http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/The-Vote/2011/0607/Tim-Pawlenty-s-plan-to-revive-the-US-economy-the-Google-Test
Quote"If you can find a service or good available on Google or the Internet, then the federal government probably doesn't need to be doing it," said Mr. Pawlenty, speaking at the University of Chicago. "The post office, the Government Printing Office, Amtrak, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, were all built for a time in our country when the private sector did not adequately provide those products. But that's no longer the case."
Applying the Google test would result in dispensing with the entire court system, the Department of Homeland Security, the FBI, all the intelligence agencies, Social Security, Medicare, etc.
One thing it would not get rid of, however, is Amtrak. Because I don't think you can find an intercity rail service on the internet that does not involve a government subsidized service.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 08, 2011, 01:13:27 PM
Applying the Google test would result in dispensing with the entire court system, the Department of Homeland Security, the FBI, all the intelligence agencies, Social Security, Medicare, etc.
:yeah:
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 08, 2011, 01:13:27 PM
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/The-Vote/2011/0607/Tim-Pawlenty-s-plan-to-revive-the-US-economy-the-Google-Test
Quote"If you can find a service or good available on Google or the Internet, then the federal government probably doesn't need to be doing it," said Mr. Pawlenty, speaking at the University of Chicago. "The post office, the Government Printing Office, Amtrak, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, were all built for a time in our country when the private sector did not adequately provide those products. But that's no longer the case."
Applying the Google test would result in dispensing with the entire court system, the Department of Homeland Security, the FBI, all the intelligence agencies, Social Security, Medicare, etc.
Elaborate.
Quote from: The Brain on June 08, 2011, 01:17:54 PM
Elaborate.
Unfamiliar with that agency, but I will take your word for it.
Joan is trying to Swift Boat Pawlenty.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 08, 2011, 01:13:27 PM
Applying the Google test would result in dispensing with the entire court system, the Department of Homeland Security, the FBI, all the intelligence agencies, Social Security, Medicare, etc.
Also all the armed forces. Just google for private military.
This is the first time I've heard of someone trying to get rid of the Post Office. Do mercenaries count as a private enterprise military? If so I suppose we'll have to get rid the Army as well.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 08, 2011, 01:25:38 PM
This is the first time I've heard of someone trying to get rid of the Post Office.
Plenty of people have suggested eliminating the Post Office's monopoly on first class mail.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 08, 2011, 01:25:38 PM
This is the first time I've heard of someone trying to get rid of the Post Office. Do mercenaries count as a private enterprise military? If so I suppose we'll have to get rid the Army as well.
We should absolutely privatize the post office. Numerous private companies do very fine delivery work - why do they need to compete with government?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 08, 2011, 01:27:05 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 08, 2011, 01:25:38 PM
This is the first time I've heard of someone trying to get rid of the Post Office.
Plenty of people have suggested eliminating the Post Office's monopoly on first class mail.
The monopoly is one of the things that make America hilariously Socialist compared to Sweden.
Quote from: Barrister on June 08, 2011, 01:27:48 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 08, 2011, 01:25:38 PM
This is the first time I've heard of someone trying to get rid of the Post Office. Do mercenaries count as a private enterprise military? If so I suppose we'll have to get rid the Army as well.
We should absolutely privatize the post office. Numerous private companies do very fine delivery work - why do they need to compete with government?
There needs to be a post system of last resort at least, to cover areas where delivering mail is unprofitable, without introducing complicated tier system.
Quote from: DGuller on June 08, 2011, 01:32:57 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 08, 2011, 01:27:48 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 08, 2011, 01:25:38 PM
This is the first time I've heard of someone trying to get rid of the Post Office. Do mercenaries count as a private enterprise military? If so I suppose we'll have to get rid the Army as well.
We should absolutely privatize the post office. Numerous private companies do very fine delivery work - why do they need to compete with government?
There needs to be a post system of last resort at least, to cover areas where delivering mail is unprofitable, without introducing complicated tier system.
Maybe it wouldn't be unprofitable at a higher price? Fed Ex goes almost anywhere, and I don't know that their pricing is so complicated. Email is the answer.
Fun factoid: on rural delivery routes, the US mail is delivered by private individuals, chosen on the basis of lowest bid.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 08, 2011, 01:54:05 PM
Fun factoid: on rural delivery routes, the US mail is delivered by private individuals, chosen on the basis of lowest bid.
That's crazy talk. What about those routes that are beyond-rural? What if someone lives in space? What is your fancy system of private contractors going to do then, pal?
Private enterprise cannot be trusted to do anything right.
I propose the Reverse Pawlenty Google Test. if You can find something on the Internet that the government doesn't do. It should.
Including porn.
Quote from: Barrister on June 08, 2011, 01:27:48 PM
We should absolutely privatize the post office. Numerous private companies do very fine delivery work - why do they need to compete with government?
Considering you lived in White Horse, I'm surprised you'd ask this question. Post Office is an prime example of a service that actually requires a government subsidy/provider.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 08, 2011, 01:54:05 PM
Fun factoid: on rural delivery routes, the US mail is delivered by private individuals, chosen on the basis of lowest bid.
