• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Crapmart vs Bestmart

X

Xerographica

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2010
Messages
2,071
Reaction score
163
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Libertarians say that there are two stores...Crapmart and Bestmart...

Crapmart (this represents the government..aka the public sector)
  • small selection
  • crappy customer service
  • extremely overpriced
  • defective products
  • no refunds
Bestmart (this represents for-profits/non-profits..aka the private sector)
  • large selection
  • excellent customer service
  • competitive prices
  • effective products
  • refunds allowed
The question is...if shoppers (ie taxpayers) were allowed to directly purchase products from Crapmart...would they purchase products from Crapmart that were also available from Bestmart?

In other words...why would any libertarians be hesitant to allow consumers to decide between Crapmart and Bestmart? Why wouldn't they appreciate allowing more competition between the two stores? Perhaps they secretly believe that Crapmart isn't so crappy and Bestmart really isn't the best?

The value of pragmatarianism is it quickly distinguishes pseudo-libertarians from true libertarians. Pseudo-libertarians..aka vulgar libertarians...just want to pay less taxes and do not respect other people's values.

A true libertarian, on the other hand, does respect other people's values and is willing to put his money where his mouth is to prove it. A true libertarian is a pragmatarian.
 
Harshaw said:
Who, and where?

This is silly.
Click to expand...

Yes, libertarians literally say that there are two stores...Crapmart and Bestmart. Now...you just wait right here while I go find the references...I'll be right back. Don't go anywhere.
 
Not sure about the premise, but I will say that there are some things that I would prefer that "crapmart" do. Roads, for instance. I'll admit it's partially convenience, but I have no desire to pay tolls everywhere I go, which I believe would happen much more often if roads were completely privatized.
 
Xerographica said:
..would they purchase products from Crapmart that were also available from Bestmart?
Click to expand...

But Crapmart has defective products and Bestmart has effective products. How is it that the crappy ones all go to Crapmart?

All told, this is an overly simplistic scenario.
 
radcen said:
Not sure about the premise, but I will say that there are some things that I would prefer that "crapmart" do. Roads, for instance. I'll admit it's partially convenience, but I have no desire to pay tolls everywhere I go, which I believe would happen much more often if roads were completely privatized.
Click to expand...

Thank you. I was trying to come up with a good instance. For some reason I didn't think of roads.
 
rocket88 said:
But Crapmart has defective products and Bestmart has effective products. How is it that the crappy ones all go to Crapmart?

All told, this is an overly simplistic scenario.
Click to expand...

Precisely, it's a dumb, unrealistic scenario.
Two extremes are presented, when the world is actually full of shades of gray.
 
Given the premise you’ve presented I for one would support ‘crapsmart’ to compete freely with ‘bestmart’. Under the same premise with ‘crapsmart’s’ extremely overpriced, defective products its demise would be quick. Unfortunately under the current system we are forced to shop at ‘crapsmart’ which artificially manipulates the relationship…carry on...:)
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Precisely, it's a dumb, unrealistic scenario.
Two extremes are presented, when the world is actually full of shades of gray.
Click to expand...

The world is shades of gray...therefore you, one individual, should decide the proper scope of government? Or should we allow millions and millions of taxpayers to use their own hard-earned taxes to determine the proper scope of government?

If I thought the world was just black and white...why would I promote a system that tolerates other people's values and perspectives? Wouldn't I just assume that my perspective on the proper scope of government was correct? If that was the case...why would I promote political pluralism?
 
In a world of strawmen, the man with a torch rules supreme.
 
The entire premise is a false one.
 
radcen said:
Not sure about the premise, but I will say that there are some things that I would prefer that "crapmart" do. Roads, for instance. I'll admit it's partially convenience, but I have no desire to pay tolls everywhere I go, which I believe would happen much more often if roads were completely privatized.
Click to expand...

Personally, I love toll roads, and happily take them to avoid the traffic, when they are an option.
 
Xerographica said:
The world is shades of gray...therefore you, one individual, should decide the proper scope of government? Or should we allow millions and millions of taxpayers to use their own hard-earned taxes to determine the proper scope of government?

If I thought the world was just black and white...why would I promote a system that tolerates other people's values and perspectives? Wouldn't I just assume that my perspective on the proper scope of government was correct? If that was the case...why would I promote political pluralism?
Click to expand...

If you were the one paying for your perception of the proper scope of government, it's fine with me. Problem is, the ones who seem to think the proper role of government is to take care of people, aren't the ones paying the bills, as a general rule.
 
lizzie said:
Personally, I love toll roads, and happily take them to avoid the traffic, when they are an option.
Click to expand...

If all roads were toll roads, they wouldn't be avoiding traffic.

lizzie said:
If you were the one paying for your perception of the proper scope of government, it's fine with me. Problem is, the ones who seem to think the proper role of government is to take care of people, aren't the ones paying the bills, as a general rule.
Click to expand...

Everyone thinks the role of government is to take care of people. They just have slightly varying opinions on which people and how much.
 
Last edited:
Deuce said:
If all roads were toll roads, they wouldn't be avoiding traffic.
Click to expand...

But that ain't gonna happen. ;)

Deuce said:
Everyone thinks the role of government is to take care of people. They just have slightly varying opinions on which people and how much.
Click to expand...

No- you're quite wrong on that one. Not everyone thinks the role of government is to take care of people.
 
Xerographica said:
The world is shades of gray...therefore you, one individual, should decide the proper scope of government? Or should we allow millions and millions of taxpayers to use their own hard-earned taxes to determine the proper scope of government?

If I thought the world was just black and white...why would I promote a system that tolerates other people's values and perspectives? Wouldn't I just assume that my perspective on the proper scope of government was correct? If that was the case...why would I promote political pluralism?
Click to expand...

There is no bestmart and crapmart.
It's all subjective and your list of choices is a false dilemma.
 
Xerographica said:
Yes, libertarians literally say that there are two stores...Crapmart and Bestmart. Now...you just wait right here while I go find the references...I'll be right back. Don't go anywhere.
Click to expand...

Why should anyone ever bother with your silly posts? You make inane assertions and get into a childish snit when people point out exactly how they're inane.
 
Last edited:
lizzie said:
If you were the one paying for your perception of the proper scope of government, it's fine with me. Problem is, the ones who seem to think the proper role of government is to take care of people, aren't the ones paying the bills, as a general rule.
Click to expand...

So wouldn't this problem be solved by allowing those who pay the bills to determine the proper scope of government?
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Sure, but I'm betting there are various levels of best and crap in both.
Some of which are subjectively crap and subjectively best.
Click to expand...

So why not just allow taxpayers to decide which government organizations receive their individual taxes? In other words, why not just allow consumers to choose which goods they "purchase" from the public sector? Would you use your own, hard-earned taxes to "purchase" any crappy goods from the public sector?
 
The real issue is that crapmart cannot compete with bestmart, on price, service, quality, ect....
crapmart can place roadblocks in bestmart's path to level the playing field.
Public education, and the lack of school vouchers come to mind.
Everyone regardless where they shop must pay a fee to crapmart.
Crapmart uses the fee to provide an expensive product for free.
You can still buy the product from bestmart, but you still also have to pay the fee to crapmart.
It still goes back to, "Government at it's best is a necessary evil!"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom