The commy, pinky socialist smackdown thread.

[prometheus]

OK, here it is since some people don't think tax discussions or capitalist v. socialist discussions should be tied to socialist program threads. This the place to tell me why you think you are entitled to take a producers earnings for your own personal socialist pet program.

[Lights]

Cuz I'm bigger than you! :p

I personally like that idea of people contributing to the welfare of the nation. In a perfect society we wouldn't need taxes, but this country isn't perfect and is filled with selfish, greedy bastards who don't give a crap about the country because they only want to maximize their profits. As such, we are a constitutional republic and can pass laws to make people contribute, and if they don't want to then they are free to go elsewhere or face the penalties. So if there was enough support for a socialized health care system, then because we are a government of the people, we would be entitled to create one and tax for it.

Of course, it is obvious that the concept of a "democracy" or a "republic" would seem a little too authoritarian for an anarchist, but that is how our founding fathers wanted it and we weren't doing too bad up until about 7 years ago.

[Colette]

OK, here it is since some people don't think tax discussions or capitalist v. socialist discussions should be tied to socialist program threads. This the place to tell me why you think you are entitled to take a producers earnings for your own personal socialist pet program.

You=the Government? Me does not equal government, yet :)

[rocksteady]

You=the Government? Me does not equal government, yet :)

if you support and vote for a socialist/liberal form of government, than you do = government.

[Colette]

if you support and vote for a socialist/liberal form of government, than you do = government.

So I as a voter am fully responsible for anything the Government then does post-election? Hmm...ok.

*Attempts blatant thread derailment*

[Lights]

So I as a voter am fully responsible for anything the Government then does post-election? Hmm...ok.

*Attempts blatant thread derailment*

*Jumps aboard thread derailment*

Your responsible for picking good leaders, and you are also responsible for seeing they are held accountable.

[Colette]

*Jumps aboard thread derailment*

Your responsible for picking good leaders, and you are also responsible for seeing they are held accountable.

OK, but aren't they only made accountable at the next ballot? How else could they be accountable, short of storming the Parliament?

Anyway enough now...this is for another thread methinks :)

[prometheus]

Cuz I'm bigger than you! :p

I personally like that idea of people contributing to the welfare of the nation. In a perfect society we wouldn't need taxes, but this country isn't perfect and is filled with selfish, greedy bastards who don't give a crap about the country because they only want to maximize their profits. As such, we are a constitutional republic and can pass laws to make people contribute, and if they don't want to then they are free to go elsewhere or face the penalties. So if there was enough support for a socialized health care system, then because we are a government of the people, we would be entitled to create one and tax for it.

Of course, it is obvious that the concept of a "democracy" or a "republic" would seem a little too authoritarian for an anarchist, but that is how our founding fathers wanted it and we weren't doing too bad up until about 7 years ago.

LOL I get a big kick out of you spouting the conservative mantra "America Love it, or Leave it." It must be the Wyoming upbringing. Do you have the bumper sticker?

There are the "selfish bastards" who don't care about others. There are also the silly people who don't care enough about themselves to lay enough aside for emergencies. I'm reminded of the Ant and the Grasshopper fable. Or the phrase "Poor planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part".

Your interpretation of the constitution is completely wrong also.

Here are the powers outlined in the constitution, don't confused todays muddled ideas on democratic mob rule with being constitutional. Show me where in the text below or in the amendments it says Big Brother can steal my earnings for your bunion cream.

The Congress shall have power

1 To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

2 To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

3 To regulate commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

4 To establish an uniform rule of Naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

5 To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the Standard of weights and measures;

6 To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

7 To establish post offices and post roads;

8 To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

9 To constitute tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

10 To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offences against the law of Nations;

11 To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

12 To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of money to that Use shall be for a longer term than two years;

13 To provide and maintain a Navy;

14 To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

15 To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

16 To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

17 To exercise exclusive Legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the Legislature of the State in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards, and other needful buildings; --And

18 To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."

[lowbrass]

I do not care for the proliferation of social programs because that's all legalized plunder. In some slight ways, yes - as a society, there should be a few safety nets, but I think that if this were the case, it should be very finite and strictly enforced. We in the USA instead loosely enforce this and seemingly try to find and allow more exceptions to enable more people to leech from this plunder.

Kind of how you might have heard the warning, "Do not feed the animals" - many modern social programs only seem to encourage the so-called less fortunate to prefer to remain that way, instead of holding them accountable to their actions and inspiring them to make the necessary life changes to get out of the rut. In the sense of the animals, they end up becoming a nuisance since they abandon their natural instincts and begin to harass those who they think should just be providing them food.

I oppose socialized healthcare not only for my distrust in government and its bureaucracy, but because to do such a thing ultimately limits MY choices. This is parallel to taking away some of my freedom. A better compromise would be to require certain levels of insurance coverage, much like most states have requirements to do so before you can drive your car on the road. That way, you have the ability to choose from the different providers AND you have the coverage. AND, if you keep yourself healthy, you're rewarded with lower premiums.

Federal minimum ought to be eliminated in favor of whatever the states decide. This is more complimentary to the free market system and economics than by forcing everyone into a one-size fits all approach. High minimum wages raise the cost of inputs, and you also raise the bar higher such that there remain even fewer unskilled people that are appropriate for any task. Nobody with half a brain will be inclined to pay someone $10/hr for a $5/hr task - especially in a state or rural area where $$ is not plentiful. A high wage might suit NY or CA whereas a low one might best suit WY or MT.

[Lights]

LOL I get a big kick out of you spouting the conservative mantra "America Love it, or Leave it." It must be the Wyoming upbringing. Do you have the bumper sticker?

A liberal with a conservative upbringing is a dangerous thing.

There are the "selfish bastards" who don't care about others. There are also the silly people who don't care enough about themselves to lay enough aside for emergencies. I'm reminded of the Ant and the Grasshopper fable. Or the phrase "Poor planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part".

True. People aren't perfect. That's why compromise is usually a good solution.

Show me where in the text below or in the amendments it says Big Brother can steal my earnings for your bunion cream.

First one.

1 To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States

That gives Congress the ability to lay and collect taxes, and if people want a socialized health care system, then that is where Congress is granted the power to tax for it.

OK, but aren't they only made accountable at the next ballot? How else could they be accountable, short of storming the Parliament?

Anyway enough now...this is for another thread methinks :)

Censure, impeachment, judiciary process...

But I agree, back on topic. Ultimately the difference here is perspective. It's individual rights vs. social rights. To what degree should the individual be held accountable for society, and vice versa? And it's even more complicated when talking about property rights and civil rights, because people are naturally drawn to their own preference. I personally prefer more individualized civil rights and more social property rights. Obviously, promotheus is drawn strongly toward individualized civil rights and individualized property rights. In fact, that's even how promo defined liberals and libertarians. So it ultimately comes down to just a different philosophy based on personal preference. We will make about as much headway on this thread as if we were arguing Pepsi lovers against Coke lovers. And ultimately they are the same thing, just a slightly different flavor.

[Provoker]

if you support and vote for a socialist/liberal form of government, than you do = government.

This is ultimately incorrect. There is a distinction between the state and government. For example, George Bush is part of the American government. However, the bureaucracy, fire departments, police, etc are part of the state. Governments may come and go (depending on who's in power at a given time) but the state goes on.

Therefore, in a socialist system you = part of state.

[prometheus]

A better compromise would be to require certain levels of insurance coverage, much like most states have requirements to do so before you can drive your car on the road. That way, you have the ability to choose from the different providers AND you have the coverage. AND, if you keep yourself healthy, you're rewarded with lower premiums.


WARNING Cold hearted bastard moment coming up.

How about ending the hospital requirement to have to treat every piss poor planning individual that comes in.

Once upon a time there were charities that would help out "tough luck" cases. Back then they were few and far between unlike today, we have become a nation of enablers.

Everyone has seen the woman in the grocery store who uses her food stamps on microwave dinners, junk food, and soda pops, and then pulls out a wad of cash for her beer and smokes, and then carts it out to her $40,000 SUV. With the current handout, dole, welfare system (whatever you want to call it) there are no checks and balances, unlike in the days of private charities.

Which leads me into one of my favorite rants; the current generation (18-25 year olds) whatever they are called, know that they will be taken care of. They are happy to sit on their butts, squeezing out kids, playing video games, and picking up the welfare checks (hell, I have a cousin-in-law doing this). They know there is no longer any incentive to work hard. Why work hard and give it all to Uncle Sam, when you can have a similar lifestyle sitting on your ass and getting taken care of by Uncle Sugar.





prometheus added to this post, 8 minutes and 41 seconds later...



1 To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States

That gives Congress the ability to lay and collect taxes, and if people want a socialized health care system, then that is where Congress is granted the power to tax for it.


I wasn't arguing about collecting taxes, even though you are wrong here, the 16th amendment allowed income tax (and there is still an argument over whether it was properly ratified, FYI), what you cited was for use taxes. I was asking where do they have the power to institute a Federal health care program.