I think you're wrong on this. The Rural Letter Carriers have a union and everything.
http://www.nrlca.org/
Note that to become a member you must "
first be employed by the USPS and work in the Rural Carrier Craft as a Regular, Substitute, RCR, or RCA." (emphasis added).
http://www.nrlca.org/nrlca_membership/how_to_become_a_member/index.cfm
Quote from: alfred russel on June 08, 2011, 01:52:21 PM
Maybe it wouldn't be unprofitable at a higher price? Fed Ex goes almost anywhere, and I don't know that their pricing is so complicated. Email is the answer.
What about police work? Should individuals living in dangerous neighbourhoods be charged an extra tax to cover extra costs of police work there? Your reasoning leads to madness like this.
Quote from: ulmont on June 08, 2011, 01:24:36 PM
Also all the armed forces. Just google for private military.
I have been in favor of just hiring a mercenary army for years. Particularly if each company has a cool name. We could hire the Black Falcons to conquer Iran for us.
You hired Blackwater to torture prisoners for you in Iraq. :)
Quote from: Martinus on June 08, 2011, 02:01:39 PM
What about police work? Should individuals living in dangerous neighbourhoods be charged an extra tax to cover extra costs of police work there? Your reasoning leads to madness like this.
Well if a city is more dangerous and requires extra cops that is pretty much how it goes down. Except the entire city pays more taxes rather than the neighborhood. Governments do not get that local :P
Quote from: Martinus on June 08, 2011, 02:03:16 PM
You hired Blackwater to torture prisoners for you in Iraq. :)
Pretty sure we had the regular government troops do it in their bureaucratic government way. We could have saved tons of money per torturee that way.
Quote from: ulmont on June 08, 2011, 02:00:28 PM
I think you're wrong on this. The Rural Letter Carriers have a union and everything.
http://www.nrlca.org/
Note that to become a member you must "first be employed by the USPS and work in the Rural Carrier Craft as a Regular, Substitute, RCR, or RCA." (emphasis added).
http://www.nrlca.org/nrlca_membership/how_to_become_a_member/index.cfm
How do your links show that I'm wrong? Rural mail is delivered by private contractors. To become a member of the NRLCA you first have to be a private contractor who delivers rural mail.
Quote from: Martinus on June 08, 2011, 02:01:39 PM
What about police work? Should individuals living in dangerous neighbourhoods be charged an extra tax to cover extra costs of police work there? Your reasoning leads to madness like this.
That's the way it works by city.
Quote from: Martinus on June 08, 2011, 02:01:39 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 08, 2011, 01:52:21 PM
Maybe it wouldn't be unprofitable at a higher price? Fed Ex goes almost anywhere, and I don't know that their pricing is so complicated. Email is the answer.
What about police work? Should individuals living in dangerous neighbourhoods be charged an extra tax to cover extra costs of police work there? Your reasoning leads to madness like this.
I don't think anyone is suggesting that police work be privatized though...are they?
Why is it such an injustice if some people somewhere pay more for mail delivery? There are innumerable advantages and disadvantages to living in various places. What is it about delivery service (but only for 1st class mail, of course - apparently it is perfectly ok that other things that need to be delivered have variable costs) that demands government intervention in order to make sure everyone pays the same?
Quote from: Berkut on June 08, 2011, 02:07:32 PM
Why is it such an injustice if some people somewhere pay more for mail delivery? There are innumerable advantages and disadvantages to living in various places. What is it about delivery service (but only for 1st class mail, of course - apparently it is perfectly ok that other things that need to be delivered have variable costs) that demands government intervention in order to make sure everyone pays the same?
It's the Law. Therefore it is the only possible way.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 08, 2011, 02:06:07 PM
How do your links show that I'm wrong? Rural mail is delivered by private contractors. To become a member of the NRLCA you first have to be a private contractor who delivers rural mail.
My links show that rural mail is delivered by employees of the USPS, not by private contractors. I bolded that part for you and everything.
Edit: also check out the union agreement:
QuoteThis Agreement (referred to as the USPS-NRLCA 2006 National Agreement) is entered into as of December 3, 2007, by and between the United States Postal Service (hereinafter referred to as the "Employer") and the National Rural Letter Carriers' Association (hereinafter referred to as the "Union") and supersedes the provisions of the Extension to the 2000 USPS-NRLCA National Agreement.
...
The Employer recognizes the Union as the exclusive bargaining representative of all employees in the bargaining
unit for which the Union has been recognized and certified at the national level.
(emphasis added)
There are two more reasons why it's not completely illogical for postal service to be a monopoly. First of all, infrastructure costs are enormous, and competition would duplicate them, like with many utilities. Another reason is that postal system is a network, and suffers from a network effect. Both of those effects tend to create natural monopolies.
Quote from: Martinus on June 08, 2011, 01:58:46 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 08, 2011, 01:27:48 PM
We should absolutely privatize the post office. Numerous private companies do very fine delivery work - why do they need to compete with government?
Considering you lived in White Horse, I'm surprised you'd ask this question. Post Office is an prime example of a service that actually requires a government subsidy/provider.
Almost all the mail I get is junk, with some mail that duplicates emails (I receive some bills by email and mail). The very few pieces of mail I get that I actually need are from government sources (tax notices, jury summons). I guess some of the major beneficiaries of the subsidies are mass marketers.
Quote from: DGuller on June 08, 2011, 02:10:32 PM
There are two more reasons why it's not completely illogical for postal service to be a monopoly. First of all, infrastructure costs are enormous, and competition would duplicate them, like with many utilities. Another reason is that postal system is a network, and suffers from a network effect. Both of those effects tend to create natural monopolies.
