Life In America's Most Dangerous City About To Become "Living Hell" As Layoffs Of One Quarter Of Government Labor Force Begin

Tyler Durden's picture

Life in Camden, NJ has never been fun. Frequently ranked as America's most dangerous city, whose only claim to fame are the corporate offices of Campbell's Soup, Camden is about to get even more dangerous as it is among the first to experience wholesale cuts to its government labor pool. Bloomberg reports that "as many as 383 workers, representing one-fourth of the local government's work force, are expected to lose their jobs, including about half the police force and one-third of the city's firefighters." It seems cuts have already commenced: "police officers are turning in their badges as part of deep municipal layoffs that began Tuesday." It's a good thing then that unlike the rest of the world, New Jersey does not (yet) have surging food inflation as otherwise one may be tempted to argue this could be a rather interesting hot spot in the future, especially with the local police force deciding to find better pastures even as it starts collecting 99 weeks of unemployment benefits.

From Bloomberg:

Firefighters are planning to march to City Hall on Tuesday, and Mayor Dana Redd is planning a noon news conference to talk about the layoffs in a city facing a huge budget deficit and declining state aid.

The officers began turning in their badges Monday as it became clear that no last-minute deal was going to save many jobs.

Located directly across the Delaware River from Philadelphia, Camden is rampant with open drug-dealing, prostitution and related crimes. More than half of Camden's 80,000 residents, mostly black and Hispanic, live in poverty.

The anti-crime volunteer group Guardian Angels also says it will patrol Camden, as it has Newark, where there were major police layoffs in November.

The fire department, meanwhile, has already been relying on help from volunteer departments in neighboring towns. Interim fire chief David Yates, who retired Jan. 1, has warned that that layoffs will increase response times.

A local pastor says "the fear quotient has been raised," and a police union took out a full-page newspaper advertisement last week warning that Camden would become a "living hell" if layoffs were not averted.

Of course, this being Camden, the only thing that could really push the city to recreate the living conditions of Hades would be a surge not so much in the price of food, or even iPads, but crack cocaine. And according to the Chairman there is substantial slack in the drug production vertical. Which means there are at least a few months before Camden becomes ground zero for what happens when surging inflation and insolvent municipalities mix with curious consequences.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
tmosley's picture

Earl would fix it, but he was laid off a couple of years ago.

jus_lite_reading's picture

Think for a moment that just one month's salary and compensation for just one BofA exec could have paid the entire salary of all 400 of those laid off. Only God can save us now.

 

Missing_Link's picture

Yes, but think of all the good that that one BofA exec does!

...  oh, wait  ...

More Critical Thinking Wanted's picture
Life In America's Most Dangerous City About To Become "Living Hell" As Layoffs Of One Quarter Of Government Labor Force Begin [...]

Hey, you anti-libertarian mouthpiece! Truth is that Camden officials are simply on track to implement a libertarian heaven in NJ: small government.

No tax money for the government fat!

Why don't we go the whole way and implement the libertarian paradise of no government and no taxes? Somalia, here we come! :-)

Next step in the plan: eliminate another evil piece of government regulation and make crack cocaine legal. (Extra packs will be sold at schools, with toys included.)

Another evil government regulation they are about to eliminate are building permits and zoning restrictions. Free citizens want to build freely on their own damn property!

(And unstoppable fire-storm rolling over the city due to a gas station being built 10 feet away from the firework factory and a primary school is just a fact of life everyone has to get used to. It had to be built so for business efficiency, it's none of the government's business to meddle with that.)

 

viahj's picture

homework lesson for you today: explain the difference between a libertarian and an anarchist because you obviously don't have a clue.

More Critical Thinking Wanted's picture

explain the difference between a libertarian and an anarchist

Ok, let me try:

An anarchist is an honest libertarian?

 

Because, frankly, no-one has yet succeeded in outlining a valid, consistent boundary of how far government could go in a libertarian society that I've seen.

Would building permit regulations and laws be present in the libertarian vision? Would there be a tax financed military? Would there be tax financed financial regulation? Would there be a tax financed police force? Firefighters? Teachers? Expensive fundamental research that no corporation is willing to touch because it's only profitable in a 30 years timeline? Public roads? Health care for the elderly? Health care for the not so elderly? The Coast Guard?

