Topic: Occupy Wall Street Protests

[hansen6]

Much better poll, but what does it mean at this point? I saw an "End the Fed" poster at one of the Occupy Whatever rallies (think it was Wall Street, not sure). Sounds like a TP person to me. Ask 10 different people at this point and you'll get 10 different opinions on what they stand for, and many different opinions on solutions. Based on some footage I've seen you might have to ask 50 different people to get 10 coherent replies, but that's neither here nor there.

If you read that article I posted earlier by elliot spitzer you'll see why this is.

[Stateside Red]

Less govt means that corporations will have more power and that favours the rich. In addition they are very much against obamacare which does favour the poor.Fact is, the rich haven't been taxed for a long time now and the economy hasn't improved. No one takes trickle down economics seriously - except rich people. Whether it's a pittance or not is beside the point, they should be taxed.

Like I said that's another debate ... my point was that imo if a TP person was asked whether they favor policies that support the rich they would say no. You may disagree with that.

Do you object that they gave a good description of occupy wall st?

I would say at this point the description of wanting less money in politics is probably apt and includes the other 2. Again though I think it describes the TP just as well.

[corkboy]

There is one big difference between the Tea Party and the Occupy Wall St gang. The TP are basically the same people who voted for Bush twice under the banner of the Christian Right. I don't know who OWS are.

"So, first, it's an overwhelmingly Christian group. 81% identify as Christian, and nearly half (47%) say they are part of the religious right or conservative Christian movement.

Secondly, it isn't libertarian, it's much more socially conservative, with 63% saying abortion should be illegal and only 18% in favor of gay marriage.

Third, it is fundamentally a Republican movement. 76 percent identify or lean towards the Republican party.

And last, not terribly surprisingly, the media has blown their numbers out of proportion, only 11 percent of the population identifies with the Tea Party movement. A vocal 11 percent without a question. But only half the number of those who call themselves Conservative Christian, 22%."

source

Best of all is this little gem, from the original survey report...

"Fox News is their most trusted source of news about politics and current events".

[Stateside Red]

If you read that article I posted earlier by elliot spitzer you'll see why this is.

I think there's some wishful thinking in there but sure we'll see what happens. The TP grew with a hell of a lot more unwishful thinking, and imo movements in a democratic govt that demand more gov't involvement are usually more successful than those that want less. But to reference that popular saying everyone is soon realizing we're running out of other people's money.

[Stateside Red]

There is one big difference between the Tea Party and the Occupy Wall St gang. The TP are basically the same people who voted for Bush twice under the banner of the Christian Right. I don't know who OWS are.

Of course there are differences ... in the solutions, not so much in the description of the problem. Voting for Bush and liking what he did are 2 different things. Here in America it's often a case of voting for who you dislike the least.

[The Bill Hicks Appreciation Society]

I'm sorry but why is it such a hard concept to digest about wiping all debt out? Awww the poor little financial leeches that have been loaning imaginary currency at an interest might not be willing to make more imaginary money that they can charge real gains back on again? Not sure why they would turn down the opportunity to conjure funds from thin air again, but I'm a bit more worried that people think it's acceptable to do that and are happy to stand for it. The banks were loaning upto 40 times what they had in reserve, that's imaginary money but we can't change it cos that's how things are isn't it.

Can someone answer me as to why things can't change? Why we can't have a world without war and without famine, without homelessness and without corruption? if you can give me a definitive answer why this isn't achievable, and I'm not suggesting overnight but why is this system the best we can aspire to?

Genuinely interest in people's answers here.

[kennedy81]

Like I said that's another debate ... my point was that imo if a TP person was asked whether they favor policies that support the rich they would say no. You may disagree with that.
I would say at this point the description of wanting less money in politics is probably apt and includes the other 2. Again though I think it describes the TP just as well.

Not sure I'd go along with that.
The billionaire Koch brothers have been funding the TP to the tune of millions.
I'm pretty sure they're all for policies that favour the rich.
as for getting money out of politics, if the TP want to do that, they shouldn't be taking money from the Koch brothers.

My impression was that the TP started at a grassroots level along the lines of more traditional libertarian/conservative, then got hijacked by the rich and Christian right-wing who believe the Republicans aren't pro-rich/Christian right-wing enough anymore.
Is that a fair assessment?


The Billionaires Bankrolling the Tea Party

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/29/opinion/29rich.html?pagewanted=all

[hansen6]

I think there's some wishful thinking in there but sure we'll see what happens. The TP grew with a hell of a lot more unwishful thinking, and imo movements in a democratic govt that demand more gov't involvement are usually more successful than those that want less. But to reference that popular saying everyone is soon realizing we're running out of other people's money.

The Tea Party grew because it was co-opted by the republican right, fox news and the like. Your quote about other peoples money is very ironic considering how much wall st has been bailed out.

[Stateside Red]

Not sure I'd go along with that.
The billionaire Koch brothers have been funding the TP to the tune of millions.
I'm pretty sure they're all for policies that favour the rich.
as for getting money out of politics, if the TP want to do that, they shouldn't be taking money from the Koch brothers.

My impression was that the TP started at a grassroots level along the lines of more traditional libertarian/conservative, then got hijacked by the rich and Christian right-wing who believe the Republicans aren't pro-rich/Christian right-wing enough anymore.
Is that a fair assessment?

As I stated I have no affiliation with the TP so I have no idea how they're supported and/or if they've been 'hijacked'. What does it matter though? Everyone agrees there's too much money in politics so you have to spend money now to (hopefully) reduce it's influence later, regardless of how you want to reduce it's influence. As Einstein, a committed pacifist, once said (paraphrasing), "it doesn't do you much good to be a pacifist if you're dead".

The Tea Party grew because it was co-opted by the republican right, fox news and the like. Your quote about other peoples money is very ironic considering how much wall st has been bailed out.

I would say the TP has influenced the Republican party more so than the other way around. We'll see. How is covering a TP event or interviewing people who share their views (Fox news) co-opting them? What's ironic about that quote in relation to the WS bailout?

[hansen6]

I would say the TP has influenced the Republican party more so than the other way around. We'll see. How is covering a TP event or interviewing people who share their views (Fox news) co-opting them? What's ironic about that quote in relation to the WS bailout?

I'm talking about the likes of Glenn Beck giving them publicity, orgainising rallies etc. they are driving it forward. It wouldn't be as popular as it is without the support(not coverage) of Fox.

I thought you were making a point about the OWS crowd wanting big government and to spend other peoples money, no?.

[El Campeador]

I'm sorry but why is it such a hard concept to digest about wiping all debt out? Awww the poor little financial leeches that have been loaning imaginary currency at an interest might not be willing to make more imaginary money that they can charge real gains back on again?

Genuinely interest in people's answers here.

I'll bite.

What kind of debt would you like to see wiped out? I owe the local bank for the mortgage on my house. Are you suggesting my balance go to zero and my house be paid off?

[Stateside Red]

I'm talking about the likes of Glenn Beck giving them publicity, orgainising rallies etc. they are driving it forward. It wouldn't be as popular as it is without the support(not coverage) of Fox.

I thought you were making a point about the OWS crowd wanting big government and to spend other peoples money, no?.

Ahh, OK ... I was thinking of strictly of their American news network (not going there) but yeah I'd agree the Glenn Beck's of the network certainly helped their cause.

I'm still lost with the WS bailout thing ... I don't think many outside of WS and Washington liked it. And they were spending other people's money. We probably have no disagreement here.

[Stateside Red]

I'm sorry but why is it such a hard concept to digest about wiping all debt out? Awww the poor little financial leeches that have been loaning imaginary currency at an interest might not be willing to make more imaginary money that they can charge real gains back on again? Not sure why they would turn down the opportunity to conjure funds from thin air again, but I'm a bit more worried that people think it's acceptable to do that and are happy to stand for it. The banks were loaning upto 40 times what they had in reserve, that's imaginary money but we can't change it cos that's how things are isn't it.

Can someone answer me as to why things can't change? Why we can't have a world without war and without famine, without homelessness and without corruption? if you can give me a definitive answer why this isn't achievable, and I'm not suggesting overnight but why is this system the best we can aspire to?

Genuinely interest in people's answers here.

That's obviously a huge question but hey here goes. I don't think the human condition will allow for a system that is without war, poverty, corruption, etc. There will always be envy, etc. even in so-called rational human beings. The best we can hope for is a system that minimizes the bad and maximizes the good, and for me that is a system that allows for an individual to improve his lot in life while doing the same for his neighbor, however they each define that. In my opinion that system is free market capitalism, a system that hasn't been seen in the US or England for about a century. Does capitalism eliminate the problems you mention? No, no system does given that all political systems are human political systems. But I sincerely believe it's the best political system for imperfect humans to live in, and that it's been proven over and over again. (see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A for a much more eloquent defense). I don't want to spend the rest of eternity debating this here ... just giving my opinion like you asked.