Although I know they are on a smaller scale with somewhat different services offered, don't UPS, Fed Ex, and DHL already duplicate the basics of what the postal service does?
I am trying to imagine what terrible thing would occur if I could not send a 1st class letter for 44 cents.
I think the main effect would be that I simply do not send mail, what little I send now. Everything can be electronically transmitted, and when I am sending something that cannot, it is usually something I would Fedex anyway.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 08, 2011, 01:13:27 PM
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/The-Vote/2011/0607/Tim-Pawlenty-s-plan-to-revive-the-US-economy-the-Google-Test
Quote"If you can find a service or good available on Google or the Internet, then the federal government probably doesn't need to be doing it," said Mr. Pawlenty, speaking at the University of Chicago. "The post office, the Government Printing Office, Amtrak, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, were all built for a time in our country when the private sector did not adequately provide those products. But that's no longer the case."
Applying the Google test would result in dispensing with the entire court system, the Department of Homeland Security, the FBI, all the intelligence agencies, Social Security, Medicare, etc.
One thing it would not get rid of, however, is Amtrak. Because I don't think you can find an intercity rail service on the internet that does not involve a government subsidized service.
Is he: Hoisted on his own Pawlenty?
I give you, Private Government The Principality of Sealand (http://www.sealandgov.org/)
I'd tell him to return to Minneapolis, but I like my co-scandaweenies across the pond too much.
Quote from: Valmy on June 08, 2011, 02:02:06 PM
I have been in favor of just hiring a mercenary army for years. Particularly if each company has a cool name. We could hire the Black Falcons to conquer Iran for us.
I think I'd rather go with the Eridani Light Horse for that mission. If they're not available, then the Kell Hounds.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 08, 2011, 02:12:55 PM
Although I know they are on a smaller scale with somewhat different services offered, don't UPS, Fed Ex, and DHL already duplicate the basics of what the postal service does?
The basics. They cost a lot more and don't deliver everywhere though.
Quote from: ulmont on June 08, 2011, 02:10:11 PM
My links show that rural mail is delivered by employees of the USPS, not by private contractors. I bolded that part for you and everything.
Your link shows that to become a member of the union you must first be employed by the Post Office as a rural carrier. You then assumed that "employed by the Post Office" could not describe a private citizen who contracts to provide the service.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 08, 2011, 02:12:55 PM
Quote from: DGuller on June 08, 2011, 02:10:32 PM
There are two more reasons why it's not completely illogical for postal service to be a monopoly. First of all, infrastructure costs are enormous, and competition would duplicate them, like with many utilities. Another reason is that postal system is a network, and suffers from a network effect. Both of those effects tend to create natural monopolies.
Although I know they are on a smaller scale with somewhat different services offered, don't UPS, Fed Ex, and DHL already duplicate the basics of what the postal service does?
For a small subset of services, and concentrated in high volume locations, so the effect is reduced. I think private carriers hand things off to USPS at some stage if they have to ship something to Bumfuck, AL, although I'm not 100% sure about that.
I am surprised to find out that there are google services that provide things like nationwide security and legal system services, i.e. courts and such. I had no idea.
FYI the greasy Belgian bastards at DHL got eaten up by the big boys and exited the US market.
If you google "Pawlenty", there's a ton of stuff. I guess we don't need him in government.
Quote from: DGuller on June 08, 2011, 02:18:22 PM
For a small subset of services, and concentrated in high volume locations, so the effect is reduced. I think private carriers hand things off to USPS at some stage if they have to ship something to Bumfuck, AL, although I'm not 100% sure about that.
Tom Hanks did hand deliver to that hippie artist chick out in the sticks. :hmm:
Quote from: DGuller on June 08, 2011, 02:18:22 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 08, 2011, 02:12:55 PM
Quote from: DGuller on June 08, 2011, 02:10:32 PM
There are two more reasons why it's not completely illogical for postal service to be a monopoly. First of all, infrastructure costs are enormous, and competition would duplicate them, like with many utilities. Another reason is that postal system is a network, and suffers from a network effect. Both of those effects tend to create natural monopolies.
Although I know they are on a smaller scale with somewhat different services offered, don't UPS, Fed Ex, and DHL already duplicate the basics of what the postal service does?
For a small subset of services, and concentrated in high volume locations, so the effect is reduced. I think private carriers hand things off to USPS at some stage if they have to ship something to Bumfuck, AL, although I'm not 100% sure about that.
Well, I don't know that that is true, but even if it is, it doesn't really tell us anything. Because they *can* hand things off to the USPS doesn't mean they must, or would simply not service those areas. Rather I think that the ability to say "We deliver anywhere, period." is too valuable a statement for companies like Fedex and UPS to make.
However, I used to live in bumfuck Kansas, house was a good 15 miles from the nearest town. We got UPS and Fedex. I think they realize that while it sucks for them to have to drive that far to deliver a single package, it is still worth it so people don't have to wonder "Gee, does Fedex deliver to this address?"
Quote from: Berkut on June 08, 2011, 02:21:44 PM
I am surprised to find out that there are google services that provide things like nationwide security and legal system services, i.e. courts and such. I had no idea.