Does a libertarian realize that such kinds of public goods and services, which make up modern civilization, need tax financing?

Where does a libertarian draw that line rationally?

 

Red Neck Repugnicant's picture

Where does a libertarian draw that line rationally?

Here's a good start....  the line is drawn between what benefits them directly, verses what benefits others.



More Critical Thinking Wanted's picture

Here's a good start....  the line is drawn between what benefits them directly, verses what benefits others.

What happens if others are drawing the line elsewhere, for entirely reasonable (and similarly selfish) reasons?

In fact what happens if other libertarians (say those who are older and receive Medicare, or those sailing the open seas regularly) draw the line differently regarding Medicare or the Coast Guard?

I'm curious, do libertarians recognize the concept of a democracy, or is there some head honcho libertarian who calls all the shots, who draws the line so to speak, and if you dont follow him you get the libertarian treatment? (Guns, ammo and some other stuff I forgot -  the Giffords might know the details.)

 

Red Neck Repugnicant's picture

What happens if others are drawing the line elsewhere, for entirely reasonable (and similarly selfish) reasons?

It's simple.  You just grab your machine gun and kill them - survival of the fittest, remember?  Saddle up the Camaro and reload, baby. 

The trick with libertarianism is to not think too deeply about it.  Plus, total ignorance of American banking history for the 20 years prior to the creation of the Fed is particularly helpful, especially when coupled with a really deep coma during a discussion of 1893, 1895 and 1907. 


More Critical Thinking Wanted's picture

 

The trick with libertarianism is to not think too deeply about it.  Plus, total ignorance of American banking history for the 20 years prior to the creation of the Fed is particularly helpful, especially when coupled with a really deep coma during a discussion of 1893, 1895 and 1907.

I think the proper libertarian answer to that is that the banking excesses of 1893, 1895 and 1907 were caused by the banking industry anticipating the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913. (There is a rumor of a Fed time machine as well.)

So those banking excesses that happened in the libertarian 'Gilded Age' of America were clearly the fault of Bernanke.

 

tellsometruth's picture

thank you for telling some truth!

hot tub time macine?

tellsometruth's picture

Clews further states, "The Panic of 1837 was aggravated by the Bank of England when it in one day threw out all the paper connected with the United States."

contraction of credit has been the cataylast many times!

www.apfn.org/apfn/reserve.htm

cont:

The Bank of England, of course, was synonymous with the name of Baron Nathan Mayer Rothschild. Why did the Bank of England in one day "throw out" all paper connected with the United States, that is, refuse to accept or discount any securities, bonds or other financial paper based in the United States? The purpose of this action was to create an immediate financial panic in the United States, cause a complete contraction of credit, halt further issues of stocks and bonds, and ruin those seeking to turn United States securities into cash. In this atmosphere of financial panic, John Pierpont Morgan came into the world. His grandmother, Joseph Morgan, was a well to do farmer who owned 106 acres in Hartford, Connecticut. He later opened the City Hotel, and the Exchange Coffee Shop, and in 1819, was one of the founders of the Aetna Insurance Company.

George Peabody found that he had chosen well in selecting Junius S. Morgan as his successor. Morgan agreed to continue the sub rosa relationship with N.M. Rothschild Company, and soon expanded the firm’s activities by shipping large quantities of railroad iron to the United States. It was Peabody iron which was the foundation for much of American railroad tracks from 1860 to 1890. In 1864, content to retire and leave his firm in the hands of Morgan, Peabody allowed the name to be changed to Junius S. Morgan Company. The Morgan firm then and since has always been directed from London. John Pierpont Morgan spent much of his time at his magnificent London mansion, Prince’s Gate.

One of the high water marks of the successful Rothschild-Peabody Morgan business venture was the Panic of 1857. It had been twenty years since the Panic of 1837: its lessons had been forgotten by hordes of eager investors who were anxious to invest the profits of a developing America. It was time to fleece them again. The stock market operates like a wave washing up on the beach. It sweeps with it many minuscule creatures who derive all of their life support from the oxygen and water of the wave. They coast along at the crest of the "Tide of Prosperity". Suddenly the wave, having reached the high water mark on the beach, recedes, leaving all of the creatures gasping on the sand. Another wave may come in time to

51

 

save them, but in all likelihood it will not come as far, and some of the sea creatures are doomed. In the same manner, waves of prosperity, fed by newly created money, through an artificial contraction of credit, recedes, leaving those it had borne high to gasp and die without hope of salvation.