Those are the things the government is allowed to do on a national level. Weren't you taught about prohibition, they needed a constitutional amendment to do that, because it was not one of the specified powers.

[Lights]

How about ending the hospital requirement to have to treat every piss poor planning individual that comes in.

How do you know who is a piss, poor, planning individual and who is somebody with just shitty luck?

Once upon a time there were charities that would help out "tough luck" cases. Back then they were few and far between unlike today, we have become a nation of enablers.

Actually, there are far more charities today than ever before. With a larger, more diverse population, it is very hard to satisfy the need with just private charities.

Everyone has seen the woman in the grocery store who uses her food stamps on microwave dinners, junk food, and soda pops, and then pulls out a wad of cash for her beer and smokes, and then carts it out to her $40,000 SUV. With the current handout, dole, welfare system (whatever you want to call it) there are no checks and balances, unlike in the days of private charities.

Such people exist. But there are many, many more who do have genuine need.

Which leads me into one of my favorite rants; the current generation (18-25 year olds) whatever they are called, know that they will be taken care of. They are happy to sit on their butts, squeezing out kids, playing video games, and picking up the welfare checks (hell, I have a cousin-in-law doing this). They know there is no longer any incentive to work hard. Why work hard and give it all to Uncle Sam, when you can have a similar lifestyle sitting on your ass and getting taken care of by Uncle Sugar.

Well, it's certainly nice to know how much we are appreciated while we're busting our asses in college and going into debt so we can get decent jobs and pay for the social security of all you old farts. I mean, we should know better with all the kids we are squeezing out. Obviously, it really doesn't matter that we have significantly lower birth rates than previous generations. But yeah, life is much easier for us since we only have to get a masters degree to get any professional occupation anymore. :rolleyes:

Puhleez! Go get some chocolate pudding and just try not to mess yourself old man. We got it covered.


prometheus added to this post, 8 minutes and 41 seconds later...

I wasn't arguing about collecting taxes, even though you are wrong here, the 16th amendment allowed income tax (and there is still an argument over whether it was properly ratified, FYI), what you cited was for use taxes. I was asking where do they have the power to institute a Federal health care program.

Those are the things the government is allowed to do on a national level. Weren't you taught about prohibition, they needed a constitutional amendment to do that, because it was not one of the specified powers.


Apples to oranges. Prohibition was outlawing alcohol. Setting up a health care system would be "providing for the general welfare."

[xhaan]

OK, here it is since some people don't think tax discussions or capitalist v. socialist discussions should be tied to socialist program threads. This the place to tell me why you think you are entitled to take a producers earnings for your own personal socialist pet program.

Interesting, how you paint with such broad strokes, and apparently bundle all socialists together.

In my socialist view, I'm not taking anything for myself, because it belongs to everybody. In my view, this doesn't mean you can't make profit, or even that you can't have property, it simply means that, for example a company; if everyone shares the company, then everyone should be able to get a share in what it produces. Personally, I don't mind profits, I don't even mind somebody owning the building or whatever that the company runs out of, as long as it is a benefit to everybody.

I don't want to take 'everything at gunpoint', I just want fairer distribution. In capitalism, it is possible for an utterly incompetent MORON, who was simply lucky enough to have money to start a business, hire people who actually know what they're doing to work for slave wages while the employer not only takes a bigger salary, but owns all the assets of the company too. I don't see this as fair, he gets rich simply because he is at the top of the pile?

[Colette]

WARNING Cold hearted bastard moment coming up.

How about ending the hospital requirement to have to treat every piss poor planning individual that comes in

Are you advocating revisiting the Hippocratic oath, or having it overriden by administrators?

Once upon a time there were charities that would help out "tough luck" cases. Back then they were few and far between unlike today, we have become a nation of enablers

There still are a lot of charities, because the system does not treat everyone, and many hard luck cases fall between the cracks. That said though, I agree with you to the extent that I believe in individual responsibility, and not having a system which enables people to make poor choices and avoid responsibility for them.

Which leads me into one of my favorite rants; the current generation (18-25 year olds) whatever they are called, know that they will be taken care of. They are happy to sit on their butts, squeezing out kids, playing video games, and picking up the welfare checks (hell, I have a cousin-in-law doing this). They know there is no longer any incentive to work hard. Why work hard and give it all to Uncle Sam, when you can have a similar lifestyle sitting on your ass and getting taken care of by Uncle Sugar

Yes, agree with this also. We are a soft couple of generations, and probably a soft society too. Travel to a place like India, or any other Third world nation, and you realize how damn lucky we are, and how little we expect of ourselves, in return. Fail to work in India, and you starve and die. Catch Polio, and you lose a limb, and you won't have been immunized against it.

Edit: Stop editing your posts before I respond, dammit :P

[thecraig]

Call me heartless. Call me a capitalist pig. I know it's a crazy idea, but I beleive the money I bust my ass making should be mine to do with as I please. Some one in this string was talking about fairness.... Is it fair that I have to work for a living just to give my hard earned earnings to some one who doesn't?

[Colette]

Call me heartless. Call me a capitalist pig. I know it's a crazy idea, but I beleive the money I bust my ass making should be mine to do with as I please. Some one in this string was talking about fairness.... Is it fair that I have to work for a living just to give my hard earned earnings to some one who doesn't?

Do you want to live in a society, or a collection of individuals in a barbaric condition? The choice is pretty simple.

[xhaan]

Call me heartless. Call me a capitalist pig. I know it's a crazy idea, but I beleive the money I bust my ass making should be mine to do with as I please. Some one in this string was talking about fairness.... Is it fair that I have to work for a living just to give my hard earned earnings to some one who doesn't?

It's not heartless, it makes sense. but this is not what I'm talking about. I'm not saying we have to take the food right off your plate or anything like that. If your money is hard earned, then it is.

Though on the other hand, potentially valued members of society can be lost when nobody gives a damn. If you don't give, and nobody else gives, then people lose. And I'm not talking about the unscrupulous sponges. I'm talking about possible Stephen Hawkings here.

[Gonzo]

OMG why do I get the impression that Americans see this topic as black and white? Am I wrong? Because just in case I'm right: There are middle grounds between 100% socialism and hardcore capitalism.

Cheers!

[xhaan]

OMG why do I get the impression that Americans see this topic as black and white? Am I wrong? Because just in case I'm right: There are middle grounds between 100% socialism and hardcore capitalism.

Cheers!

Indeed!
Can't say much else but that one word (and I'm American too!)

[thod]

Their are a basic set of needs that all humans have such as food, shelter, and energy to survive to the end of the week. There are others that are not of immediate need but will be needed at some point such as healthcare and police. Others are nice to have such transport, entertainment, and education.

The basic assumption is that everyone has equal capacity to earn. Yet your capacity to earn is dependent on you health, your location, your education etc. Your needs remain static. In the great depression for example, the capacity to earn was removed from many more yet they still must eat.

It is not that hard to meet the basic needs of everyone. You are not handing out BMW's and holidays in the sun to all. You meet only the basic needs. If you want more, luxury products, then you have to work for them.

If people can work to fulfil those basic needs then you it covered. If they cannot do so then they will do whatever they can to meet them. You criminalise being poor. The US does not have work schemes that allow everyone to work for a meal. A widow left alone with 4 kids is unable to do anything but childcare for example.

If you do have a situation where a man is on a "make work" scheme for survival rations then he is going to see that he put in the hours of another man yet gains nothing from it. This will lead to conditions as in the French revolution. You are only stable if there is a good size middle class too. They can see both places to rise and fall to and hold the status quo out of fear of losing their own comfortable lives. They see the poor as criminal vermin that should be exterminated, seeing only their impact on their own little lives. Yet the actions of the poor are a direct result of their poverty. If they were raised to middle class, the need for their actions would vanish. Without the poor though, the middle class now sees itself as the poor and you get the revolutionary scenario.

[xhaan]

Their are a basic set of needs that all humans have such as food, shelter, and energy to survive to the end of the week. There are others that are not of immediate need but will be needed at some point such as healthcare and police. Others are nice to have such transport, entertainment, and education.

The basic assumption is that everyone has equal capacity to earn. Yet your capacity to earn is dependent on you health, your location, your education etc. Your needs remain static. In the great depression for example, the capacity to earn was removed from many more yet they still must eat.

It is not that hard to meet the basic needs of everyone. You are not handing out BMW's and holidays in the sun to all. You meet only the basic needs. If you want more, luxury products, then you have to work for them.

If people can work to fulfil those basic needs then you it covered. If they cannot do so then they will do whatever they can to meet them. You criminalise being poor. The US does not have work schemes that allow everyone to work for a meal. A widow left alone with 4 kids is unable to do anything but childcare for example.

If you do have a situation where a man is on a "make work" scheme for survival rations then he is going to see that he put in the hours of another man yet gains nothing from it. This will lead to conditions as in the French revolution. You are only stable if there is a good size middle class too. They can see both places to rise and fall to and hold the status quo out of fear of losing their own comfortable lives. They see the poor as criminal vermin that should be exterminated seeing on their impact on their own lives. Yet the actions of the poor are a direct result of their poverty. If they were raised to middle class the need for their actions would vanish. Without the poor though, the middle class now sees itself as the poor and you get the revolutionary scenario.


