I understand what you’re talking about, but unfortunately these are just myths. When markets are allowed to operate, the do provide all of what you’re claiming they can’t.

Evidence for this claim?

and I’ll take the evidence of existing systems in developed countries, in which both public transport and healthcare in europe both function better than the private equivalent of the U.S.

I know most of the arguments in that link, and they generally only look at part of the problem. especially the environmental ones (best one i’ve come across: the liberals are responsible for Malaria because they banned DDT; and nevermind that killing all mosquitos would cause an entire ecosystem to collapse)

There’s a really good book on the subject, which dispels these myths much better than I could, called “Healing Our World.”

http://www.ruwart.com/Healing/rutoc.html

healthcare cannot run profitably unless people give them more money than they take from it. so if you are a for profit, you stack the deck in your favor and don’t insure those who certainly won’t be profitable. there’s no situation in which those who need a lot of care will be profitable at affordable prices, because they will always be on the “expense” side of the equation. the same goes for other systemic problems (i.e. problems that will affect Everybody). people need to use it, so they have little bargaining power. and so the companies cherrypick their customers to maximize profit.

public transit is the same. a private system will not serve those areas which have relatively small and poor ridership. it will have commuter buses for the busiest times, but nothing at other times, which is silly considering a lot of people in those areas work odd hours.

water is the same, too. as much as i’d like to see people be less wasteful with water here (same logic as the limited use of roads), but giving money-makers control over an essential resource will lead to extortion, since you can’t not buy water.

also, the comparison of rich countries and poor countries on certain of those things just doesn’t work. the overhead costs are much higher in rich countries as opposed to poor ones, where small business can develop, and many small businesses are a good way to deal with low-cost needs. we have high costs, so mostly its large companies which can buy out smaller competition and can cherrypick their customers that are running these things here. they won’t be loosing sleep about not building that one barely profitable line because the opposition might.

And you’re thinking of taxis like they have in New York. Taxis in Santiago are just small busses that don’t necessarily run on a fixed route.

Also, on the mass transit thing. The opposite is actually true. Recently Chile socialised their mass transit from 3,000 bus/taxi companies to just 10 essentially state run companies. Service quality went through the floor and costs skyrocketed, leaving many of the poorest riders left hanging. It went from a system that served everyone well to one where only the richest could afford a decent ride.

Okay, I can see how you might get that impression. I think you’re referring to a couple of things I said. When I said, “You choose voting,” I didn’t mean that to be exclusive. You do choose voting, and in contrast I don’t. It’s not limited to just voting or not voting. Also, as far as being limited to those things the establishment allows, that’s also more than voting (running for office, contacting representatives, holding referendums, and the like).

That’s all in response to the people who say that voting is either sufficient or necessary to change things. It’s neither.

oh, and public transit still would have to be subsidized, otherwise you’d have fancy, expensive and extensive train systems etc. going between rich areas, whereas there would be a single, crappy bus in the boondocks. It’s like with health insurance. unprofitables not welcome.

Sara Silverman isn’t funny. She’s just not. I’ve tried watching her show, her standup, when she hosted a show, etc. I’ve watched about 3-4 hours of her material.

She’s garbage of a comedienne. I’ve pinpointed why: she relies on “shock value.” She realized that some comedians use “shock value” in their jokes, and they’re that much funnier for it. She forgot to notice that the joke has to have some substance first. Her material isn’t “funny with shock value” it’s just “shocking.” Therefore – not funny.

Not making it any better is her obvious attitude that her jokes ARE funny.

/sigh

Just MHO.

Where was this mistake made? I didn’t see anyone claim that.

“on an unrelated note though, I just realized that privatizing all roads and requiring everyone to pay for every mile of road they use is the single best way of reducing car use. and if it weren’t for the fact that this would completely f**k up the poor (for lack of public transport as an alternative), I’d be all for it.”

Now you’re on to something. I would be willing to bet that mass transit would be huge if roads were free-marketised. Roads are not very economical, and a free market would find some great alternatives. Public transit is subsidised in most of the world, but it wouldn’t need to be if the state would stop subsidising private transit.

Evil in this sense is relative. Obama isn’t evil to you because he shares (or claims to share) your values. I view him as evil because he is willing to use violence on me to get his way. That’s evil in my book, but not everyone’s.

That’s a really bad analogy. It’s more like not watching Power Rangers because you don’t like TV.

“If anyone thinks that people/politicians are actually looking at the voting turnouts and going “oh my gosh! so many people are not voting, they must object to the system. We should change the system!”, they are simply deluding themselves.”

Nice straw man you have there, does it come in other colours? Nobody thinks that the system will change because of not voting (I can’t speak for everyone, but I’ve never seen this claim made). I don’t accept the legitimacy of the government, so I don’t participate in its practices.

It’s like a person who was a member of a club but decides to no longer be involved. They may still have the right to vote for club officers and business, but they don’t any more because it’s no longer their club. Likewise, the “system” is yours, not mine. I don’t vote because they aren’t my leaders or my laws.

With all that said, there are still things that may bring me to vote. A local election where an excellent candidate is running might do it (but I’d only vote in that race) or a very liberty friendly referendum (like secession). But most of the time it’s a vote between two people who want to hurt me. Every candidate is so far away from my values I can’t distinguish them, so I simply don’t care which one wins.

That’s up to you, you have whatever your conscience dictates. I prefer to work outside the system, since the cards are too stacked against me in the system.

Anyone who votes for obama expecting anything diff is a damn fool -

the american system is a 2 party system because people are afraid to vote for what they believe and prefer to go along with the false dichotomy, because it’s safer.

I didn’t say one word about a conspiracy (and always love it when someone puts words in my mouth). What conspiracy is required? A candidate running for office spews a bunch of rubbish that means nothing to anyone (can you say “gay marriage?”) in order to gain votes by inflaming emotions. What conspiracy? It’s just playing to the mob…and it happens to work.

I choose not to participate in such nonsense; you can do so all you like. Believe me, I paid my dues on the protest lines and the like…I even ran for office once. And when a candidate comes forth who is actually addressing what is destroying this country, I will be happy to participate again. In the meantime, it’s a meaningless joke…kid yourself all you like; it’s still a meaningless joke.

McCain is worse than Obama, but they are BOTH avoiding the real issue.

political activism might be an excuse for not voting for some, and for others voting might be an excuse for no other form of political activism, but usually that’s not so. and I would imagine taking part in as many forms of participation would make more sense than voluntarily depriving yourself of a means of participation?

this is why I find pure ideology such a stupid manual for practical action.

on an unrelated note though, I just realized that privatizing all roads and requiring everyone to pay for every mile of road they use is the single best way of reducing car use. and if it weren’t for the fact that this would completely f**k up the poor (for lack of public transport as an alternative), I’d be all for it.

Secondly, if the point of lobbyists and this conspiracy is to keep you distracted, then how the hell does not voting make it better? If only the people who are “distracted” are the ones voting, then you’re playing right into the lobbyists hands by not voting! The only way to fix it is to NOT be distracted by gay marriage and flag burning and… get this… VOTE for the real issues. Vote, maybe not for the nonexistent perfect candidate, but for the one which is closer to being perfect.