Corsair, the Life of J.P. Morgan,34 tells us that the Panic of 1857 was caused by the collapse of the grain market and by the sudden collapse of Ohio Life and Trust, for a loss of five million dollars. With this collapse nine hundred other American companies failed. Significantly, one not only survived, but prospered from the crash. In Corsair, we learn that the Bank of England lent George Peabody and Company five million pounds during the panic of 1857. Winkler, in Morgan the Magnificent35 says that the Bank of England advanced Peabody one million pounds, an enormous sum at that time, and the equivalent of one hundred million dollars today, to save the firm. However, no other firm received such beneficence during this Panic. The reason is revealed by Matthew Josephson, in The Robber Barons. He says on page 60:

"For such qualities of conservatism and purity, George Peabody and Company, the old tree out of which the House of Morgan grew, was famous. In the panic of 1857, when depreciated securities had been thrown on the market by distressed investors in America, Peabody and the elder Morgan, being in possession of cash, had purchased such bonds as possessed real value freely, and then resold them at a large advance when sanity was restored."36

Thus, from a number of biographies of Morgan, the story can be pieced together. After the panic had been engineered, one firm came into the market with one million pounds in cash, purchased securities from distressed investors at panic prices, and later resold them at an enormous profit. That firm was the Morgan firm, and behind it was the clever maneuvering of Baron Nathan Mayer Rothschild. The association remained secret from the most knowledgeable financial minds in London and New York, although Morgan occasionally appeared as the financial agent in a Rothschild operation. As the Morgan firm grew rapidly during the late nineteenth century, until it dominated the finances of the nation, many observers were puzzled that the Rothschilds seemed so little interested in profiting by investing in the rapidly advancing American economy. John Moody notes, in The Masters of Capital, page 27, "The Rothschilds were content to remain a close ally of Morgan... as far as the American field was concerned.’37 Secrecy was more profitable than valor.

__________________________

 

34 Corsair, The Life of Morgan

35 John K. Winkler, Morgan the Magnificent, Vanguard, N.Y. 1930

36 Matthew Josephson, The Robber Barons, Harcourt Brace, N.Y. 1934

37 John Moody, The Masters of Capital

SECRETS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE

The London Connection

By

Eustace Mullins

Dedicated to two of the finest scholars of the twentieth century

GEORGE STIMPSON

and

EZRA POUND

Who generously gave of their vast knowledge to a young writer to guide him in a field which he could not have managed alone.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I wish to thank my former fellow members of the staff of the Library of Congress whose very kind assistance, cooperation and suggestions made the early versions of this book possible. I also wish to thank the staffs of the Newberry Library, Chicago, the New York City Public Library, the Alderman Library of the University of Virginia, and the McCormick Library of Washington and Lee University, Lexington, Virginia, for their invaluable assistance in the completion of thirty years of further research for this definitive work on the Federal Reserve System.

About the Author

Eustace Mullins is a veteran of the United States Air Force, with thirty-eight months of active service during World War II. A native Virginian, he was educated at Washington and Lee University, New York University, Ohio University, the University of North Dakota, the Escuelas des Bellas Artes, San Miguel de Allende, Mexico, and the Institute of Contemporary Arts, Washington, D.C.

The original book, published under the title Mullins On The Federal Reserve, was commissioned by the poet Ezra Pound in 1948. Ezra Pound was a political prisoner for thirteen and a half years at St. Elizabeth’s Hospital, Washington, D.C. (a Federal institution for the insane). His release was accomplished largely through the efforts of Mr. Mullins.



More Critical Thinking Wanted's picture

 

News flash: if you go back 150 years then you can find cases where something other than libertarian excesses caused a bank panic!

Film at 11!