Very good summary!
And BTW, I can tell you... these peiple who are 'driving $40,000 SUV and have a fist full of cash', must be doing something that I don't know about! I'm on SSI and SSD (and I did work, very well in fact, which is why I get SSD!) and I have... not very much. I'm not living in a box in the alley, but instead I have a tin shack on wheels. Luckily I have one television, and a computer, and the internet (which is my biggest 'luxury' I think.)

I get about $600 a month from SSD/I currently, and $150 for food only. Last month I had ZERO net income (actually went into negative by about $20) because my ISP SCREWED me, unexpectedly, with a nearly $400 bill because my deal ended... I guess they were making up for all that money I 'saved'.

I have my trailer, a TV, computer, a bed, a couple pieces of furniture, stove, fridge, and an old VCR. These are my 'assets', aside from clothing and personal items. I also have about $100 saved for emergencies... can't exceed $2000 in savings or assets though.

And also, most of this stuff was gotten out of luck, or good will. I didn't buy any of it except the computer and the trailer... before I moved in here, I had... clothes.

[prometheus]

Well, it's certainly nice to know how much we are appreciated while we're busting our asses in college and going into debt so we can get decent jobs and pay for the social security of all you old farts.


I'm in my early thirties you silly whippersnapper. I'll never seen a dime of Social Security, which incidentally was sold as an insurance program, where TPTB would hold and invest your money, and not as the giant ponzi scheme it is. Furthermore, the fact I was a successful business owner prior to dropping out of the system, means I've paid butt loads of cash in that hole.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.





prometheus added to this post, 13 minutes and 35 seconds later...

How do you know who is a piss, poor, planning individual and who is somebody with just shitty luck?

That's not my job to decide, but I GUARANTEE you charities would be better at deciding this than a bureaucrat.



Actually, there are far more charities today than ever before. With a larger, more diverse population, it is very hard to satisfy the need with just private charities.
Find a source to prove this, based on per capita from now and pre-income tax. You won't.


Apples to oranges. Prohibition was outlawing alcohol. Setting up a health care system would be "providing for the general welfare."

Boy want to talk about a broad interpretation, that would work for killing Iraqi civilians, banning gay marriage, gun laws, and drug laws. Obviously you are alone with this thinking, because even TPTB used the interstate commerce clause to justify the establishment of antigun and antidrug laws.

[1OFMANY]

IM done talking about how socialism sucks and it leads to more suffering than the alternatives. I will therefore just watch you fight it out Prometheus, and throw in an encouraging "Yeah!! what he said!!" occasionally :)

[prometheus]

IM done talking about how socialism sucks and it leads to more suffering than the alternatives. I will therefore just watch you fight it out Prometheus, and throw in an encouraging "Yeah!! what he said!!" occasionally :)

Works for me, as a libertarian I respect your right to do as you want.

[Lights]

That's not my job to decide, but I GUARANTEE you charities would be better at deciding this than a bureaucrat.

Well that is a very nice value judgment. I'll let the 400,000 social workers in this country, who are all trained professionals with at least a bachelors degree, know that you know so much more about the current welfare system and its inadequacies. I mean, they have this niaeve notion that it isn't fair to endorse an "each take care of their own" private charity system because of how they tend to discriminate against women and minorities.

Find a source to prove this, based on per capita from now and pre-income tax. You won't.

See above for my source. I have some very intelligent people telling me in a very conservative school, in a very conservative state, from firsthand experience that the big evil government buearcracy can do a better job than private charities. Oh, and one of them happens to be a Libertarian, so I'll value his opinion over the Anarcho-Capitalist who makes stereotypical discriminations against the poor.

[Colette]

IM done talking about how socialism sucks and it leads to more suffering than the alternatives. I will therefore just watch you fight it out Prometheus, and throw in an encouraging "Yeah!! what he said!!" occasionally :)

Define your understanding of socialism, please, for this discussion.

[1OFMANY]

Define your understanding of socialism, please, for this discussion.


I would have to say my definition of socialism is when a "non-freely" elected government decides whats best "for me and my neighbor" and enacts laws accordingly, more specifically as it relates to my ability to earn and retain money and the manner in which I am allowed to use it. When laws/policies are made and enforced under the banner of " For the greater good of the people" that a reasonable, law-abiding capitalist would disagree with :)

[Colette]

I would have to say my definition of socialism is when a "non-freely" elected government decides whats best "for me and my neighbor" and enacts laws accordingly, more specifically as it relates to my ability to earn and retain money and the manner in which I am allowed to use it. When laws/policies are made and enforced under the banner of " For the greater good of the people" that a reasonable, law-abiding capitalist would disagree with :)

Interesting, because as I understand it (and I admit I was a scholar neither of political science, nor economics), socialism in its purist form is an economic system/ideology, not a governmental one. Socialism can (and often does) dictate community ownership, management and sharing of resources, and often the state itself assumes the role of community, because that is simply the easiest way of communalizing the means of production, and its management. Now my point is this: if socialism is an economic system, not a political one, as such, then why are we permitting governments to usurp its principles for their own ends?

[Lights]

I would have to say my definition of socialism is when a "non-freely" elected government decides whats best "for me and my neighbor" and enacts laws accordingly, more specifically as it relates to my ability to earn and retain money and the manner in which I am allowed to use it. When laws/policies are made and enforced under the banner of " For the greater good of the people" that a reasonable, law-abiding capitalist would disagree with :)

Weird. I live in a country where elected officials aren't so much "freely elected" but bought in by lobbyists. Here, the government enacts ineffective programs like "abstinence only education" because they deem that it is best "for everyone". This government also controls how much taxes I pay so it easily controls my ability "to earn and retain money" and it distributes those taxes where it sees fit so it kinda dictates "how I am allowed to use it." And many policies have been passed "for the greater good of the people" such as tax cuts and going to war to fight for our "security". I thought I was living in a conservative controlled constitutional republic, but its good to know that I've really been living in a socialist country. :rolleyes:

Do some reading. Socialism (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.).

[prometheus]

Lights, I think you should recuse yourself from any discussions on welfare. How can you fairly evaluate a system that you depend on continuing for your livelihood? Your opinions on this topic are the equivalent to a pig farmers opinion on the health benefits of bacon.


:P

[Dreamer]

I personally like that idea of people contributing to the welfare of the nation. In a perfect society we wouldn't need taxes, but this country isn't perfect and is filled with selfish, greedy bastards who don't give a crap about the country because they only want to maximize their profits. As such, we are a constitutional republic and can pass laws to make people contribute, and if they don't want to then they are free to go elsewhere or face the penalties. So if there was enough support for a socialized health care system, then because we are a government of the people, we would be entitled to create one and tax for it. Would you concede to the "will of the people" if it openly violated the rights of a given group ? In your constitutional republic, slavery was once permitted, racism was once omnipresent, and homosexuals were once forced into hiding. Even your army was segregated until the 1950s.

Are these things excusable due to the fact that your constitutional republic can pass laws to enable these kinds of things?

Hitler and Mussolini ,after all,both had significant popular support in their respective countries, and so did Ho chi minh.

What if,instead of talking about coercing the productive members of society into socialized healthcare, we would be talking about conscripting the members of your age group into 3 years of military service including one year tour of duty in a high-risk theather of operations(say,around Baghdad).

It is a very possible scenario in your constitutional republic,but would you consent to it?

[prometheus]

Would you concede to the "will of the people" if it openly violated the rights of a given group ? In your constitutional republic, slavery was once permitted, racism was once omnipresent, and homosexuals were once forced into hiding. Even your army was segregated until the 1950s.

Are these things excusable due to the fact that your constitutional republic can pass laws to enable these kinds of things?

Hitler and Mussolini were,after all, had significant popular support in their respective countries, and so did Ho chi minh.

What if,instead of talking about coercing the productive members of society socialized healthcare, we would be talking about conscripting the members of your age group into 3 years of military service including one year tour of duty in a high-risk theather of operations(say,around Baghdad).

It is a very possible scenario in your constitutional republic,but would you consent to it?

Excellent question, Ive brought this up with him though analogies in the past and have never received an answer. His definition of "for the greater good", and mob rule only applies to violating others rights.

[Colette]

Lights, I think you should recuse yourself from any discussions on welfare. How can you fairly evaluate a system that you depend on continuing for your livelihood? Your opinions on this topic are the equivalent to a pig farmers opinion on the health benefits of bacon.
:P

Perhaps then you should recuse yourself from discussions on the merits of taxation, on the basis that you are a partial taxpayer..

[prometheus]

Perhaps then you should recuse yourself from discussions on the merits of taxation, on the basis that you are a partial taxpayer..

Nope, I'm a good peasant and pay all the taxes that are demanded from me. I just took myself out of the position where the leeches were sucking me dry.