Minsky won't elaborate. :(
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 08, 2011, 02:16:56 PM
Your link shows that to become a member of the union you must first be employed by the Post Office as a rural carrier. You then assumed that "employed by the Post Office" could not describe a private citizen who contracts to provide the service.
And I was right...as further shown by the agreement between the union and the post office. You got anything backing up your assertion?
Quote from: DGuller on June 08, 2011, 02:18:22 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 08, 2011, 02:12:55 PM
Quote from: DGuller on June 08, 2011, 02:10:32 PM
There are two more reasons why it's not completely illogical for postal service to be a monopoly. First of all, infrastructure costs are enormous, and competition would duplicate them, like with many utilities. Another reason is that postal system is a network, and suffers from a network effect. Both of those effects tend to create natural monopolies.
Although I know they are on a smaller scale with somewhat different services offered, don't UPS, Fed Ex, and DHL already duplicate the basics of what the postal service does?
For a small subset of services, and concentrated in high volume locations, so the effect is reduced. I think private carriers hand things off to USPS at some stage if they have to ship something in Bumfuck, AL, although I'm not 100% sure about that.
There are very few countries on earth that a private carrier won't deliver to. I'm guessing that if they don't have service to parts of Alabama it is because the post office is cheaper to outsource to and they would pick up coverage if the post office went away.
I would be amused by shutting down the postal service. I'd stop getting junk mail, and those who use the mail would never vote Republican again after they started to be charged $10 a letter.
Quote from: ulmont on June 08, 2011, 02:29:14 PM
And I was right...as further shown by the agreement between the union and the post office.
What, the part that repeats the word employee?
Quote from: Martinus on June 08, 2011, 01:58:46 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 08, 2011, 01:27:48 PM
We should absolutely privatize the post office. Numerous private companies do very fine delivery work - why do they need to compete with government?
Considering you lived in White Horse, I'm surprised you'd ask this question. Post Office is an prime example of a service that actually requires a government subsidy/provider.
Not at all. There are private companies that deliver packages quite well to Whitehorse from anywhere in the world.
Now there are potential issues for extremely remote locations - but frankly they have very poor mail service as it is already. If we needed to get something to or from a remote RCMP detachment it was almost useless to send it by mail - we'd just wait till someone was going in that direction. And you can come up with a variety of government subsidies ot programs to cover the small minority that might not get service through private mail. In order to ensure reliable mail delivery in Old Crow, Yukon, you don't need to give Canada Post a monopoly on all mail across the country.
And by the way, those union bastards at Canada Post have gone on strike. They have one of the world's sadest picketlines across the street from my office right now.
Swedish "Posten" lost its monopoly in 1993. We're doing OK.
Quote from: The Brain on June 08, 2011, 02:37:56 PM
Swedish "Posten" lost its monopoly in 1993. We're doing OK.
The United States stands in solidarity with the workers of the world against the 'law of the jungle' capitalism gone mad in Sweden.
Quote from: Valmy on June 08, 2011, 02:41:19 PM
Quote from: The Brain on June 08, 2011, 02:37:56 PM
Swedish "Posten" lost its monopoly in 1993. We're doing OK.
The United States stands in solidarity with the workers of the world against the 'law of the jungle' capitalism gone mad in Sweden.
ty :hug:
Quote from: The Brain on June 08, 2011, 02:37:56 PM
Swedish "Posten" lost its monopoly in 1993. We're doing OK.
Are there any remote locations in Sweden? :huh:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 08, 2011, 02:32:05 PM
Quote from: ulmont on June 08, 2011, 02:29:14 PM
And I was right...as further shown by the agreement between the union and the post office.
What, the part that repeats the word employee?
And defines the USPS as the Employer, and which further goes on to discuss "COMPENSATION, SALARIES, AND WAGES" including "basic annual salary schedules in effect on September 2, 2006, with proportional application to hourly rate
employees, for those employees covered under the terms and conditions of this Agreement."
Quote from: ulmont on June 08, 2011, 02:52:28 PM
And defines the USPS as the Employer, and which further goes on to discuss "COMPENSATION, SALARIES, AND WAGES" including "basic annual salary schedules in effect on September 2, 2006, with proportional application to hourly rate
employees, for those employees covered under the terms and conditions of this Agreement."
Seriously, do you have anything at all backing up your assertion that rural delivery is done by private contractors on a low-bid basis?
Sure. A magazine article I read maybe 3 years ago.
QuoteIn the United States, the official label for a mail carrier is "letter carrier". There are three types of letter carriers: city letter carriers, who are represented by the National Association of Letter Carriers; Rural Letter Carrier, who are represented by the National Rural Letter Carriers' Association; and Highway Contract Route carriers, who are independent contractors. While union membership is voluntary, city carriers are organized near 90% nationally.
Mystery solved.
Quote from: DGuller on June 08, 2011, 02:49:14 PM
Quote from: The Brain on June 08, 2011, 02:37:56 PM
Swedish "Posten" lost its monopoly in 1993. We're doing OK.
Are there any remote locations in Sweden? :huh:
Sweden
IS a remote location :contract:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 08, 2011, 01:22:04 PM
Joan is trying to Swift Boat Pawlenty.
I don't question his entitlement to any military decorations or honors he may have earned.
Quote from: Berkut on June 08, 2011, 02:21:44 PM
I am surprised to find out that there are google services that provide things like nationwide security and legal system services, i.e. courts and such. I had no idea.