Really, it's pretty telling that you did not reply to the specific dates nor to the time period:

The trick with libertarianism is to not think too deeply about it.  Plus, total ignorance of American banking history for the 20 years prior to the creation of the Fed is particularly helpful, especially when coupled with a really deep coma during a discussion of 1893, 1895 and 1907.

Let me guess, you are a libertarian and you have trouble concentrating and staying on topic? :-)

 

caconhma's picture

John Pierpont Morgan company always was a subsidiary of  the Bank of England, of course, was synonymous with the name of Baron Nathan Mayer Rothschild.

Now, it becomes perfectly clear why the FED were bailing out various international banks and ruining the USA: the FED is NOT an American Bank. It belongs to and represents interests of foreign Banks, particular the rotten Rothschild family.

It is indeed the right time for America to have the second war for independence.

 

PS

I am looking forward to see how Chinese will destroy the cancerous Rothschild banking cartel.

downrodeo's picture

I think many libertarians abhor democracy in its current incarnation. The argument often cited is that it is (or has become) sort of a mob rule where the rights of the minority are infringed upon by the majority. Of course, you should probably have your head checked if you think what we have is an actual democracy. I understand the underlying concept behind it, but I just can't match the ideal with reality.

More Critical Thinking Wanted's picture

 

The most frequently infringed-upon 'right' that I've seen libertarians mention is the right to not pay taxes.

What they miss is that if they do not pay their fair share of a modern civilization's costs (and civilization is not cheap: roads, defense, judiciary, police, etc.) then they are freeloading on all the others.

Just like you have to pay your rent if you rent a shop in a shopping mall. You have no 'right to freeload'. As a shop-owner you dont have the "right to all your revenue" - you must pay the rent. Libertarians, for some unspecified reason, fail to apply the same concept to modern civilizations.

 

CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

But we don't want the services provided by government. That's why we'd prefer not to pay. It's nothing like renting a shop in a mall by choice. Why pretend that it is?

If you really believe that those who do not wish to pay for unwanted items are freeloaders then will you buy the ball of lint I have in my pocket for $10,000?

 

More Critical Thinking Wanted's picture

 

You want no military? No police? No judiciary? No public roads?

Wow, really wow!

Or if you want them, what makes them special?

 

CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

Any service I require can be provided more efficiently by the private sector.  Also, no one in the private sector is going to commit mass murder against Iraqi and Pakistani women and children and then send me the bill with the claim that they did it for my freedom.

More Critical Thinking Wanted's picture

 

Good luck trying to find an affordable private health care provider if you have an expensive to treat chronic illness as a pre-existing condition ... Californians could tell you volumes about how much fun it is to be in the high-risk pool ...

Now imagine there was no high-risk pool either - entirely legal in a 'private insurance only' world view. You are ill? Tough luck, we wont insure you ...

They prefer to insure the healthy and kick out the ill.

Not a problem to you as you'll always be healthy, due to a superior libertarian lifestyle, right?

 

CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

Government regulation has limited competition amongst insurance providers thereby raising costs. Are you suggesting that only government can fix the problems that government itself has created?

More Critical Thinking Wanted's picture

 

Erm, it's profit-maximizing 101 that there's no profit in treating a chronically ill person who cannot pay for that treatment - there's a massive financial loss involved with it.

Ergo, insurers are not taking such people voluntarily, unless forced to.

No amount of competition between private companies will solve that fundamental problem.

 

CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

Ergo, insurers are not taking such people voluntarily, unless forced to.

 

Thanks for presenting one more example of how government claims to be our only hope when it was government itself that caused the problem.

Before the government began subsidizing the medical establishment costs were dramatically lower. When those costs became burdensome for patients they could depend on friends and family for financial help -- help which is no longer available because a vast array of government agencies now confiscate more than half of every dollar the working man earns.

Your centrally planned safety net has taken us from a world where people looked out for each other out of mutual affection and dropped us into a hell where we as taxpayers must be forced to pay for the skyrocketing costs of government regulated medical and insurance schemes.

More Critical Thinking Wanted's picture

 

Good luck getting your 'friends' to pay for a $50K+ treatment per year :-)

Also, I'm not sure about you, but the notion to beg rich friend for help (assuming you are lucky enough to have rich friends) is not particularly appealing to me. Many people would rather commit suicide than to be a constant financial drain on friends and family. Especially when they have a medical condition that has a low life expectancy. You are rationing your loved ones in a very cruel way ...