I actually made money off of Uncle Sugar last year, and I took it* and bought booze and ammo with it. Much better than the TENS OF THOUSANDS of dollars they extorted out of me on a yearly basis in past years.

JOHN GALT LIVES!

*To keep a few less 5.56 NATO rounds being pumped into Iraqi children, or maybe deprive a SWAT team member of body armor when the breaks down the door and shoots the dog of some guy doing nothing more than growing a plant.

Or so I tell myself. I have refused welfare, food stamps, and "free" medical care for my kids even though I'm "entitled" :yuck: to them.

Do you work for the government, or receive government handouts? Why are you fighting this fight?

MTA: I've stated very clearly why I'm fighting against taxes, and the direct actions I've taken for that fight. How about you?

[Lights]

Lights, I think you should recuse yourself from any discussions on welfare. How can you fairly evaluate a system that you depend on continuing for your livelihood? Your opinions on this topic are the equivalent to a pig farmers opinion on the health benefits of bacon.


:P

Prometheus, I think you should rescue yourself from any discussions on welfare. How can you fairly evaluate a system that you know nothing about and is opposed to your ideology? Your opinions on this topic are the equivalent to a pig farmer's opinion on the health benefits of tofu.

:p

Would you concede to the "will of the people" if it openly violated the rights of a given group ? In your constitutional republic, slavery was once permitted, racism was once omnipresent, and homosexuals were once forced into hiding. Even your army was segregated until the 1950s.

Are these things excusable due to the fact that your constitutional republic can pass laws to enable these kinds of things?

Hitler and Mussolini ,after all,both had significant popular support in their respective countries, and so did Ho chi minh.

What if,instead of talking about coercing the productive members of society into socialized healthcare, we would be talking about conscripting the members of your age group into 3 years of military service including one year tour of duty in a high-risk theather of operations(say,around Baghdad).

It is a very possible scenario in your constitutional republic,but would you consent to it?

I'll give you the same answer I've given prometheus repeatedly. If I am completely opposed to the laws of the country then I will work to have them changed or I will leave. It's as simple as that. Nobody is making me stay here and I'm not making anyone else stay here. So there really isn't much coercion going on anywhere but in the minds of ideologically driven anarchists. This country is also not perfect, and it never will be, but we do make progress. It's certainly better than living under the rule of some war lord, gangster, corporation, etc. like we would if we were in a "free" society.

[1OFMANY]

Do some reading. Socialism.

No one asked where you "live" first of all. The question was what do I think of socialism. Not YOUR opinion. MINE, as crazy as it is, someone asked for MY opinion. Does it make it wrong/right? You can see where I am going can't you :)

Thanks for the silent apology.

[AgentofGaming]

Excellent question, Ive brought this up with him though analogies in the past and have never received an answer. His definition of "for the greater good", and mob rule only applies to violating others rights.

Satisfying the mob is good, because it usually means the mob won't kill you and instead should disperse back into their homes. An angry minority can be taken care of easily (if you're a military dictator).

[Lights]

Satisfying the mob is good, because it usually means the mob won't kill you and instead should disperse back into their homes. An angry minority can be taken care of easily (if you're a military dictator).

:laugh: I keep finding it hilarious that the example of the "Wild West" keeps being brought up. I guess some people have never heard of posses and lynch mobs which ruled during that time period. I personally prefer the controlled, civilized mob to the one running around with a rope, but to each his own.

[prometheus]

:laugh: I keep finding it hilarious that the example of the "Wild West" keeps being brought up. I guess some people have never heard of posses and lynch mobs which ruled during that time period. I personally prefer the controlled, civilized mob to the one running around with a rope, but to each his own.

The lynch mob had to answer to, and was composed of the members of the community. Today's DHS ATFE, Immigration, NSA, CIA, FBI, etc. etc. SWAT teams operate under the color of the law, and are never questioned or held accountable for their mistakes. Have you noticed how many "Oops, wrong door" No Knock Warrants, have happened this year? Or what about FBI sniper/murderer Lon Horiuchi, did you know he got a raise after killing that woman, her son, and her baby? Or what about all the mass murderers who killed all the children in Waco? Do you honestly think 1) a lynch mob would have been assembled to kill Randy Weavers wife and son and infant? 2) If they had killed them would have been rewarded by the community?

Also the Blazing Saddles stereotype of frequent lynch mobs isn't correct. It was a drastic action.

[Lights]

Do you honestly think 1) a lynch mob would have been assembled to kill Randy Weavers wife and son and infant? 2) If they had killed them would have been rewarded by the community?

It depends. I mean only 40 years ago, they would only have needed to have been black and living in the south. In that scenario, they would have had a party afterward for "puttin dem der ni**ers in der place". Ah, the deep south. The epitome of a redneck, libertarian society. :laugh:

[prometheus]

It depends. I mean only 40 years ago, they would only have needed to have been black and living in the south. In that scenario, they would have had a party afterward for "puttin dem der ni**ers in der place". Ah, the deep south. The epitome of a redneck, libertarian society. :laugh:

Jesus, where did you go to school, or did you? Members of the Klan, or other racists groups, are generally religious zealots, and they want a theocracy, which is a form of totalitarian government, they are 180 degrees away from libertarians, much closer to your commy authoritarian beliefs. The fact you are a government employee, and have never had to intellectually compete in the free market is starting to show though.

MTA:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

The bottom (part closest to the floor) of the map is the south, the west is the part to the left (the hand that makes a L with your index finger and thumb).

:laugh:

[Lights]

Jesus, where did you go to school, or did you? Members of the Klan, or other racists groups, are generally religious zealots, and they want a theocracy, which is a form of totalitarian government, they are 180 degrees away from libertarians, much closer to your commy authoritarian beliefs. The fact you are a government employee, and have never had to intellectually compete in the free market is starting to show though.

MTA:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

The bottom (part closest to the floor) of the map is the south, the west is the part to the left (the hand that makes a L with your index finger and thumb).

:laugh:

I think you are getting National Socialists mixed up with the Klan. The Klan's political agendas were often very mixed and they never really had a unifying political ideology. They were simply a hate group, and you could join whether you were democrat, republican, or libertarian. The only criteria was that you were white and hated blacks, jews, gays, communists, and natives.

[prometheus]

I think you are getting National Socialists mixed up with the Klan. The Klan's political agendas were often very mixed and they never really had a unifying political ideology. They were simply a hate group, and you could join whether you were democrat, republican, or libertarian. The only criteria was that you were white and hated blacks, jews, gays, communists, and natives.

A secret, ritualistic, vigilante organization founded in 1865 in Pulaski, Tennessee, the Ku Klux Klan has had a continuing impact on . . . American history. Although its agenda and methods of operation have changed over the years, the robed and hooded members of the "Invisible Empire of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan" have consistently advocated white supremacy, Protestantism, and an ill-defined ideology of "100 Percent Americanism." Despite attempts to establish a national organization and program, the KKK and its various splinter groups have always been diverse entities responding primarily to local community issues.
(Larry R. Gerlach, KU KLUX KLAN)

MTA: I would guess they were also huge fans of your "America Love it, or Leave it" philosophy............hell they would even help you pack, provided you showed up with your own rope. :p

[Lights]

A secret, ritualistic, vigilante organization founded in 1865 in Pulaski, Tennessee, the Ku Klux Klan has had a continuing impact on . . . American history. Although its agenda and methods of operation have changed over the years, the robed and hooded members of the "Invisible Empire of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan" have consistently advocated white supremacy, Protestantism, and an ill-defined ideology of "100 Percent Americanism." Despite attempts to establish a national organization and program, the KKK and its various splinter groups have always been diverse entities responding primarily to local community issues.
(Larry R. Gerlach, KU KLUX KLAN)

MTA: I would guess they were also huge fans of your "America Love it, or Leave it" philosophy............hell they would even help you pack, provided you showed up with your own rope. :p

Yeah, and your argument that Protestantism = a desire for a theocracy is where?

[prometheus]

Yeah, and your argument that Protestantism = a desire for a theocracy is where?


There are some pretty good links here: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

More list here: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Lights]

I think you are making a bit of a leap there. Klan = Protestantism = theocracy isn't exactly true or a logical conclusion.

[AgentofGaming]

Is this supposed to be between the political left and political right?
or between Libertarianism and Statists?

Democracies can be politically left (like Sweden) and are considered social democracies not communist.

[prometheus]

I think you are making a bit of a leap there. Klan = Protestantism = theocracy isn't exactly true or a logical conclusion.

The clan is composed of mostly protestants, (obviously radical), those protestants want a theocracy. Not too far of a stretch, I never said all protestants wanted a theocracy. Though looking at the links I posted, there certainly are a quite a few. No, I'm not saying all are in the Klan either.





prometheus added to this post, 8 minutes and 25 seconds later...