There are plenty of services that have websites that provide private adjudications of disputes on a national basis. Try AAA or JAMS for example.
There are also private security companies and investigation/intelligence providers that operate nationwide. Some even have worldwide coverage.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 08, 2011, 03:21:10 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 08, 2011, 02:21:44 PM
I am surprised to find out that there are google services that provide things like nationwide security and legal system services, i.e. courts and such. I had no idea.
There are plenty of services that have websites that provide private adjudications of disputes on a national basis. Try AAA or JAMS for example.
That and every court system I know of also has a website providing access to its "services" not to mention its decisions (goods).
Quote from: Caliga on June 08, 2011, 02:16:18 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 08, 2011, 02:02:06 PM
I have been in favor of just hiring a mercenary army for years. Particularly if each company has a cool name. We could hire the Black Falcons to conquer Iran for us.
I think I'd rather go with the Eridani Light Horse for that mission. If they're not available, then the Kell Hounds.
If you want it done right you hire Wolfe's Dragoons. :nerd:
Aw, Valmy deleted his nerd post. :(
Quote from: Caliga on June 08, 2011, 02:16:18 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 08, 2011, 02:02:06 PM
I have been in favor of just hiring a mercenary army for years. Particularly if each company has a cool name. We could hire the Black Falcons to conquer Iran for us.
I think I'd rather go with the Eridani Light Horse for that mission. If they're not available, then the Kell Hounds.
Munch.
Quote from: Barrister on June 08, 2011, 02:34:20 PM
And by the way, those union bastards at Canada Post have gone on strike. They have one of the world's sadest picketlines across the street from my office right now.
Yeah. The degree to which everyone is unimpressed by their strike is sort of humourous. Even the left is busting on them.
Quote from: Barrister on June 08, 2011, 03:49:32 PM
Quote from: Caliga on June 08, 2011, 02:16:18 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 08, 2011, 02:02:06 PM
I have been in favor of just hiring a mercenary army for years. Particularly if each company has a cool name. We could hire the Black Falcons to conquer Iran for us.
I think I'd rather go with the Eridani Light Horse for that mission. If they're not available, then the Kell Hounds.
If you want it done right you hire Wolfe's Dragoons. :nerd:
MUNCH.
Quote from: Neil on June 08, 2011, 04:57:28 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 08, 2011, 03:49:32 PM
Quote from: Caliga on June 08, 2011, 02:16:18 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 08, 2011, 02:02:06 PM
I have been in favor of just hiring a mercenary army for years. Particularly if each company has a cool name. We could hire the Black Falcons to conquer Iran for us.
I think I'd rather go with the Eridani Light Horse for that mission. If they're not available, then the Kell Hounds.
If you want it done right you hire Wolfe's Dragoons. :nerd:
MUNCH.
I don't get it.
Quote from: Barrister on June 08, 2011, 05:19:17 PM
Quote from: Neil on June 08, 2011, 04:57:28 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 08, 2011, 03:49:32 PM
Quote from: Caliga on June 08, 2011, 02:16:18 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 08, 2011, 02:02:06 PM
I have been in favor of just hiring a mercenary army for years. Particularly if each company has a cool name. We could hire the Black Falcons to conquer Iran for us.
I think I'd rather go with the Eridani Light Horse for that mission. If they're not available, then the Kell Hounds.
If you want it done right you hire Wolfe's Dragoons. :nerd:
MUNCH.
I don't get it.
It's an unofficial BattleTech term. Something that is considered overpowered or 'cheap' is called 'munch'. Wolf's Dragoons are, along with the Clans, considered to be the high point of munchiness.
What about McCarran's Armored Cavalry? Are they munch or is it cool for them to conquer Iran? :hmm:
Liao. Why don't you just surrender before the game starts?
Quote from: Barrister on June 08, 2011, 03:54:53 PM
Aw, Valmy deleted his nerd post. :(
I thought we had done enough Battletech :P
But anyway I said Black Falcons not
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffc00.deviantart.net%2Ffs36%2Ff%2F2008%2F256%2F5%2Fb%2FClan_Jade_Falcon_Logo_by_Punakettu.png&hash=31be7f9a60bbffac6eb0a0786d7f1f036d0ab8db)
Jade Falcons are a bunch of fags.
Quote from: Neil on June 08, 2011, 05:28:09 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 08, 2011, 05:19:17 PM
Quote from: Neil on June 08, 2011, 04:57:28 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 08, 2011, 03:49:32 PM
Quote from: Caliga on June 08, 2011, 02:16:18 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 08, 2011, 02:02:06 PM
I have been in favor of just hiring a mercenary army for years. Particularly if each company has a cool name. We could hire the Black Falcons to conquer Iran for us.
I think I'd rather go with the Eridani Light Horse for that mission. If they're not available, then the Kell Hounds.
If you want it done right you hire Wolfe's Dragoons. :nerd:
MUNCH.
I don't get it.
It's an unofficial BattleTech term. Something that is considered overpowered or 'cheap' is called 'munch'. Wolf's Dragoons are, along with the Clans, considered to be the high point of munchiness.
Ah. No disagreement here.
And Valmy - there can never be enough Battletech.
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 08, 2011, 05:50:30 PM
Liao. Why don't you just surrender before the game starts?