To your initial point I would say the entire world is waking up to the dangers of fiat currencies.

[-Q-]

- and there is nothing in capitalism that would prevent cooperatives forming, if that is the kind of society you would prefer.

[hansen6]

That's obviously a huge question but hey here goes. I don't think the human condition will allow for a system that is without war, poverty, corruption, etc. There will always be envy, etc. even in so-called rational human beings. The best we can hope for is a system that minimizes the bad and maximizes the good, and for me that is a system that allows for an individual to improve his lot in life while doing the same for his neighbor, however they each define that. In my opinion that system is free market capitalism, a system that hasn't been seen in the US or England for about a century. Does capitalism eliminate the problems you mention? No, no system does given that all political systems are human political systems. But I sincerely believe it's the best political system for imperfect humans to live in, and that it's been proven over and over again. (see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A for a much more eloquent defense). I don't want to spend the rest of eternity debating this here ... just giving my opinion like you asked.

To your initial point I would say the entire world is waking up to the dangers of fiat currencies.

I'm going to quote some Steinbeck back at you. If you haven't read the Grapes of Wrath, do.

Some of the owners were kind because they hated what they had to do, and some of them were angry because they hated to be cruel, and some of them were cold because they had long ago found that one could not be an owner unless one were cold And all of them were caught in something larger than themselves. Some of them hated the mathematics that drove them, and some were afraid, and some worshipped the mathematics because it provided a refuge from thought and from feeling.
If a bank or a finance company owned the land, the owner man said, The Bank- or The Company- needs – wants – insists – must have – as though the Bank or the Company were a monster, with thought and feeling, which had ensnared them. These last would take no responsibility for the banks or the companies because they were men and slaves, while the banks were machines and masters all at the same time. Some of the owner men were a little proud to be slaves to such cold and powerful masters.

[El Campeador]

Occupy Wall Street protests in a nutshell.

Also - on that related note - this is a great article.

http://www.businessinsider.com/what-wall-street-protesters-are-so-angry-about-2011-10?op=1

[saintslfc13]

I'm sorry but why is it such a hard concept to digest about wiping all debt out? Awww the poor little financial leeches that have been loaning imaginary currency at an interest might not be willing to make more imaginary money that they can charge real gains back on again? Not sure why they would turn down the opportunity to conjure funds from thin air again, but I'm a bit more worried that people think it's acceptable to do that and are happy to stand for it. The banks were loaning upto 40 times what they had in reserve, that's imaginary money but we can't change it cos that's how things are isn't it.

Can someone answer me as to why things can't change? Why we can't have a world without war and without famine, without homelessness and without corruption? if you can give me a definitive answer why this isn't achievable, and I'm not suggesting overnight but why is this system the best we can aspire to?

Genuinely interest in people's answers here.

It's not a hard concept. It's just something that will never happen. The people who loaned out all that debt in the first place still stand to gain from it being repaid. Therefore they won't wipe it out, it's quite simple, Greed is triumphing over a simple solution that could fix this mess. Unless these people are removed from power that solution as simple as it is will never be a viable one.

The reason I advocate for free markets and sound money is because those are the two simplest ways to maintain an economy where everyone gets ample return for what they can give. I also believe that the good majority of people want to help others, so the Government isn't needed to ensure that happens. People naturally resist authority. It's why most children upon being told they can't have a cookie before dinner try to find a way to do just that. It's also why everyone hate taxes and a lot of people hate government mandates that take money from them. Social Security is a good idea on paper for example, however it basically gives your money to the government with the promise that it will be paid back at a later date. Since we know the Government dips in the SS fund and makes cuts other taxpayer funded program like Medicare, there is a guarantee that not everyone will get their money back. I say it's better to let the people save the money on their own, invest it in things they believe in rather trust that the Government will have the money when it's their turn to collect it. These are also reasons that communism and socialism in their purest forms won't ever work. In a totalitarian form of either the civil liberties/rights abuse is clear to see, not to mention the controlling group takes more than their fair share. In a non-tolitarian form, people would simply lose the motivation to get up and go to work all the time. Being rewared, aspiring for something more than you have or to be better off than you currently are is inherent in humans, to take that away is to take away a portion of the human spirit.

Fiat currencies inevitably end up in the ruin of the nation/country/empire that started bringing them in. They lead to hyperinflation and people naturally revert back to either bartering or using currencies that have instrinic value like gold and silver. This is why using a currency that is at least backed by, if not entirely composed of Gold and Silver makes perfect sense. Sure there might not be as much money to go around, but the purchasing power of the money available is substantially greater when that is the case. I think the world is definitely waking up to this fact, and the people who aren't are so dependent on the current system that they'd rather ignore what's presented to them than to accept it and go against it.

[kesey]

I'm sorry but why is it such a hard concept to digest about wiping all debt out? Awww the poor little financial leeches that have been loaning imaginary currency at an interest might not be willing to make more imaginary money that they can charge real gains back on again? Not sure why they would turn down the opportunity to conjure funds from thin air again, but I'm a bit more worried that people think it's acceptable to do that and are happy to stand for it. The banks were loaning upto 40 times what they had in reserve, that's imaginary money but we can't change it cos that's how things are isn't it.

Can someone answer me as to why things can't change? Why we can't have a world without war and without famine, without homelessness and without corruption? if you can give me a definitive answer why this isn't achievable, and I'm not suggesting overnight but why is this system the best we can aspire to?

Genuinely interest in people's answers here.

I  think you know the answer already mate.

[hansen6]

The reason I advocate for free markets and sound money is because those are the two simplest ways to maintain an economy where everyone gets ample return for what they can give.

No, they get what the market dictates, and there is no such thing as a "free market"

I also believe that the good majority of people want to help others, so the Government isn't needed to ensure that happens. People naturally resist authority. It's why most children upon being told they can't have a cookie before dinner try to find a way to do just that. It's also why everyone hate taxes and a lot of people hate government mandates that take money from them. Social Security is a good idea on paper for example, however it basically gives your money to the government with the promise that it will be paid back at a later date. Since we know the Government dips in the SS fund and makes cuts other taxpayer funded program like Medicare, there is a guarantee that not everyone will get their money back. I say it's better to let the people save the money on their own, invest it in things they believe in rather trust that the Government will have the money when it's their turn to collect it.

I don't think you understand, government and social security are the mechanisms by which other people are helped. Like the kid who wants his cookie, people have to be taught not to be greedy and selfish.

These are also reasons that communism and socialism in their purest forms won't ever work. In a totalitarian form of either the civil liberties/rights abuse is clear to see, not to mention the controlling group takes more than their fair share. In a non-tolitarian form, people would simply lose the motivation to get up and go to work all the time. Being rewared, aspiring for something more than you have or to be better off than you currently are is inherent in humans, to take that away is to take away a portion of the human spirit.

It's also in the human spirit to cooperate, to be generous, altruistic etc. Capitalism and consumerism manufactures wants and desires but these are artificially created, not inherent.

Fiat currencies inevitably end up in the ruin of the nation/country/empire that started bringing them in. They lead to hyperinflation and people naturally revert back to either bartering or using currencies that have instrinic value like gold and silver. This is why using a currency that is at least backed by, if not entirely composed of Gold and Silver makes perfect sense. Sure there might not be as much money to go around, but the purchasing power of the money available is substantially greater when that is the case. I think the world is definitely waking up to this fact, and the people who aren't are so dependent on the current system that they'd rather ignore what's presented to them than to accept it and go against it.

There is nothing stopping governments controlling the supply of silver and gold and therefore inflation.  They don't have intrinsic value.

[Rigga]

Mark Thomas interviews Nick Dearden about vulture funds.  It's a couple of years old but I only listened to it the other night.  It fits in here nicely I think..

http://www.markthomasinfo.co.uk/section_audiovideo/mp3s/nickdearden.mp3

[The Bill Hicks Appreciation Society]

How can they start OccupyLSX during an LFC v MUFC match, that's just dead selfish that

[Paul_h]

occupy London Stock exchange today......
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/14/protesters-london-stock-exchange?newsfeed=true

wonder if it will make the news?

[bryanod]

Ohhhh occupying an empty area on a saturday, wow!

[Stateside Red]

I'm going to quote some Steinbeck back at you. If you haven't read the Grapes of Wrath, do.

I'll see that and raise you a passage from Atlas Shrugged ... the beginning of part 2, chpt 10 ... Dagney's discussion with the tramp on what happened at the 20th Century Motor Company (a micrcosm of a collective society but the passage is much too long to quote here). I don't think you need to read the book up to that point to get the gist of the passage but I do recommend the book obviously ... big reading investment though to be fair.

Really though what I was trying to argue was that given that humans are imperfect (whether they make honest mistakes or just are plain bad), the system of capitalism with its emphasis on individual property rights is the best for people, by and large, to improve themselves and consequently society in general. I may read Grapes (at least you quoted a classic and not some obscure treatise) but there's nothing in that passage imo that condemns capitalism per se. Were agreements freely entered into? Did bankers have alternative business arrangements to pursue, and if not is that the failure of capitalism or the banker? There are 'winners' and 'losers' in every system, and people who lose one day and win the next. I just believe that a system that rewards individuals for their own hard work (however they define reward, which isn't strictly monetary) is the best, and that's capitalism. And imo it's the best for allowing people who do lose one day to win the next ... capitalism's history is littered with this.

Not to really change the subject to specifics, but they had to build a damn wall in Berlin to keep people from moving from collective East Berlin to freer West Berlin, and in general the migration of people from collective states to freer states is far, far greater than the other way around. What does that tell you?

Think we're moving even further off topic though.

[-Q-]

I'll see that and raise you a passage from Atlas Shrugged ... the beginning of part 2, chpt 10 ... Dagney's discussion with the tramp on what happened at the 20th Century Motor Company (a micrcosm of a collective society but the passage is much too long to quote here). I don't think you need to read the book up to that point to get the gist of the passage but I do recommend the book obviously ... big reading investment though to be fair.

+1 on the recommendation.  Definitely worth the investment.

[hide5seek]

[quote author=Stateside Red link=topic=281671.msg9358

Not to really change the subject to specifics, but they had to build a damn wall in Berlin to keep people from moving from collective East Berlin to freer West Berlin, and in general the migration of people from collective states to freer states is far, far greater than the other way around. What does that tell you?




[/quote]That tells me you've picked an extreme that nobody was advocating.

[hansen6]

I'll see that and raise you a passage from Atlas Shrugged ... the beginning of part 2, chpt 10 ... Dagney's discussion with the tramp on what happened at the 20th Century Motor Company (a micrcosm of a collective society but the passage is much too long to quote here). I don't think you need to read the book up to that point to get the gist of the passage but I do recommend the book obviously ... big reading investment though to be fair.

If you're recommending Ayn Rand you must be very very right-wing, it's basically an ode to being selfish and self-interested.

Really though what I was trying to argue was that given that humans are imperfect (whether they make honest mistakes or just are plain bad), the system of capitalism with its emphasis on individual property rights is the best for people, by and large, to improve themselves and consequently society in general. I may read Grapes (at least you quoted a classic and not some obscure treatise) but there's nothing in that passage imo that condemns capitalism per se. Were agreements freely entered into? Did bankers have alternative business arrangements to pursue, and if not is that the failure of capitalism or the banker? There are 'winners' and 'losers' in every system, and people who lose one day and win the next. I just believe that a system that rewards individuals for their own hard work (however they define reward, which isn't strictly monetary) is the best, and that's capitalism. And imo it's the best for allowing people who do lose one day to win the next ... capitalism's history is littered with this.

Can you read the passage again, because it's quite clear how it critiques capitalism. Do you think all humans are "just plain bad" btw?. Why not?. 

 

Not to really change the subject to specifics, but they had to build a damn wall in Berlin to keep people from moving from collective East Berlin to freer West Berlin, and in general the migration of people from collective states to freer states is far, far greater than the other way around. What does that tell you?

It tells me that if you think the eastern bloc was collective then you really don't know politics....

[-Q-]

It tells me that if you think the eastern bloc was collective then you really don't know politics....

What are you talking about...?

[-Q-]

I just believe that a system that rewards individuals for their own hard work (however they define reward, which isn't strictly monetary) is the best, and that's capitalism. And imo it's the best for allowing people who do lose one day to win the next ... capitalism's history is littered with this.

Whilst I know what you are getting at, it is important to note that capitalism does not reward you for "hard work" it rewards you for adding value to something.  Capitalism will not reward you for digging a hole no-one wants or needs, no matter how hard you work.

[Stateside Red]

If you're recommending Ayn Rand you must be very very right-wing, it's basically an ode to being selfish and self-interested.

Spoken like many who've never read her, but she does explain why being self-interested is a good thing ... did you watch the Friedman clip? I would argue it's impossible for any one to be rational and unselfish ... they may not want money or earthly goods or what most consider nice things, but everyone wants something. If you want to give to charity (using your own money) or want to help the poor (ditto) that's just as selfish as someone who wants a Ferrari. Selfishness as nothing to do with the object of a person's desires. As soon as you say "I want x" you're being selfish no matter what 'x' is.

Can you read the passage again, because it's quite clear how it critiques capitalism. Do you think all humans are "just plain bad" btw?. Why not?. 

