You drank that water too long didn't you

Nah, i'll live wherever I feel. Nice try though.

Awe. You could leave now and we'd be a better country for it

There is alot of problems with water in Omaha Nebraska too. We get tons of fertilizer ruoff from so much farming in the region. Our water is some of the lowest quality in America. We got a D+ rating I think. Of course were a Red State-too where theyll build oil pipelines but not improve basic human rights infrastructure

@Ogion, you're confusing good intentions with achievements. Having a mission to benefit the public does not in any conceivable way guarantee that the public will be better off.

Why would America be affected whatsoever by me leaving? If anything that would hurt america as I have student loan debt and my leaving would make it awfully hard for them to collect--thereby hurting taxpayers

Stay there

Shush, stop being obnoxious

Actually, it explains why the public sector is often more efficient that the private sector. The reality is that the public sector is frequently more efficient. Part of the reason is that the incentives are more properly aligned.

Is some dingbat saying people who aren't knuckledragging conservatives should leave the US? As most of you know, I agree that the rational folks should go and take their rational states with them. If the midwest and south want to descend into a cesspool of stateless anarchy, let them do it on their own dime and not hold the blue states back. Time to dissolve the US.

A great example of going to private sector to public is the TSA. Some states have put legislation forward to privatize their major airport security. This doesnt save any money at all because its subsidized anyway. And its riskier because there is less coordination with federal agencies to monitor risks. Its basically less regulations and more dangerous to the traveler.

In the 2012 election-- Rick Perry touted this as his plan for eliminating the TSA was to just outsource to private security companies. Stating the federal govt has no right to monitor airport travel. Lmfao

@BB if that is not the pot calling the kettle

You can also look to private prisons, for profit universities and the for profit health insurance industry, which are complete disasters. Also, private toll roads often give the public a bad deal, and we probably don't need to get into the fact that private companies will shift costs and damage to the public at every available opportunity.

You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war.

Well you started a discussion. Stating that socialism sucks balls. Theres alot of people who would argue paying taxes and getting nothing in return is robbery. I see nothing shameful about a goverment taxing its people to fund cancer treatment for example

I did not start a discussion. I stated a fact

I would argue that *no* indeed a room full of socialists are not in fact on their knees begging to put my testicles in their mouth. So, find me a source showing me where socialists engage in ritualistic nutsack sucking and I will go ahead and concede

@Ogion, for profit universities and for profit health insurance industry take no money from me, and I can choose whether I'll use their services.

"private companies will shift costs and damage to the public at every available opportunity" - they won't if the state won't let them. Don't blame private companies for the state's stupidity.

Ah, I see BB is engaged in some of that fine high level intellectual discussion that comes with trying to reason with conservatives. Braver man than I. For my money, this is why we have a "mute user" option.

The point is that the state can't stop them if there is no robust public sector to do enforcement. That's part of the reason why less government is often worse and lower taxes are often worse. Also, it's part of the reason why the private sector is often worse at delivering public goods. If your mission is to get as much cash as possible, actually delivering value is secondary.

@Ogion, delivering value depends on competition. If there is no competition, value can be as low as you like - people have nowhere else to turn to. When is there no competition? When the state takes over.

I think there is a confusing of the terms efficient and effective. The government is often more effective at providing public goods, but is hardly ever more efficient

@goldfinger
Well put, but I have to disagree. Ogion seems to think that the government money for the "public good" (which is almost always the good of specific interest groups) doesn't come from my pocket, but from evil trolls that sit on a hoard of treasure.

@Ogion
"The point is that the state can't stop them if there is no robust public sector to do enforcement."
What you're saying is that the state is corrupt. And what's your solution to that problem? Enlarge the state! Make it more "robust"! Give it more money and power! Absolute power corrupts absolutely, Ogion, and that's where you're heading.

Actually, no, the data shows that it is also often more efficient as well. Remember, if you've got to take a 10% share to give to shareholders, you're already more inefficient, even if you do things precisely the same way. So, for performing X task for Y money, there are many instances of the public sector being more efficient (and also effective).

And @zmaj, you seem to forget that that money in your pocket is there because of public goods you benefit from. You know how to read. You're using an internet and computers developed from science and technology developed largely for the public good. You eat food shipped by roads. You breath air, etc. etc.

And actually, yes, evil trolls sitting on a hoard of treasure is actually a pretty good description of the US economy. the 400 richest Americans hold more wealth than the bottom 194 million combined. So, actually, yeah, we're a society that economically isn't that distinguishable from feudalism, really. A tiny fraction have basically everything, and the rest get nothing.

No, what I'm saying is that the state is underfunded. If there are no regulators, then regulations aren't enforced, and the public gets screwed.

And I'd rather have powerful public servants (who serve teh public) than powerful corporations and businesses (who serve themselves at the expense of the public). You're argument isn't grounded in reality or facts, but a clever (and false) witticism.

@ Zmaj..do you really believe that the private sector is axiomatically more efficient than the public sector.. Despite the overwhelming evidence of private sector "cock ups" that then require taxpayer funded bail outs ? From the Tulip bubble, South Sea Company bubble to Enron, Lehmann Brothers.. Sorry, but after Wars, the greatest destroyer of capital/wealth has been the private sector. And there's a lot of Wars fought over things like trade / had a capitalistic motivation

@Ogion, the money in my pocket is there because I work. It would be there because of public goods if I didn't work and got it from Universal Basic Income.

According to you, I can thank the state (and not my father) for being able to read, and even for breathing. The way you present it, we're all state property.

Absurdly enough, it is you who are promoting feudalism. Feudalism was about ordinary people being owned by their rulers, which seems to be your ideal.

Taxes are not theft. They are the cost of doing business in a country.

@MajorMitchell, you are forgetting that bailouts are enacted by the state. Private sector cockups don't "require" anything.