You have not identified any "fallacy".

Your posts are almost entirely fallacious reasoning. Red herrings, non-sequiturs, false dichotomies, straw men, circular reasoning, ad hominem. A veritable smorgasboard of broken reasoning. But that is to be expected from people that start at a conclusion and then try to reverse-engineer a trail of reasoning to reach it.

You have not identified any corporation, that quadrupled the price of its offering without improving quality (or due to spike in cost of raw materials).

You have not supported your premise that education today is identical to education in the 60s, nor that outcomes today are worse (or unimproved), let alone provided evidence - or even a rationalisation - that this change is a direct outcome of publicly-funded education.

The best performing education system in the world is generally considered to be Finland's, in which private schooling is all but nonexistent. Indeed, pretty much all the highest performing countries have education systems that are primarily publicly-funded. On top of that, widespread - near universal - high levels of education and literacy have only come about relatively recently with the wide availability of publicly funded education.

Consequently, the argument that publicly-funded education is inherently inefficient or low-performing is simply ridiculous on its face, and the argument that private suppliers can achieve the same outcome - given many millennia of failure to do so before the rise of public education - is sketchy, at best.

As I answered that poster and idiots like him. I want the government to [...]

You have failed to justify why these are the only two functions Government should perform. What you'd "like" is entirely up to you, but it carries no more weight than what I'd like - and at least what I'd like has some basis in reasoning, fact and evidence rather than ideology, paranoia and fear.

Statists expecting more from their government are, no doubt, welcome to Cuba and North Korea and the even much nicer Germany or Greece.

What's a "Statist" ? Someone who thinks Government has one more responsibility than you do ?

Fallacies are not convincing, so you could at least do us the courtesy of making them amusing. Though the absurdity of extremist positions does carry a certain amount of humour in itself.

Even a superficial look at the increase in productivity vs wages over the last few decades and how workers are being ripped off by "KKKorporations" will put paid to the idea that "only a government-backed racket can get away with such a thing".

As another poster said. If you want to live somewhere without Government, there are several of them. None are particularly nice places to be, however.

Although I do not like to follow this train of logic, it's important to point out that some laws are not immediately enforced at gunpoint.

Yes. Like tax laws. Glad you agree the original poster was just engaging in ideological claptrap. Not quite sure what the point of the rest of your post was.

People's food needs in the absence of government coercion are already taken care of by private actions: farming, jobs, and in extreme cases by charity.

No they’re not.

Education provided by the government is at least 2 to 4 times as costly as it needs to be for a good education.

Source, and please define “good education”.

All but the poorest parents can afford to pay for teachers, and private education reduces the likelihood of government indoctrination, whether such indoctrination be Nazi, communist, religious, or whatever.

But apparently protecting kids from private forms of indoctrination is bad ?

One is that the level of funding required is difficult to achieve, []

I’m sure communities can pass the hat around and raise money proportionate to the amount of protection they need. Or would that be too much Government ?

[] another is that protections against anti-public abuse are difficult.

No they’re not. If your private police force or army get abusive, you just fire them and hire someone else.

Yet another is the possibility of inter-corporate warfare.

Please elaborate on how that would be legal.

Army and police forces are expected protect a given land area; their funding and control should be tied to their land areas as directly as possible. That means governmental control or some other mechanism very much like governmental control; private industry doesn't qualify.

The same logic applies to education, and clearly in no way precludes privatisation in your mind.

But I do think, that spending thus-collected funds on anything not threatening the very survival of the country — such as defending from external enemies or maintaining law and order within — is immoral.

So letting the country's people starve, or not giving them an education that increases the economic prosperity of the country, is no threat to its existence ?

Please justify why the army and police cannot be substituted by private industry.

All laws are enforced "at gunpoint". Your statement is meaningless in its generality.

LAN Manager might have hacked something over the top, but OS/2 was fundamentally a single-user OS, no different to DOS or MacOS.