There are some pretty good links here: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

More list here: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I just realized how funny this is, I'm pointing out the agenda of America's Conservative Christians, and you are de facto defending them. :laugh::laugh:

[Lights]

I just realized how funny this is, I'm pointing out the agenda of America's Conservative Christians, and you are de facto defending them. :laugh::laugh:

Well I have a little experience when it comes to dealing with illusionary agendas. ;)

[Colette]

I actually made money off of Uncle Sugar last year, and I took it* and bought booze and ammo with it

Oh, nice to see you decided to put the $$$ to good use then :rolleyes:

Or so I tell myself. I have refused welfare, food stamps, and "free" medical care for my kids even though I'm "entitled" :yuck: to them

Oh, so you're refusing to be a genuine and legitimate user of the welfare system (and you're doing it on behalf of your kids, who may actually benefit from it), out of a sense of righteous injustice? Makes perfect sense..

Do you work for the government, or receive government handouts? Why are you fighting this fight?


I'm not fighting any fight - I'm just calling you out on some of the more ridiculous and myopic aspects of your argument. For myself, I have no interest in living in a barbaric society where the strong eat the weak; and the weak either and die. It seems to me that we in Western civilizations moved away from that kind of paradigm some 6000 years or more ago; and I'm not entirely sure why anyone would be seriously advocating going back to anything remotely resembling it.

No need for a reply please...I have no real desire to continue what I consider to be an unstimulating and ultimately fruitless discussion. Cheers.

[prometheus]

For myself, I have no interest in living in a barbaric society where the strong eat the weak; and the weak either and die.

But you don't see that is EXACTLY what we have with this current system of democratic MOB RULE. The facet you are having a problem wrapping your mind around is; the weak (demographically) in this case are the industrialists, small businessmen, and producers. They have been milked, leeched, and drained to the point they are an endangered species. The failing economy is a symptom of this.

Also, my kids don't want for anything, especially medically. Not only am I a trained paramedic but, I'm the frugal squirrel type and have put up enough to take care of them. We didn't need the new Hummer, big screen, second home, designer clothes, etc. and sure as shit didn't go into debt like most of america to get them.

You never did answer my question. Do you have a government job, or receive government handouts?

Hey, don't worry you need not reply to this either. I can guess the answer to my question by the avoidance in the last post.

[Colette]

The facet you are having a problem wrapping your mind around is; the weak (demographically) in this case are the industrialists, small businessmen, and producers. They have been milked, leeched, and drained to the point they are an endangered species. The failing economy is a symptom of this

Oh I'm noy having a problem wrapping my mind around anything - I've read enough Pol Sci and Political History texts and current analysis to give me something slightly more than the kind of Weeties-box, ersatz grasp of the topic you appear to be humiliating yourself on these forums with. And if indeed you are in small business, or whatever, and being overtaxed, and you feel 'oppressed' and 'downtrodden', for God's sake learn how to play the system to your advantage, instead of getting on here and advocating some kind of 'free for all' lolly scramble where the strongest kid on the block runs away with the bootie. Get yourself a good tax accountant, for starters, and go from there.

You never did answer my question. Do you have a government job, or receive government handouts?

Hey, don't worry you need not reply to this either. I can guess the answer to my question by the avoidance in the last post.

I'm not answering partly because it's none of your business, and partly because it's entirely irrelevant to the views I argue and post on here. Because I may happen to challenge atheistic arguments in a religion thread, does not make me a modern-day reincarnation of Moses or Elijah..

[prometheus]

Oh I'm noy having a problem wrapping my mind around anything - I've read enough Pol Sci and Political History texts and current analysis to give me something slightly more than the kind of Weeties-box, ersatz grasp of the topic you appear to be humiliating yourself on these forums with. And if indeed you are in small business, or whatever, and being overtaxed, and you feel 'oppressed' and 'downtrodden', for God's sake learn how to play the system to your advantage, instead of getting on here and advocating some kind of 'free for all' lolly scramble where the strongest kid on the block runs away with the bootie. Get yourself a good tax accountant, for starters, and go from there.

As Lights learned early on sparing with me, learn the history of your opponent.

I quit producing. I was a businessman but not anymore. There is no reason to work as hard as a person needs to to make a business work. I joined the Prols, just another lowly, part time, train wiper, working for wages. During your vast amounts of reading, did you ever read Atlas Shrugged? I'll just go ahead and guess not, if you had you might have a clue. However, you may still call me John Galt.

WTF kind of system is it when the proponents are suggesting "play the system" why support a system that requires cheating. I'm an honest man, I don't play games, I say what I mean, and mean what I say. That makes me a rare man today, I know, but at least I still have my sacred honor.



I'm not answering partly because it's none of your business, and partly because it's entirely irrelevant to the views I argue and post on here.

But, you have answered it, only a blind man could not see it.

[Colette]

As Lights learned early on sparing with me, learn the history of your opponent.


Heh...I don't regard you as a worthy opponent, so I'm now gonna do what I should have done a couple of days ago.

Sayonara, and good luck with your plans to save the world from the iniquities of the corporate Goliath..
:wacko:

[prometheus]

Heh...I don't regard you as a worthy opponent, so I'm now gonna do what I should have done a couple of days ago.

Sayonara, and good luck with your plans to save the world from the iniquities of the corporate Goliath..
:wacko:

Good bye, I do hope you read Atlas Shrugged and get a new perspective on producers and moochers.

As for "saving the world from the iniquities of the corporate Goliath" The only sins I see corporations committing is in your own words "playing the system" by using lobbyists to buy government protection and favors. Perhaps you meant to use the word Leviathan in place of corporations?

[xhaan]

Good bye, I do hope you read Atlas Shrugged and get a new perspective on producers and moochers.

As for "saving the world from the iniquities of the corporate Goliath" The only sins I see corporations committing is in your own words "playing the system" by using lobbyists to buy government protection and favors. Perhaps you meant to use the word Leviathan in place of corporations?

How about forcing people to work for ridiculous wages, at gunpoint... the gunpoint of potential homelessness and starvation.

[prometheus]

How about forcing people to work for ridiculous wages, at gunpoint... the gunpoint of potential homelessness and starvation.

OK, unlike the inevitable visit from the SWAT team for not paying your taxes, if someone chooses not to work, there are no laws to keep them from starving to death. As much as I hate to sound anything like Lights, if the economic situation there is so bad (most likely because of business closures caused by excessive taxes ;) ) you could move to a more prosperous area in the nation, (where the government hasn't milked the producers dry ;) )

[xhaan]

OK, unlike the inevitable visit from the SWAT team for not paying your taxes, if someone chooses not to work, there are no laws to keep them from starving to death. As much as I hate to sound anything like Lights, if the economic situation there is so bad (most likely because of business closures caused by excessive taxes ;) ) you could move to a more prosperous area in the nation, (where the government hasn't milked the producers dry ;) )

It's not from taxes here, it's from lack of local jobs, therefore a lot of people are broke, so they do less business, which means companies have less production and income, and therefore lay off more jobs... it's a vicious cycle. Even Comerica left Michigan for somewhere else, and they are huge, and not really bothered by taxes. They sponsored the new stadium for the Detroit Tigers, which is sadly called 'Comerica Park'... yet Comerica is no longer here.

Edit:
And also, moving is hard, if you are broke, because just about everywhere you could go in the country is owned by somebody, so unless you plan to live in a tent between the highways on an interstate, under a bridge, or maybe the Amish will let you in, you can be screwed. Catch 22, it takes money to make money, it's hard to get a job ESPECIALLY when you're considered a 'bum'. And if it were so easy to start from nothing, like Colnel Sanders supposedly selling chicken out of the back of his station wagon, everybody would do it. I see people try this all the time, you can see them in parking lots trying to sell stuff out of the back of a van, or picking up thrown away metals for recycling, or going around with a busted down lawn mower, begging to cut peoples grass. Nobody wants them, even though they are trying to make an honest living, except maybe other poor people. Many would rather pay for 'professionals' to do stuff.

Also, a lot of people don't even know what poor is. I consider myself lucky because I get 8 grand a year, roughly, and I've been working on using it to improve myself and hopefully gain independence again one day. I can at least afford a place to live, and heat, electric and food. A lot of people can't even afford that, and if they have to depend on second hand stuff (which usually is given away because people don't want it) like old clothes, they have nothing to start with because most places I have seen don't hire 'bums'... you need to be able to afford clothes, be able to afford to wash them, and yourself, and have a place to do it. Also a lot of places require some form of reliable transportation, and a drivers license, which requires money. Not everybody can work as a bum janitor like you see in the movies... there simply isn't enough of that type of job, believe it or not.

[prometheus]

It's not from taxes here, it's from lack of local jobs, therefore a lot of people are broke, so they do less business, which means companies have less production and income, and therefore lay off more jobs... it's a vicious cycle. Even Comerica left Michigan for somewhere else, and they are huge, and not really bothered by taxes. They sponsored the new stadium for the Detroit Tigers, which is sadly called 'Comerica Park'... yet Comerica is no longer here.

Edit:
And also, moving is hard, if you are broke, because just about everywhere you could go in the country is owned by somebody, so unless you plan to live in a tent between the highways on an interstate, under a bridge, or maybe the Amish will let you in, you can be screwed. Catch 22, it takes money to make money, it's hard to get a job ESPECIALLY when you're considered a 'bum'. And if it were so easy to start from nothing, like Colnel Sanders supposedly selling chicken out of the back of his station wagon, everybody would do it. I see people try this all the time, you can see them in parking lots trying to sell stuff out of the back of a van, or picking up thrown away metals for recycling, or going around with a busted down lawn mower, begging to cut peoples grass. Nobody wants them, even though they are trying to make an honest living, except maybe other poor people. Many would rather pay for 'professionals' to do stuff.

So these businesses left just because? Detroit is a perfect example. Those products of the industrial jobs weren't for local consumption, but for the global market. The companies couldn't be competitive, under our ubertaxed system. Hell, I've heard the was even a CITY income tax there. :suspicious:

So the companies either a) went broke through making products that couldn't compete in a free market, or b) moved to an economically freer nation to produce their goods.

As for moving when broke, what happened to the emergency savings everyone should have. I keep mine in precious metals, and have actually seen a 100% profit in the last five years.

[Lights]

b) moved to an economically freer nation to produce their goods.

Like China! :laugh:

[AgentofGaming]

Businesses don't move because of taxes alone. It's more likely businesses move because people in another place can do work cheaper than the local workers.
Some Businesses don't care about the employees or giving back to the community; they'd pay their employees lower than the minimum wage if they could; they'd replace them with robots if it was cheaper. As well prosperous companies can't be milked dry, it's not like they are getting taxed 95% like feudal peasants under a baron. If they don't like taxes they goto places with less taxes to keep expenses down, they don't necessarily get dry.

As for getting employed the it is competitive, it is often the case someone is willing to work for cheaper than you as above. In minimum wage environments with no qualification requirements (and an uneducated demographic) the competition can be intense. Also consider some people even with qualifications can't find jobs in their field end up at the bottom.
With so much choice why would an employer choose a poor person who brings a risk of stealing when a middle class kid is willing to work for that minimum wage or that PhD from India who can't find a job?
The poorest often end up as the expendable class of the economy. Meanwhile only the rich profit off market prosperity, if a business owner makes a lot of profit he's not obligated to trickle it down; as for the employees its the same as always good market or bad just less risk of being laid off.





AgentofGaming added to this post, 2 minutes and 17 seconds later...

Like China! :laugh:

Aside from the fact that China is communist :thumbsup:
China also imposes tariff on foreign goods.

I'd recommend Hong Kong, Singapore, or Korea possibly Japan.
If you want less restriction but the same cheap labour consider India.

[xhaan]

Businesses don't move because of taxes alone. It's more likely businesses move because people in another place can do work cheaper than does locally.

You nailed it. We were hurting before Comerica moved, and now it's even worse. They are (were) a local bank that started IN Detroit, many years ago, and are one of the largest banks in the country, though they have merged with another, even bigger (I think) bank. There are still Comerica branches here, but they moved their headquarters, which not only deflated the economy even further, but took yet more jobs along with it.

Comerica Incorporated NYSE: CMA is a financial services company headquartered in Dallas, Texas.

The bank was founded in Detroit in 1849 as the Detroit Savings Fund Institute, by Elon Farnsworth. The company's name changed to The Detroit Savings Bank in 1881 and to simply the Detroit Bank in 1933, being one of the few area banks to survive the Great Depression. In 1953, it merged with Birmingham National Bank, Ferndale National Bank, and Detroit Wabeek Bank and Trust Company to form The Detroit Bank & Trust Company. This remained the name of the bank until 1982 when the current name was adopted. In 1992, Comerica merged with Manufacturers National Corporation.

Does that sound like a company that just caves in to taxes?

[Sylvanus]

Businesses don't move because of taxes alone. It's more likely businesses move because people in another place can do work cheaper than the local workers.
Some Businesses don't care about the employees or giving back to the community; they'd pay their employees lower than the minimum wage if they could; they'd replace them with robots if it was cheaper. As well prosperous companies can't be milked dry, it's not like they are getting taxed 95% like feudal peasants under a baron. If they don't like taxes they goto places with less taxes to keep expenses down, they don't necessarily get dry.

As for getting employed the it is competitive, it is often the case someone is willing to work for cheaper than you as above. In minimum wage environments with no qualification requirements (and an uneducated demographic) the competition can be intense. Also consider some people even with qualifications can't find jobs in their field end up at the bottom.
With so much choice why would an employer choose a poor person who brings a risk of stealing when a middle class kid is willing to work for that minimum wage or that PhD from India who can't find a job?
The poorest often end up as the expendable class of the economy. Meanwhile only the rich profit off market prosperity, if a business owner makes a lot of profit he's not obligated to trickle it down; as for the employees its the same as always good market or bad just less risk of being laid off.




The purpose of business is not to provide you with a job. The purpose of business is to either produce a product or to provide a service and to maximize its profits. If a company can find someone cheaper to work without sacrificing quality, you better start looking for a job before they replace you. Increased profits turn into increased dividends for stock-holders, which turn into more money returned to the investment market which means more job opportunities which means there is a net gain in the job market. And not only the rich owners benefit from increased profits, as you seem to think. As the cost to produce something goes down, the cost to sell it goes down too. Everybody wins.

How is it that competition is intense in minimum wage jobs? I always see 'Help Wanted' signs at the gas stations and fast food joints. Maybe it's a regional thing. I know the nationwide average is less than 5% unemployment, here in Oregon it's 5.6%.

[thod]

How is it that competition is intense in minimum wage jobs? I always see 'Help Wanted' signs at the gas stations and fast food joints.

Which means they are not paying sufficient wages. The people are able to find more profitable employment elsewhere.

Logical move, raise wages and product prices. This may mean less product is sold, if the drop in sales is high enough they will go out of business.

You often see businesses complaining they cant find staff. Yet staff are easy to come by if you pay enough. Staff wages go up until the product cost stops it being bought. A new equlibrium is found with fewer suppliers and more staff entering the field.

Businesses like flexible staff, they want to hire them in a boom and lay them off in recession. But the transient staff cant be put into suspended animation. They need welfare checks during the recessions. This gets government involved and necessitates taxes to pay for that welfare. The more flexible your working numbers, the higher your taxes will be. As a whole the businesses will pay for those welfare checks. From a systemic view it makes sense to only have very limited flexibility of the worker pool.

Rather than keep them idle on welfare, you can keep them doing menial tasks on minimum wages. You at least get some production out of them. During a boom they will move to higher paying work leaving the minimum wage jobs. Those buisiness that depend on minimum wage labor will cry. They were never viable business in the first place. They are the business equivalent of casual labor. They can exist in recession where labor is plentiful but not in boom, exactly the opposite of the casual workers cycle.

Such a low wage business can only stay in business by contracting with its staff. It will pay them higher than they can get elsewhere during in recession. In return they will not leave it when they can obtain higher wages during the boom. The problem is people are tempted to leave and the business has no legal means to hold them. It also means it supplies expensive product during recession leading to less sales and makes fat profits during boom, totaly screwing its cash flow.

[1OFMANY]

Colonel Sanders also solicited 1009 restaraunts UNSUCCESSFULLY before the 1010th person said yes. It's called really really hard work for something you really want.

[AgentofGaming]

The purpose of business is not to provide you with a job. The purpose of business is to either produce a product or to provide a service and to maximize its profits. If a company can find someone cheaper to work without sacrificing quality, you better start looking for a job before they replace you. Increased profits turn into increased dividends for stock-holders, which turn into more money returned to the investment market which means more job opportunities which means there is a net gain in the job market. And not only the rich owners benefit from increased profits, as you seem to think. As the cost to produce something goes down, the cost to sell it goes down too. Everybody wins.

That's what I was talking about, you just defined it from the business's view.
A company can't live without money neither can people (so they need jobs). A company doesn't need employees.
The goal of a business is not to provide people with jobs so how can the jobs of the people be protected and hence their livelihood?
If a business makes a profit it doesn't necessarily mean it expands and hires more people, they could just pocket the money and sell it off. Or some corporate scandal can siphon off the money into something like Conrad Black's estate or banks in Switzerland.
Huge profits going into the pockets of a few is not a "everyone wins" situation. Cost to produce goes down and the cost to sell goes down that's good (to the company that is), but the price doesn't have to go down with it. Why hurt profit margin? Why not be on good terms with the competitor? Especially when a couple companies control the market they're not especially anxious to start price wars on each other. They'd rather gauge the customers equally.
Also if you look at the statistics and things like income disparity, you'll see the poor have little to gain from prosperity. Economic prosperity widens the income disparity. Look in a newspaper it's there and it happens in almost every place, look at Nigeria, they have oil, but the people are poor.
So you should say Win-Stay situation, not win-win.

The goal of business is profit, the goal of the government is people. Investors (money) controls businesses, democracy controls the government (in some sense).