I couldn't remember any other mercs. :Embarrass:
Quote from: Caliga on June 08, 2011, 06:08:02 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 08, 2011, 05:50:30 PM
Liao. Why don't you just surrender before the game starts?
I couldn't remember any other mercs. :Embarrass:
Sadly, I can. :Embarrass:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FQW4s1.jpg&hash=8e5d94040bc31914c458844157f22632436f195c)
Quote from: Caliga on June 08, 2011, 05:48:49 PM
What about McCarran's Armored Cavalry? Are they munch or is it cool for them to conquer Iran? :hmm:
Big Mac is OK. They're Liao, so it's like they're handicapped right there.
Quote from: Habbaku on June 08, 2011, 05:53:07 PM
Jade Falcons are a bunch of fags.
Except for Elias Crichell.
To be fair to Pawlenty, he included the words "probably" and "adequately". I assume he wants to suck up to the tea partiers who will interpret that to mean he is going to slash the role of government, while also sucking up to contractors who will interpret that to mean he will outsource everything that can possibly be outsourced.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 08, 2011, 03:21:10 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 08, 2011, 02:21:44 PM
I am surprised to find out that there are google services that provide things like nationwide security and legal system services, i.e. courts and such. I had no idea.
There are plenty of services that have websites that provide private adjudications of disputes on a national basis. Try AAA or JAMS for example.
But adjudication is not a court system, and could not possibly replace the court system. This fails the google test.
Quote
There are also private security companies and investigation/intelligence providers that operate nationwide. Some even have worldwide coverage.
BUt they lack the ability to arrest, investigate, etc., etc. Again, they could not replace that FBI, for example. They can't get warrants, blahblahblah.
Can't Bail bondsmen make arrests? They certainly can detain people.
I wonder if I could somehow get a Letter of Marque and Reprisal. :hmm:
Quote from: Berkut on June 08, 2011, 09:20:32 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 08, 2011, 03:21:10 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 08, 2011, 02:21:44 PM
I am surprised to find out that there are google services that provide things like nationwide security and legal system services, i.e. courts and such. I had no idea.
There are plenty of services that have websites that provide private adjudications of disputes on a national basis. Try AAA or JAMS for example.
But adjudication is not a court system, and could not possibly replace the court system. This fails the google test.
Quote
There are also private security companies and investigation/intelligence providers that operate nationwide. Some even have worldwide coverage.
BUt they lack the ability to arrest, investigate, etc., etc. Again, they could not replace that FBI, for example. They can't get warrants, blahblahblah.
Think how much we could save if we outsourced warrants to private companies. We already have notary publics and other private companies involved in the legal process. Instead of clogging our justice system up with unnecessary cases, have citizens pay a company for a warrant to pursue a criminal investigation. Therefore, those that really want the case to go to court and see the alleged tried will pay more, while those that don't care or are uninterested will not pay and the case does not progress. Either way, the taxpayer saves!
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 08, 2011, 10:07:44 PM
I wonder if I could somehow get a Letter of Marque and Reprisal. :hmm:
Call your congressman, the Constitution gives the congress power to issue them.
Quote from: Berkut on June 08, 2011, 02:07:32 PM
Quote from: Martinus on June 08, 2011, 02:01:39 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 08, 2011, 01:52:21 PM
Maybe it wouldn't be unprofitable at a higher price? Fed Ex goes almost anywhere, and I don't know that their pricing is so complicated. Email is the answer.
What about police work? Should individuals living in dangerous neighbourhoods be charged an extra tax to cover extra costs of police work there? Your reasoning leads to madness like this.
I don't think anyone is suggesting that police work be privatized though...are they?
Why is it such an injustice if some people somewhere pay more for mail delivery? There are innumerable advantages and disadvantages to living in various places. What is it about delivery service (but only for 1st class mail, of course - apparently it is perfectly ok that other things that need to be delivered have variable costs) that demands government intervention in order to make sure everyone pays the same?
Isn't first class mail frequently used for official, formal, government, court etc. communication? If so, it is important that all citizens have an equal access to those.
Quote from: Berkut on June 08, 2011, 02:15:05 PM
Everything can be electronically transmitted, and when I am sending something that cannot, it is usually something I would Fedex anyway.
Is the entire population of America online? There are no US citizens that have no access to e-mail? If yes, then I guess you are right.
Quote from: The Brain on June 08, 2011, 02:37:56 PM
Swedish "Posten" lost its monopoly in 1993. We're doing OK.
But you still have state-owned postal service, right? If so, not sure how your post is relevant. We are talking about the state completely withdrawing from offering postal services. :huh:
Quote from: Berkut on June 08, 2011, 09:20:32 PM
BUt they lack the ability to arrest, investigate, etc., etc. Again, they could not replace that FBI, for example. They can't get warrants, blahblahblah.
What an idiotic retort. Seriously. :lol:
They can do it. They just need to get a legal authorization to do so. You just argued that private postal service could deliver first class mail and that the state post's monopoly on this should be abolished - so how is this different? Abolish the state monopoly on ability to arrest, investigate or get warrants. :lol:
Pawlenty is a moron.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 08, 2011, 11:03:32 PM
Call your congressman, the Constitution gives the congress power to issue them.
Interesting... I may just have to try that. I wonder if my Congressman will even know what a letter of marque is. :)
Quote from: Caliga on June 09, 2011, 06:55:04 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 08, 2011, 11:03:32 PM
Call your congressman, the Constitution gives the congress power to issue them.
Interesting... I may just have to try that. I wonder if my Congressman will even know what a letter of marque is. :)
Who's your congressmen?
Quote from: Razgovory on June 09, 2011, 07:04:22 AM
Quote from: Caliga on June 09, 2011, 06:55:04 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 08, 2011, 11:03:32 PM
Call your congressman, the Constitution gives the congress power to issue them.
Interesting... I may just have to try that. I wonder if my Congressman will even know what a letter of marque is. :)
Who's your congressmen?
Who isn't his congressmen?
Quote from: garbon on June 09, 2011, 07:06:25 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 09, 2011, 07:04:22 AM
Quote from: Caliga on June 09, 2011, 06:55:04 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 08, 2011, 11:03:32 PM
Call your congressman, the Constitution gives the congress power to issue them.
Interesting... I may just have to try that. I wonder if my Congressman will even know what a letter of marque is. :)
Who's your congressmen?
Who isn't his congressmen?
My Congressman isn't his congressman. Actually I think I have a Congresswoman now.
Apparently his Senator's Dad want to issue letter of Marque.
Brett Guthrie is my CongressMAN.
Actually he might know... IIRC he went to the Naval Academy. :hmm:
Quote from: Martinus on June 09, 2011, 02:07:30 AM
Quote from: The Brain on June 08, 2011, 02:37:56 PM
Swedish "Posten" lost its monopoly in 1993. We're doing OK.
But you still have state-owned postal service, right? If so, not sure how your post is relevant. We are talking about the state completely withdrawing from offering postal services. :huh:
I have been talking about the monopoly since the tenth post in this thread. Try to keep up.
Quote from: Martinus on June 09, 2011, 02:01:48 AM
Isn't first class mail frequently used for official, formal, government, court etc. communication? If so, it is important that all citizens have an equal access to those.
But not really, since they don't.
Quote from: Caliga on June 09, 2011, 07:10:43 AM
Brett Guthrie is my CongressMAN.
Actually he might know... IIRC he went to the Naval Academy. :hmm:
He looks like a sitcom Dad. Served in the same unit as Seigey.
Quote from: Berkut on June 08, 2011, 09:20:32 PM
But adjudication is not a court system, and could not possibly replace the court system.
This is semantics. UPS is not the post office but they perform similar functions. The same is true for the private justice providers. The functions are interchangable.
Already at present virtually any kind of civil law claim can and is resolved through private arbitration in the US. While the state still maintains a monopoly on criminal ajudications, it would be quite possible to contract this out to the private sector.
QuoteBUt they lack the ability to arrest, investigate, etc., etc. Again, they could not replace that FBI, for example. They can't get warrants, blahblahblah.
Private security companies don't need warrants because they aren't constrained by the 4th amendment; they can do whatever the want with the only risk being sued for privacy invasion or trespass. Private security companies certainly have the power to investigate and may have more flexibility and efficiency than the public providers. As for arrest, the authority to detain is presently limited but it could easily be expanded by law, and then subject to regulation.
Pawlenty's test is not whether there is some private service that precisely duplicates the government agency in terms of all of its capabilities. If that were the test, then none of his examples would qualify because there is no private service that provides universal service like the post office, or subsidized, government guaranteed mortgage securitization like Fanny/Freddie, or intercity passenger rail service like Amtrak.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 09, 2011, 08:04:23 AM
He looks like a sitcom Dad. Served in the same unit as Seigey.
He's cool... I like him. Unlike Jim Bunning. :wacko: :wacko: :wacko: :wacko: :wacko:
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 09, 2011, 08:16:56 AM
[Already at present virtually any kind of civil law claim can and is resolved through private arbitration in the US.
But crucially only because the parties agree. If there was no possibility of sueing someone in court, how many defendants would agree to arbitration?
There has to be a default system for adjudicating disputes which allows actions to commence without the consent of both parties. There could be more than one, but you would soon find that competing systems will compete not only on costs but on a reputation of being better to sue in.
Quote from: Martinus on June 09, 2011, 02:01:48 AM
Isn't first class mail frequently used for official, formal, government, court etc. communication? If so, it is important that all citizens have an equal access to those.
This issue isn't access to receiving "official, formal, government, court etc. communication." The person sending the mail pays for it in the US, and a price increase thus wouldn't impact the ability of anyone to receive these communications. The burden would fall on the officials, government, courts, etc.
Quote from: Martinus on June 09, 2011, 02:11:38 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 08, 2011, 09:20:32 PM
BUt they lack the ability to arrest, investigate, etc., etc. Again, they could not replace that FBI, for example. They can't get warrants, blahblahblah.
What an idiotic retort. Seriously. :lol:
They can do it. They just need to get a legal authorization to do so. You just argued that private postal service could deliver first class mail and that the state post's monopoly on this should be abolished - so how is this different? Abolish the state monopoly on ability to arrest, investigate or get warrants. :lol:
Right. Lets just privatize the arresting and trying of citizens, because that is no different in kind than the idea that private companies can deliver mail. Why, giving up the state monopoly on violence is exactly the same as giving up the state monopoly on delivering mail, no difference there, and if you support one, then of course you MUST support the other!
And MY response is idiotic! "Seriously"!