My understanding is that NT had quite a bit of OS/2 in it.

It doesn't. They are completely different architecturally. NT was a 32-bit, multiuser, heavily multithreaded, built-for-SMP, portable, mostly-microkernel OS.

OS/2 was... Not.

Seeing that MS had rights to OS/2 and wanted a new OS in a hurry following the breakdown of their partnership with IBM, it would be suprising if they had not used parts of OS/2.

In a hurry ? It was five years between the start of NT's development ('88) and its first release ('93).

Seriously, the 8088/80286 and their addressing space limitations set back the DOS-based world by years, until Intel finally accepted that people wanted to use individual chunks of memory larger than 64K, and that they wanted to run their old real-mode DOS programs, too.

Intel wasn't the problem. The 386 was released in 1985.

Win 3.0 was absolutely awful. It crashed and needed a reboot about twice an hour.

Rubbish.

It was soon replaced with the improved 3.1.

It was two years between Windows 3.0 and 3.1.

One major reason for the split was that IBM insisted on programming OS/2 in assembler - over Gates' objections - locking them onto the 386 platform.
At least that is the way I remember it.

I think you are remembering IBM's insistence that OS/2 ran on their shiny new "AT", with it's 286 processor when the 386 was already out on the market.

It was already working on the next version of OS/2, but split from IBM's path and re-branded the new product as Windows NT. IBM then started their own separate development path and produced OS/2 2.0.

Minor correction. Microsoft - Dave Cutler's team - were working on the OS that was going to replace OS/2 (OS/2 "New Technology") that was then turned into Windows NT 3.1 and successors after the (surprising) Windows 3.0 success.

IBM took the "old" OS/2 code (that both they and Microsoft had worked on) and tarted it up into OS/2 2.x and successors.

Windows NT and OS/2 have no common ancestor. They are completely different OSes from bottom to top.

That explains why in the mid '80s to mid 90's IBM was busy in a joint venture with Microsoft first and alone afterwards... to produce a PC system with networking, multi-tasking and file permissions and even 32 bits (OS/2).

OS/2 (at least in that timeframe) was not multiuser. Neither was it 32-bit (IBM insisted it run on their brand-spanking new AT with its 16-bit 286 CPU).

And the Microsoft/IBM "divorce" was around 1990.

With that said I don't agree with GP. I don't think IBM had that much strategy.

Every non-aboriginal inhabitant of Australia is an immigrant.

Complete bullshit, as it seems you well understand:

Even the aboriginals are fairly recent arrivals if your perspective is wide enough.

I don't understand the racist hate.

No racist hate here, simply someone who thinks immigration should be controlled and targeted in the best interests of the country.

However, successive Australian Governments for a decade or more have been running record immigration rates - mostly under the guise of "skilled immigration" and associated hangers-on - with the twin primary objectives of suppressing wages and maintaining the property bubble. Simultaneously, they have been demonising the weakest and most helpless fleeing for their lives, who account for a rounding error in our immigrant intake.

Unsurprisingly, this systemic view of people as cogs in the machine to be used and discarded on demand has led to a similar culture amongst employers, most recently exposed by the exploitation and abuse of short-term holiday visa holders (usually "backpackers") by the farming industry.

As usual, the Greens have the right idea. Knock down the skilled immigrant intake substantially and increase the humanitarian intake. The footsoldiers of economic immigration can go somewhere else, we should only be importing the best and brightest through our skilled immigration plans, maximising the national interest, and using the rest of our "quota" to help as many people threatened by starvation, torture and death as possible.

When even the dodgy headline unemployment rates are running at 5%+ (real unemployment into the teens), the idea we need to be importing even more people to fight for fewer jobs is just flat out insulting - but the political right seem to believe they've reached the endgame and they're not even trying for a facade of propriety or governance in the national interest any more.

Some people use these terms in the moral and ethical, rather than legal, context.