[xhaan]

The goal of business is profit, the goal of the government is people. Investors (money) controls businesses, democracy controls the government (in some sense).

For profit, you need people. Even if you use all machines, someone needs to make those machines. You can't separate the two, a business which pisses off its employees, is a business shooting itself in the foot.

[Lucid]

Don't you mean "pinko"? :)

Honestly, the idea behind any socialist system is that you pay into it and you benefit from it. If it's combined with voting (and it usually is) then people have a say about how their money or efforts are spent and what happens in government.
You seem to think that people will automatically volunteer their time or money to help others who need whatever you want to plug into this equation (health care, welfare, food banks, housing, etc.), and while I admire your optimism, I just don't think that's going to happen.
If it were as simple as that, why isn't this happening already?

When I was in high school I was a social darwinist. I came from an upper middle class family of affluence and privilege and I thought that the reason some people were poor or without insurance or homeless or hungry or whatever, was because they didn't try hard enough or they were stupid or lazy. I also thought, like you do now, that enough other people would freely and willingly volunteer their time and money to help those less fortunate and that would be enough.
And holy fuck was I wrong.
Now I'm sure all the die hard anti-socialist anything people will pipe up with their hard-knock stories, and that's fine. If you've had a rough shake of it and you're still against socialist anything then I admire your convictions and your willingness to suffer (or to have suffered) for your beliefs.
But what I found as I got older and had some actual experience in the real world (and I've had plenty of the kind of experiences that put me in close contact with the poor, the mentally ill, the physically ill, the homeless, the uneducated, etc.) was that most of those people weren't lazy or stupid. They worked their asses off. Or they weren't able to work at all and were suffering because the didn't have the physical or mental ability to take care of themselves through no fault of their own.
And that almost everyone else was either convinced that the afore mentioned groups of people were just lazy, or was working really hard to make ends meet themselves and had neither the time nor the money to donate. Or they just didn't care.

Basically, the difference between socialist programs and people donating time and money on their own, like you suggest, is that it's a larger system for people to donate time and money to and more people will do it and more people will benefit from it. The fact that it's done by the government may make you squeamish, but I think that our society will be better off in the long run. Countries which have more socialist programs enjoy a higher standard of living for everyone.

[Sylvanus]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

...
In the past, Edwards has claimed that poverty in America is a “plague” which forces 37 million Americans to live in “terrible” circumstances. According to Edwards, an amazing “one in eight” Americans lack “enough money for the food, shelter, and clothing they need,” caught in a daily “struggle with incredible poverty.”

However, examination of the living standards of the 37 million or so persons, the government defines as “poor,” reveals that America’s poverty “plague” may not be as “terrible” or “incredible” as anti-poverty crusader Edwards contends.

If being “poor” means (as Edwards claims it does) a lack of nutritious food, adequate warm housing, and clothing for a family, then very few of America’s 37 million official “poor” people can be regarded as actually poor. Some material hardship does exist in the United States, but, in reality, it is quite restricted in scope and severity.

The following are facts about persons defined as “poor” by the Census Bureau, taken from a variety of government reports:

46 percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.

80 percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, in 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.

Only six percent of poor households are overcrowded; two thirds have more than two rooms per person.

The typical poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)

Nearly three quarters of poor households own a car; 31 percent own two or more cars.

97 percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.

78 percent have a VCR or DVD player.

62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.

89 percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a more than a third have an automatic dishwasher.

As a group, America’s poor are far from being chronically undernourished. The average consumption of protein, vitamins, and minerals is virtually the same for poor and middle-class children and, in most cases, is well above recommended norms. Poor children actually consume more meat than do higher-income children and have average protein intakes 100-percent above recommended levels. Most poor children today are, in fact, super-nourished and grow up to be, on average, one inch taller and ten pounds heavier than the GIs who stormed the beaches of Normandy in World War II.
...
Much official poverty that does exist in the United States can be reduced, particularly among children. There are two main reasons that American children are poor: Their parents don’t work much, and their fathers are absent from the home.

In both good and bad economic environments, the typical American poor family with children is supported by only 800 hours of work during a year — the equivalent of 16 hours of work per week. If work in each family were raised to 2,000 hours per year — the equivalent of one adult working 40 hours per week throughout the year — nearly 75 percent of poor children would be lifted out of official poverty.

As noted above, father absence is another major cause of child poverty. Nearly two thirds of poor children reside in single-parent homes; each year, an additional 1.5 million children are born out of wedlock. If poor mothers married the fathers of their children, nearly three quarters of the nation’s impoverished youth would immediately be lifted out of poverty.

Yet, although work and marriage are reliable ladders out of poverty, the welfare system perversely remains hostile to both. Major programs such as food stamps, public housing, and Medicaid continue to reward idleness and penalize marriage. If welfare could be turned around to encourage work and marriage, the nation’s remaining poverty could be reduced.
...

[xhaan]

Yet, although work and marriage are reliable ladders out of poverty, the welfare system perversely remains hostile to both. Major programs such as food stamps, public housing, and Medicaid continue to reward idleness and penalize marriage. If welfare could be turned around to encourage work and marriage, the nation’s remaining poverty could be reduced.


This is true, to extents. The system probably could use a change.
It can be incredibly difficult to get these things for some people, they certainly aren't handing out checks to just anyone, in spite of what some people seem to claim, people do end up defrauding the system though. However there are also people who die of starvation or exposure, from no fault of their own. I highly doubt people starve or freeze to death because they are lazy, and the fact that this happens is often ignored.

[Sylvanus]

This is true, to extents. The system probably could use a change.
It can be incredibly difficult to get these things for some people, they certainly aren't handing out checks to just anyone, in spite of what some people seem to claim, people do end up defrauding the system though. However there are also people who die of starvation or exposure, from no fault of their own. I highly doubt people starve or freeze to death because they are lazy, and the fact that this happens is often ignored.

I have a book by Rabbi Daniel Lapin, kind of an economic self improvement book on a pretty high level. Unfortunately I don't have it on me, it's at home, so I'll summarize as best I can.

He cites a true story (of course this seems to happen every year) of some northern midwest city, that got hit by a cold-snap and dozens of poor elderly died due to lack of heat. He says that the common factor between all of them isn't that they were poor or old, it was that they were alone. Not just alone as in nobody to spend time with them, but absolutely alone as in no friends, family or religious organization to check on them and make sure they are alright.

I can't think of any way that any government program can prevent this from happening (apart from making it mandatory to move to a retirement community in Florida). It relies on the community, of neighbours being neighbors because it's the right thing to do. I'm kind of a recluse, I try to avoid my neighbors most of the time, but I keep in contact with them enough to make sure they're ok.

[xhaan]

I have a book by Rabbi Daniel Lapin, kind of an economic self improvement book on a pretty high level. Unfortunately I don't have it on me, it's at home, so I'll summarize as best I can.

He cites a true story (of course this seems to happen every year) of some northern midwest city, that got hit by a cold-snap and dozens of poor elderly died due to lack of heat. He says that the common factor between all of them isn't that they were poor or old, it was that they were alone. Not just alone as in nobody to spend time with them, but absolutely alone as in no friends, family or religious organization to check on them and make sure they are alright.

I can't think of any way that any government program can prevent this from happening (apart from making it mandatory to move to a retirement community in Florida). It relies on the community, of neighbours being neighbors because it's the right thing to do. I'm kind of a recluse, I try to avoid my neighbors most of the time, but I keep in contact with them enough to make sure they're ok.

There is a 'program', it's called assisted living...
People go to disabled or elderly peoples homes to help them with things, check on their well being, or just to keep them from getting lonely if they aren't able to leave the home... why this isn't done more often, I have no idea, it isn't like it costs a lot to go to a house for an hour or two, just to see what they need.

Also, retirement homes aren't great, unless they're really expensive ones. Also, we want people to be as independent as they can, of course some people can't be independent, but many could be in the right situation or with the right assistance.





xhaan added to this post, 14 minutes and 11 seconds later...

Colonel Sanders also solicited 1009 restaraunts UNSUCCESSFULLY before the 1010th person said yes. It's called really really hard work for something you really want.

Do you think the 1010th would have accepted if he looked like a bum?

I see people who work their ASSES OFF, I've seen people trying to get into this industry specifically, I've bought food from these people myself. There was this old lady in Detroit who would barbecue heaps of chicken and ribs, and whoever came by could eat, I forget how much she charged normally... but she had been at it for decades, on the same broken down grill, and people loved the food and some asked why she didn't start a restaurant... it was apparently because nobody was interested in it. She could make enough food and sell it to survive, but not enough to buy a restaurant... and investors weren't interested apparently.

[1OFMANY]

There was this old lady in Detroit who would barbecue heaps of chicken and ribs, and whoever came by could eat, I forget how much she charged normally... but she had been at it for decades, on the same broken down grill, and people loved the food and some asked why she didn't start a restaurant... it was apparently because nobody was interested in it. She could make enough food and sell it to survive, but not enough to buy a restaurant... and investors weren't interested apparently.