It's a pretty cruel and heartless society you are imagining there. Fortunately, as the last hold-out amongst modern developed nations the US is finally getting universal healthcare as well, so your utopian nightmare society will probably never become reality.

And if you think social responsibility can be covered with 'charity', that's an easy feel-good excuse and another right-wing myth.

Here's the list of the most charitable countries on the planet, on an "annual percentage of income given to charitable causes":

How charitable is the average US citizen? Only 0.20% of the average income ...

So it turns out that those 50% top tax bracket 'big wellfare nanny-state' losers in Europe are giving two to five times more money per capita to charitable causes than the USA which has a top tax bracket of 35%.

So you have 15% less taxes at 35%, but are only willing to spend a measly 0.2% of your income 'voluntarily'. Wow, how pathetic!

 

BigJim's picture

Hey look! My house is on fire! And the damn insurance companies won't let me insure it now it's on fire!

Help me, Leviathan!

 

CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

Pre-existing Condition

A man walks into an insurance agent’s office and asks to purchase a $100,000 home owner’s policy. The agent writes the policy and tells the man that the annual premium is $500.

The man writes a check for $500, hands it to the insurance agent and says, “Perhaps I should mention that when I left my house it was fully involved in a five alarm blaze, if you look out your window you can probably see the smoke from here.”

“Oh my God, that’s horrible!” shouts the agent as he gazes at the smoke on the horizon.

“Well it’s a good thing I have insurance,” says the man. “I’ll be needing that $100,000 as soon as possible; can you cut me a check?”

 

http://crockettalmanac.com/?p=26

weinerdog43's picture

Unfortunately, your fairy tale runs headlong into the 'fortuity doctrine'.  Amount the insurer pays...zero.

weinerdog43's picture

Unfortunately, your fairy tale runs headlong into the 'fortuity doctrine'.  Amount the insurer pays...zero.

More Critical Thinking Wanted's picture

 

You really don't understand what private insurance companies are doing wrt. preexisting conditions, do you?

They try to avoid patients that are unlucky enough to develop an long-lasting, expensive to treat medical condition.

It's not about a "house on fire" situation.

If you got born with a hidden illness that becomes full-fledged when you are 30, you can easily end up with no health insurance in a fully private setup. Totally not your fault, still it can happen.

Yes, the private insurer will treat you for some time, but your premiums will go up slowly but surely, and if you lose your job and coverage then to any other insurer you are an expensive patient with a 'pre-existing condition'.

You had insurance, still you are essentially black-listed for the rest of your life, and your condition can put your family into misery.

Allowing that in simply not civilized and basically all countries except the US do not allow that situation to occur. It's not like people are flocking to attract expensive to treat illnesses.

 

StychoKiller's picture

Using governmental force to impose a vision on others is intellectual sloth
and typically results in unintended, perverse consequences.

Two people who exchange property voluntarily are both better off or they
would not do it.

 

Begging the Govt to take property from someone because YOU are too chickensh!t to do it yourself sez a lot about you...

More Critical Thinking Wanted's picture

 

People who have chronically ill children who are rejected by 'private' insurers beg to differ ...

Are they chickenshit for attracting an expensive to treat medical condition?

If yes then you are a pretty cruel man.

 

ColonelCooper's picture

So where do you draw the line?  I'll be the first one to admit that I have never been able to call myself a true libertarian because I have never been able to follow the blueprint to an acceptable outcome. (As you point out above)

That said, I'm the first one to admit that I'm more than willing to go to my shack in the woods and never see another living soul again.  If I get eaten by wolves in six months, so be it.  Karma.  If a couple dozen million billion (Mako) starve while I'm gone,,, karma again isn't it? 

You fail to explain where you want the current system to end.  I will explain where I want it to be.  It's really very simple.

1.) Personal freedoms. You say that I just don't want to pay taxes.  You're half right.  I don't mind paying taxes, but I don't like throwing money into the shithole.  If you honestly want to defend the current bloated piece of stinkfuck we have now then you disappoint me; you're smarter than that.  Give me an idea! Something we can build off of, rather than you and Repugnifuck making Camaro jokes and assuming we're too stupid to understand what we ask for!  I understand this is a months long argument in itself, but believe me when I say that I'm not anti government.  I'm anti FEDERAL government.

2.) Personal responsibility.  Here's the Libertarian in me.  I don't give a flying fuck at a rolling doughnut what you do.  Here's the deal: If you screw with me, my family, or my friends,,, I will mess you up.  It's real simple.  If you want to fornicate with goats and marry emus,,, have at it.  Just don't ask me to pay for research trying to find a cure for the feathers that are growing out of your dick.  If you are hungry, I might feed you if I have extra.  I might not.  It's not for you to decide if I have the extra.  Hopefully I will have done well enough that I can help others when they are down, and they will help me if the shoe hits the other foot. 

Yes, I understand what I say.  I understand exploitations and injustices, fuedalism and oligarchies, monarchies and tyrannies.  I got some news for ya: Life aint fucking fair.  Maybe in our haste to make sure that everybody made a minimum wage of $75,000, had a jetski and an IPad, we forgot to stop and look to see if it was sustainable.  Sure, you can put a gun to my head and make me support 19 little crack babies in a ghetto, but at what cost?  And I mean real cost.  In order to "sustain" this clusterfuck of a human race we've grown, we've turned ourselves into little better than Tyson Butterball People.  Vaccinated with 3 times the meds. minutes after birth,  fed food that has so little organic value anymore that we're sicker than ever.  OH but Wait!! We have a pill for that!!  Who the fuck knows what you're going to catch from taking it, but with a good quality feeding tube and respirator you'll live to be 106.  We're told what to do from the moment we get out of bed, til the minute we get home.  And you guys think that Libertarians are off their rockers?  Ignorant? 

Comfort doesn't mean quality, People. 

downrodeo's picture

"The most frequently infringed-upon 'right' that I've seen libertarians mention is the right to not pay taxes."

This is because libertarians believe that many of "civilization's costs" can be addressed more efficiently by the private sector. Where you draw the line is where your personal philosophic worldview allows you to. Personally, I am for paying a small tax in order to adequately fund fire departments and police.

I think roads can be done much more efficiently by the private sector. School is a no brainer. I mean just look at where the government monopoly on education has left us. It is about control and absolutely not about learning HOW to think, which is waaaaaayyyyy more important that knowing WHAT to think. The courts would be tricky to do in a libertarian society, but to suggest that the current government run court system is fully objective is almost laughable.

 

I am working on a philosophy of anarchy 2.0. I am just in the beginning stages of cogitation, but I understand why anarchy hasn't been sustainable in the past. Specifically, every individual human, left unchecked, allows themselves to degenerate to their most base instincts. People say this is human nature, but I believe in choice, so I reject the notion that it has to be this way.

More Critical Thinking Wanted's picture

Personally, I am for paying a small tax in order to adequately fund fire departments and police. [...]

How about the miliary and similar forms of defense against common dangers?

 

BigJim's picture

The US military IS a common danger. And the entire world is paying for its depredations via the petrodollar.

But that point aside, the US military could be shrunk 95% and the US would still be safe. I think you'd find most libertarians would be happy to pay for that remaining 5%, or would join a militia part-time to do their bit.

As for an organised  military being needed to fend off common dangers: the Afghans don't pay income tax, and they're doing pretty well against the foriegn invaders, wouldn't you say?

blunderdog's picture

Honestly, the US military has already been shrunk 95%.  It's all equipment these days, when it used to be people.

There are costs and benefits to such an approach.  I know it sucks, but it's not quite simple, just like everything else.

BigJim's picture

I was referring to its budget, not its head count.

More Critical Thinking Wanted's picture

I think roads can be done much more efficiently by the private sector.

There's a pretty good precedent for that: check how slowly broadband got expanded into rural areas.

Private providers maximized their profits: they concentrated on the most profitable urban areas. They not only under-developed other, non-profitable areas, but they used their monopolies to squeeze out smaller local competitors.

Only government regulation forcing telecom providers to distribute services more fairly improved the situation - but only a bit.