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 09, 2011, 08:16:56 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 08, 2011, 09:20:32 PM
But adjudication is not a court system, and could not possibly replace the court system.
This is semantics. UPS is not the post office but they perform similar functions. The same is true for the private justice providers. The functions are interchangable.
Already at present virtually any kind of civil law claim can and is resolved through private arbitration in the US. While the state still maintains a monopoly on criminal ajudications, it would be quite possible to contract this out to the private sector.
QuoteBUt they lack the ability to arrest, investigate, etc., etc. Again, they could not replace that FBI, for example. They can't get warrants, blahblahblah.
Private security companies don't need warrants because they aren't constrained by the 4th amendment; they can do whatever the want with the only risk being sued for privacy invasion or trespass. Private security companies certainly have the power to investigate and may have more flexibility and efficiency than the public providers. As for arrest, the authority to detain is presently limited but it could easily be expanded by law, and then subject to regulation.
Pawlenty's test is not whether there is some private service that precisely duplicates the government agency in terms of all of its capabilities. If that were the test, then none of his examples would qualify because there is no private service that provides universal service like the post office, or subsidized, government guaranteed mortgage securitization like Fanny/Freddie, or intercity passenger rail service like Amtrak.
Come on, this is just silly. Perfect example of argument from extremes. It is patently obvious what Pawlenty means, and it isn't that we should get rid of the US Army, because in theory we could just contract out national security, because there are in fact companies out there that employ people with guns, therefore getting rid of the Army is identical in kind to ditching the postal service.
You are better than this kind of silly arguments. There are plenty of good arguments to be made against excessive privatization of government services. The idea that supporting one kind of privatization means you have to support every ridiculous extreme is infantile. What is the point of making an argument for someone you know that if you asked them about they would refuse to support?
Do you really think that if you asked Pawlenty if we should get rid of the FBI under the terms of what he said, he would agree that yes, that is exactly what he meant?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 08, 2011, 01:13:27 PM
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/The-Vote/2011/0607/Tim-Pawlenty-s-plan-to-revive-the-US-economy-the-Google-Test
Quote"If you can find a service or good available on Google or the Internet, then the federal government probably doesn't need to be doing it," said Mr. Pawlenty, speaking at the University of Chicago. "The post office, the Government Printing Office, Amtrak, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, were all built for a time in our country when the private sector did not adequately provide those products. But that's no longer the case."
Applying the Google test would result in dispensing with the entire court system, the Department of Homeland Security, the FBI, all the intelligence agencies, Social Security, Medicare, etc.
One thing it would not get rid of, however, is Amtrak. Because I don't think you can find an intercity rail service on the internet that does not involve a government subsidized service.
What is really sad about this is that you recognize the basic ridiculousness of your claim in your quip about Amtrak.
Quote from: Berkut on June 09, 2011, 09:26:53 AM
Come on, this is just silly. Perfect example of argument from extremes.
Exactly. But the argument from extremes is Pawlenty's not mine. If all Pawlenty meant to say was that we should consider privitazing certain government functions that common sense and international experience suggest can be carried out effectively by the private sector, then *that* is what he should have said. Instead, he posed the Google test, which is nonsensical.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 09, 2011, 10:04:28 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 09, 2011, 09:26:53 AM
Come on, this is just silly. Perfect example of argument from extremes.
Exactly. But the argument from extremes is Pawlenty's not mine. If all Pawlenty meant to say was that we should consider privitazing certain government functions that common sense and international experience suggest can be carried out effectively by the private sector, then *that* is what he should have said. Instead, he posed the Google test, which is nonsensical.
Quote"If you can find a service or good available on Google or the Internet, then the federal government probably doesn't need to be doing it," said Mr. Pawlenty, speaking at the University of Chicago. "The post office, the Government Printing Office, Amtrak, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, were all built for a time in our country when the private sector did not adequately provide those products. But that's no longer the case."
In his quote that you led off with, the google test seems to have weasel words that don't imply shutting down every service that has some analog on the internet. You may be added an extremity to the test that isn't there.
I don't think the weasal words rescue the test. The availability of a service marketed on the internet does not suggest that the federal government "probably" doesn't need to provide it. In fact, the availability of a service marketed on the internet doesn't really have anything to do with whether the government should be providing it. The test should be whether the private sector can and will do a better job providing the service than the government does, taking into account all the desired objectives of the government program. The "Google test" is the wrong test, qualified or no.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 09, 2011, 12:04:33 PM
I don't think the weasal words rescue the test. The availability of a service marketed on the internet does not suggest that the federal government "probably" doesn't need to provide it. In fact, the availability of a service marketed on the internet doesn't really have anything to do with whether the government should be providing it. The test should be whether the private sector can and will do a better job providing the service than the government does, taking into account all the desired objectives of the government program. The "Google test" is the wrong test, qualified or no.
The weasel words don't rescue the test--he implied the post office is something the private sector could do as well, for example, which is stupid imo. The concept of the test is also stupid, imo (as you point out). But that isn't the same as saying, "I can google service x, therefore Tim Pawlenty's statements imply it should be turned over to the private sector." The weasel words should rescue him from that sort of ridicule.
Well what is done cannot now be undone.
Quote from: The Brain on June 09, 2011, 12:29:08 PM
Well what is done cannot now be undone.
Try [ctrl] + [z]
USPS forever.