No I have a very high opinion of humans and trust them to do the best they can for themselves.

It tells me that if you think the eastern bloc was collective then you really don't know politics....

Well you're free to correct my understanding any time. I love to learn more than I like to be right.

[Stateside Red]

Whilst I know what you are getting at, it is important to note that capitalism does not reward you for "hard work" it rewards you for adding value to something.  Capitalism will not reward you for digging a hole no-one wants or needs, no matter how hard you work.

Fair enough ... as you say everyone knows what I meant, and I could counter with who determines that "value", but I know what you meant.

[-Q-]

Fair enough ... as you say everyone knows what I meant, and I could counter with who determines that "value", but I know what you meant.

The market determines value, specifically, the consumer who buys the product / service you are selling.

[Stateside Red]

The market determines value, specifically, the consumer who buys the product / service you are selling.

Bingo.

[El Campeador]

Bingo.

But not all essential goods and services have market value. Take firemen. If that was a market-based service, I wouldn't pay for it. Would you?

[-Q-]

But not all essential goods and services have market value. Take firemen. If that was a market-based service, I wouldn't pay for it. Would you?

Then you would burn to death in your sleep.

[Stateside Red]

But not all essential goods and services have market value. Take firemen. If that was a market-based service, I wouldn't pay for it. Would you?

Interesting example you chose (http://www.wpsdlocal6.com/news/local/Firefighters-watch-as-home-burns-to-the-ground-104052668.html), but like home owners insurance yes I would.

[El Campeador]

Interesting example you chose (http://www.wpsdlocal6.com/news/local/Firefighters-watch-as-home-burns-to-the-ground-104052668.html), but like home owners insurance yes I would.

Sure, *you* would.

But what if your downstairs neighbour on the dole couldn't afford it, and his place went up in smoke?

Then you would burn to death in your sleep.

So would you, assuming you paid for fire protection and I, your neighbour, did not.

[Stateside Red]

Sure, *you* would.

But what if your downstairs neighbour on the dole couldn't afford it, and his place went up in smoke?

So would you, assuming you paid for fire protection and I, your neighbour, did not.

Come on El C, like I said before we could spend an eternity on what ifs with specific scenarios. Who has that much time? It would only make sense (to me) that the entire multiple occupant dwelling would have one fire 'plan' (either it was protected or not) so you could decide to live there or not.

What do you dislike about capitalism as a theory rather than specific examples of people who don't behave the way you like? Do you think capitalism encourages the worst in people? If so is that capitalism's fault? Is your preferred political system any better?

[El Campeador]

Come on El C, like I said before we could spend an eternity on what ifs with specific scenarios. Who has that much time? It would only make sense (to me) that the entire multiple occupant dwelling would have one fire 'plan' (either it was protected or not) so you could decide to live there or not.

Your scenario essentially takes what most cities and towns in first world nations have right now, and limits it to condominium complexes that are rich enough to pay for fire protection. The most obvious problem with such a system where "you could decide to live there or not" as you say, is that it's not really about "choosing" to live in a complex that offers fire protection, but being able to afford living in one that does. Poorer folks, including the handicapped and the elderly - our aging mothers and fathers who need the service the most because they cannot get away from a fire - would invariably be pushed towards burning ghettos for lack of purchasing power.

If you're comfortable with pushing the old and the poor into neighbourhoods where firemen do not respond because it isn't profitable, that's your call.

What do you dislike about capitalism as a theory rather than specific examples of people who don't behave the way you like? Do you think capitalism encourages the worst in people? If so is that capitalism's fault? Is your preferred political system any better?

Dislike about capitalism? Preferred economic system? Whatever gave you that idea? I've a degree in finance, dude.

[saintslfc13]

But what if your downstairs neighbour on the dole couldn't afford it, and his place went up in smoke?

So would you, assuming you paid for fire protection and I, your neighbour, did not.

If you're using an apartment complex then surely it would be on the owner to purchase that fire protection, whether he passes that cost through on to the renters or not is another matter entirely. Referencing condominiums it would be on the HOA to make that a requirement or not. For private housing the firefighters would protect the house that was paid for while letting the one that wasn't burn down.

Obviously though it all depends on the risk involved, perhaps your decision not to buy fire protection would be a smart one in an area that rarely experiences any fires. In an area that does it could cost you your life but then you probably would purchase it if that was the case.

I don't think anyone is advocating for the privatization of general public services like police and fire though, most Libertarians would see those as necessary functions of the government, at the state and local levels of course.