It's similar with roads, except that roads are MUCH more expensive to build and maintain in less populated areas than a cell tower every 30 miles ...

Common infrastructure is not something that is efficiently done by private companies, not by a long shot. They monopolize and they under-develop.

Of course unless you believe in some sort of urban utopia where the countryside is left to rot. That is what medeival Europe was for hundreds of years: infrastructure was concentrated into cities - villages were under-developed and unsafe - people were starving, poor and uneducated/unskilled. Younger village people flocked to citizes whenever they had the chance - and were happy to pay the higher taxes there. (and those cities were stinking holes compared to today's cities.)

It was not a particularly happy place to live in.

I think you really do not know what you are asking for if you think that private companies should be doing common infrastructure ...

 

BigJim's picture

Around where I live (in the UK) one of our roads is regularly resurfaced... whether it needs it or not. Why? Because the local council will lose its annual road-reparing budget if it doesn't use it all up... do you think this would happen if we the locals had to pay? No.

Forcing companies to provide infrastructure to rural areas at the same (or similar) prices as they do to urban areas just means the urban areas subsidise the rural ones. Gasp! Yes! The money to pay for this has to come from somewhere!

Your statist 'examples' of what life would be like in a libertarian society by recalling what it was like back in medieval times are absurd. If you are talking about Western Europe, feudalism was dominant, where a few wealthy landlords - the nobility - had absolute power over their serfs. There was no rule of law to speak of, wage controls were rife, and in many areas, serfs were 'bonded' to their masters by law. How is that in any way comparable to libertarians' visions of how a state should be organised? Answer: it isn't.

There's absolutely no reason why people living in close poximity to each other (urban dwellers) should be forced to subsidise those who chose to live far away from each other (rural citizens). Ceasing these subsidies would push up the costs of living for rural dwellers, and this in turn would be  reflected in rises in the price of their main product: food. So, in effect, urbanites would see raised living costs, but it would all be done through genuine price discovery mechanisms, not through the machinations of the parasitical 'public servants' whom you put so much trust in.

More Critical Thinking Wanted's picture

Of course, you should probably have your head checked if you think what we have is an actual democracy.

I certainly have the right to go to the polls. Do you have that right?

It's just that every time I (and a hundred million others) vote for my cool local politician who exposes the corrupt politicians of other people, it's always the same end result that I do not recognize as true democracy: bickering, dishonesty and special interests.

Weird - what I really wanted him to do was to hit politicians I hate real hard and to bend things my way (whatever the cost - we might not need that bridge to nowhere, but it's at least our damn bridge).

 

downrodeo's picture

I go to the polls too, for the same reason I get drunk and watch seinfeld: it is hard to break a really great destructive habit... lol

I voted for Bender B. Rodriguez for president in the last presidential election. If we want a misanthropic psychotic a-biotic robot to be our elected 'leader', I at least want to get a few laughs while i am marched to my death.

The choice between red puppet A and blue puppet B is not what I would call democratic.

More Critical Thinking Wanted's picture

The choice between red puppet A and blue puppet B is not what I would call democratic.

That is because you are smarter and more intelligent than the other people who vote, right?

So should your educated vote weigh (much) more than the stupid, short-sighted, manipulated votes of other people?

 

BigJim's picture

Tell me something, More Critical T...: when you are asked the question,

       If 51% of the population vote to eat the other 49%, is that OK?

Do you just chuckle at this amusing conundrum, and carry on believing in Majoritarian Democracy? Or does it make you realise that even if the majority (or, more usually, the largest voting minority) wants to do something at the expense of the minority, doesn't mean they automatically have that right?

Understanding that is the key to understanding libertarians - they believe that everyone has certain rights that transcend the whims of their fellow men.

Democracy should be a means to peacefully depose governments of their power; not a means to depose your fellow citizens of their rightful property, just because you can get a sufficient number of similarly-minded freeloaders to vote some thief into office.

Clycntct's picture

 

At the line just above the opening of the pants pocket where the fat ass burecrat that can't fit his  overstuffed wallet in.

More Critical Thinking Wanted's picture

 

Did you know that US government employees are on average paid up to 20% less than equivalent position private-sector employees?