are your preferences. Mine are different. I'm willing to give up welfare to get freedom in exchange.
I can't discuss like that. There's always a motivation missing in your speech..
WHY?
Because of my preferences. See above.
You don' follow my example?
No.
I was showing that the analisys of different choices effects, shows how sometimes is better to pay a little more tax, than to have a freedom (a freedom to suffer the lack of something.. what for?)
People are allowed to make irrational choices.
Look, the example of vaccinations: it is YOUR choice to have a kid, so you are responsible for the consequences? Why should people who chose not to have kids pay for the kids of other people? Now you're about to say: because they benefit from the fact that those kids are vaccinated. Well, here is another example: having nice neighbors (a good community to live in) increases the value of your property (people are willing to pay to live in a good community). So you benefit from the fact that your neighbors are good people. In your logic, you should pay your neighbors because they're nice people. I disagree.
I think freedom is always been overstimated.
I think discussing about freedom without clarify "of what" is a loss of time (freedom itself has a very poor sense for basing an ideology in..)
I disagree ;-)
I say i think that the best solutions is that because it realize what I prefer (and argumented why)
to maximizes total welfare is not something I will like to get so much.
But you meant it. Welfarism is about maximizing total welfare. There is only total welfare and individual welfare. Your "best solution" is about maximizing welfare (by minimizing the cost to society).
I think benefits I get from a welfare state is bigger than every freedom I must give in exchange.
Those are your preferences. Mine are different. I'm willing to give up welfare to get freedom in exchange.
I can't discuss like that. There's always a motivation missing in your speech..
WHY?
Because of my preferences. See above.
You don' follow my example?
No.
I was showing that the analisys of different choices effects, shows how sometimes is better to pay a little more tax, than to have a freedom (a freedom to suffer the lack of something.. what for?)
People are allowed to make irrational choices.
Look, the example of vaccinations: it is YOUR choice to have a kid, so you are responsible for the consequences? Why should people who chose not to have kids pay for the kids of other people? Now you're about to say: because they benefit from the fact that those kids are vaccinated. Well, here is another example: having nice neighbors (a good community to live in) increases the value of your property (people are willing to pay to live in a good community). So you benefit from the fact that your neighbors are good people. In your logic, you should pay your neighbors because they're nice people. I disagree.
I think freedom is always been overstimated.
I think discussing about freedom without clarify "of what" is a loss of time (freedom itself has a very poor sense for basing an ideology in..)
I disagree ;-)
This system will completely encourage, protect the richer faced to the poorest. Why, because private goods could be reachable only with money (with work it is obvisou but the money given with working could be not enough at all to have these private things).
They'd earn more, and for education, there can be some loan system. And there is also charity and people could make donations to help the less fortunate. Which they should do if they are good people (given that there are not taxes for non-public goods).
If you have don't have enough money to be healthy, thus you could easily become angry that only the richer (who pay you for your work) and police needs to be more present...
If you get jealous of people who are rich, that is your own fault. Don't blame the rich for being rich.
Thus, to follow this idea, the richer will give more police (private and public) to be protected more and more and futhermore, we could imagine easily that this system will generate a very similar system as communism.
No, because even for public goods like police, I'd try to make 'benefit taxes' (= you pay what you use; if because of your behavior, the police must intervene often, you'd have to pay more for having police). Nothing to do with the horror called communism.
They'd earn more, and for education, there can be some loan system. And there is also charity and people could make donations to help the less fortunate. Which they should do if they are good people (given that there are not taxes for non-public goods).
If you have don't have enough money to be healthy, thus you could easily become angry that only the richer (who pay you for your work) and police needs to be more present...
If you get jealous of people who are rich, that is your own fault. Don't blame the rich for being rich.
Thus, to follow this idea, the richer will give more police (private and public) to be protected more and more and futhermore, we could imagine easily that this system will generate a very similar system as communism.
No, because even for public goods like police, I'd try to make 'benefit taxes' (= you pay what you use; if because of your behavior, the police must intervene often, you'd have to pay more for having police). Nothing to do with the horror called communism.
Those are your preferences. Mine are different.
Yeah, that's sure.
The motivation we give to our preferences make the difference (I think)
Welfarism is about maximizing total welfare.
maybe, theorically...
but I can prefer a welfare state for what it gives to me.. without caring about total welfare at all.
Yeah, that's sure.
The motivation we give to our preferences make the difference (I think)
Welfarism is about maximizing total welfare.
maybe, theorically...
but I can prefer a welfare state for what it gives to me.. without caring about total welfare at all.
Thus, if we make this mistake it could easily be because of the wrong term used here : Free. No ?
Well, you can discuss the name, it doesn't matter what name you give it though ;-)
(But yeah, I understand what you mean.)
Well, you can discuss the name, it doesn't matter what name you give it though ;-)
(But yeah, I understand what you mean.)
Which they should do if they are good people
again the utopy on your theory, they should..
that theory is never been proved, not even in the Usa. Yo should need an island as Platon, to prove your political arguments to work. But remember how things finished on that island : P
again the utopy on your theory, they should..
that theory is never been proved, not even in the Usa. Yo should need an island as Platon, to prove your political arguments to work. But remember how things finished on that island : P
If you get jealous of people who are rich, that is your own fault. Don't blame the rich for being rich.
To be rich is not to deserve it.
Rich people must always remeber they own their richness to the state. So they'll understand why state redistribuition is needed for entire system stability.
To be rich is not to deserve it.
Rich people must always remeber they own their richness to the state. So they'll understand why state redistribuition is needed for entire system stability.
Yeah, that's sure.
The motivation we give to our preferences make the difference (I think)
Actually, no. Preferences are preferences. They can be irrational (you probably think mine are irrational, although for me, they are rational). My preference is that given the welfare that I have, I prefer freedom of welfare. You prefer the opposite. Your motivation is: with my preferences, the welfare increases. My motivation is: with my preferences, the freedom increases. So why would your motivation be any superior to mine?
maybe, theorically...
but I can prefer a welfare state for what it gives to me.. without caring about total welfare at all.
That's just selfish imo.
I defend a system that maximizes everyone's liberty.
You defend a system that maximizes your welfare.
The motivation we give to our preferences make the difference (I think)
Actually, no. Preferences are preferences. They can be irrational (you probably think mine are irrational, although for me, they are rational). My preference is that given the welfare that I have, I prefer freedom of welfare. You prefer the opposite. Your motivation is: with my preferences, the welfare increases. My motivation is: with my preferences, the freedom increases. So why would your motivation be any superior to mine?
maybe, theorically...
but I can prefer a welfare state for what it gives to me.. without caring about total welfare at all.
That's just selfish imo.
I defend a system that maximizes everyone's liberty.
You defend a system that maximizes your welfare.
To be rich is not to deserve it.
Rich people must always remeber they own their richness to the state. So they'll understand why state redistribuition is needed for entire system stability.
To be rich is not necessarily not deserved. And we're back at the start again. You say rich people owe their wealth to the state. I say they don't. This discussion is pointless.
Rich people must always remeber they own their richness to the state. So they'll understand why state redistribuition is needed for entire system stability.
To be rich is not necessarily not deserved. And we're back at the start again. You say rich people owe their wealth to the state. I say they don't. This discussion is pointless.
again the utopy on your theory, they should..
If they don't, people are evil and don't deserve any better system than a system without charity.
If they don't, people are evil and don't deserve any better system than a system without charity.