I bet you could have pulled it off :P

[Merle]

I'd just like to point out that the top two countries in the world for quality of life and human development are Norway and Sweden- both countries with strong histories of social democracy and some of the most highly developed welfare systems in the world.

I find it kind of funny reading Americans writing about the terrible drain of socialist economics on their country... in my opinion America is about as far from socialist as you can get.

[1OFMANY]

The US has many unique features and circumstances that preclude it from being compared to other nations.

For one, the US gives out in foreign aid more than Norway and Sweden + 20 other nations combined( pick your country of choice).

I guess if we stopped handing out to other nations in an effort to exert our influence and started handing INWARD we could pull off something like socialized medicine.

Who knows, no one will ever know for sure ! :P

[Merle]

But as a percentage of GDP they do not give as much.

[prometheus]

I'd just like to point out that the top two countries in the world for quality of life and human development are Norway and Sweden- both countries with strong histories of social democracy and some of the most highly developed welfare systems in the world.

I find it kind of funny reading Americans writing about the terrible drain of socialist economics on their country... in my opinion America is about as far from socialist as you can get.


What is your tax burden? Last I heard 50% and rising. You do raise a good point I've been meaning to research, those countries are anomalies EVERY OTHER country with that much socialism has come crashing down. I've got a feeling it's staying afloat by the vast amounts of natural resources, not production. What do these countries export? Like I said I need to research it.





prometheus added to this post, 7 minutes and 59 seconds later...

Norway:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[thod]

Tax burden doesnt matter that much its what you get for it. Like a sailor has everything provided for him and thus his pay is simply spending money.

You have to add in things like the amount going into your pension fund and the amount you spend on health insurance to come up with residual income. Then there is more intangible stuff like public transport systems built from tax money that add to quality of life.

The problem is you can force down wages to survival levels. You only have to pay someone what they need to survive now. That is exactly what happens in the US. Millions have no cover at all because they cant afford it. If you took that cash out of their pay packets at source they would demand pay rises to live as before. The capitalists dont want to pay a living wage.

You dont even have to do it with taxation. You just make it compulsary to have medical and pension policies set up like you must car insurance. You get exactly the same effect but you can then spend the cash where you please provided they meet minimum requrirements (no $1 a year policies). The problem comes from the non working or the casual worker who cannot always find work. You can sell a car if you cant afford it but you cant do that with your body. So something would have to be done to ensure they stay in the system.

---

Norway is rich yea. They make lots from their oil. But then from a European perspective so is the US. Its underpopulated compared to Europe, it has vast forests and mineral reserves. The romans mined out places near me there is nothing left down there to extract. Europe imports almost all its energy.

[1OFMANY]

Norway is rich yea. They make lots from their oil. But then from a European perspective so is the US. Its underpopulated compared to Europe, it has vast forests and mineral reserves. The romans mined out places near me there is nothing left down there to extract. Europe imports almost all its energy.

For one, thats not our problem ( sort of )

Two, someones "perspective" doesnt change the validity of a stand point.

[mettlemunky]

for the purposes of this argument i'm assuming you don't want to disable all public services. if you do, then you have a narrow-minded and naive perspective on the world and will not be worth any of my time in future. i am instead assuming you want to disable services for the needy - ie you do not want to be responsible for supporting those who do little/nothing to support you or anybody. this is my argument.

social welfare programmes create social stability. it benefits all. underclasses are a hot bed for crime. and every society has an underclass (not one, ever, has avoided this). a larger underclass, or an even-more-impoverished one would increase crime. think about how increases in crime would affect your personal situation (eg less enjoyment of life due to fear of becoming a victim of crime, restricted movement in your home town due to the same) and the increase in personal expenditure (eg on security) that you would have to make in order to create a buffer between yourself and the underclass. Would you end up better off in this world? Even financially better off?

social welfare programmes are a sensible, pragmatic response to inevitable, real world societal problems.

as an INTJ you should have a better grasp of the bigger picture than appears to be the case.

[jdc127]

It would help if we were all philosophers - in the true sense of the word.

My two cents - whether you think you should help yourself or others: you probably aren't truly able to help yourself. THis is why we have laws: this is why we have social saftey nets. There are some dumb mf's out there, and they cant care for themselves.

Now do I say we should help them do whatever they want? NO NO NO. We should help them to even begin to APProach some semblance of true social opportunity. How else can they begin to care for themselves? How else can we begin to know what is right and worng or to care for ourselves? Greed, selfishness and ignorance have no place in an enlightened society. Society has no place among the individual, whether he/she is enlightened or not. Therefore, we must all be individuals in society HELPING other to have some semblance of opportunity equal to our own. HOW ELSE DO YOU THINK WE CAN HAVE A DEMOCRACY, EVER?!?!?

[1OFMANY]

for the purposes of this argument i'm assuming you don't want to disable all public services. if you do, then you have a narrow-minded and naive perspective on the world and will not be worth any of my time in future

Who?

[AgentofGaming]

social welfare programmes create social stability. it benefits all. underclasses are a hot bed for crime. and every society has an underclass (not one, ever, has avoided this). a larger underclass, or an even-more-impoverished one would increase crime. think about how increases in crime would affect your personal situation (eg less enjoyment of life due to fear of becoming a victim of crime, restricted movement in your home town due to the same) and the increase in personal expenditure (eg on security) that you would have to make in order to create a buffer between yourself and the underclass. Would you end up better off in this world? Even financially better off?

Not just crime, if the underclass is huge, they might have a revolution and just take everything you have and distribute it amongst themselves.

It's all about equal chance too. What if there was a very talented person who couldn't afford to goto school? If they have to work very long hours to support their whole family, and hence can't goto a post-secondary institution, doesn't society lose out?

I think part of living as part of and maintaining a society requires contributions frome everyone. Those that don't want to give their share of can leave, it's like pooling money to get a common room.

[prometheus]

for the purposes of this argument i'm assuming you don't want to disable all public services. if you do, then you have a narrow-minded and naive perspective on the world and will not be worth any of my time in future. i am instead assuming you want to disable services for the needy - ie you do not want to be responsible for supporting those who do little/nothing to support you or anybody. this is my argument.

social welfare programmes create social stability. it benefits all. underclasses are a hot bed for crime. and every society has an underclass (not one, ever, has avoided this). a larger underclass, or an even-more-impoverished one would increase crime. think about how increases in crime would affect your personal situation (eg less enjoyment of life due to fear of becoming a victim of crime, restricted movement in your home town due to the same) and the increase in personal expenditure (eg on security) that you would have to make in order to create a buffer between yourself and the underclass. Would you end up better off in this world? Even financially better off?

social welfare programmes are a sensible, pragmatic response to inevitable, real world societal problems.

as an INTJ you should have a better grasp of the bigger picture than appears to be the case.

You assume wrongly. I believe there isn't a single function of government that we either could do without, or that could be run much more efficiently privately. Does anyone really want an IRS style bureaucracy involved in every aspect of your life.





prometheus added to this post, 2 minutes and 18 seconds later...


I think part of living as part of and maintaining a society requires contributions frome everyone. Those that don't want to give their share of can leave, it's like pooling money to get a common room.

It's more like a gang mugging a businessman to get some crack.

[Sylvanus]

You assume wrongly. I believe there isn't a single function of government that we either could do without, or that could be run much more efficiently privately. Does anyone really want an IRS style bureaucracy involved in every aspect of your life.



I agree comletely. I used to be in the military, and the level of bureacracy was amazing. Trying to get the same thing accomplished in the private sector takes a tenth the time and a tenth of the money. I also have friends that work in various levels of civil service jobs and they complain about the same thing.

The big problem with the government trying to accomplishing something is that there is little of no accountability for resources. If your workers are slacking off, you just complain to your boss that you don't have enough people or enough money. They get you more, and they look better because now they have a larger workforce so it looks like the scope of their job has gotten bigger (read: more difficult/important), so at the end of the year they get a bigger pay raise.

Private enterprise can get the same thing done faster and cheaper and with the same quality because it is in their best interest to do so. That way they have larger profits, and can move on to the next job quicker and make more money again.

[Ytterbium]

I'd just like to point out that the top two countries in the world for quality of life and human development are Norway and Sweden- both countries with strong histories of social democracy and some of the most highly developed welfare systems in the world.

I find it kind of funny reading Americans writing about the terrible drain of socialist economics on their country... in my opinion America is about as far from socialist as you can get.Always these American whine whine the gas price went up omg fucking terrorist what ever. They know nothing.

It's strange that American companies move out because of "high" tax. When other companies manage to stay in their own countries with even higher taxes. It's just greed and unwillingness to develop.
Let these trucks speak for themselves European (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) and American (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.).

[prometheus]

Let these trucks speak for themselves European (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) and American (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.).

WFT............You been hittin' the Kaptenlöjtnant again?

[Ytterbium]

WFT............You been hittin' the Kaptenlöjtnant again?What?
Did you get the message?

[prometheus]

What?
Did you get the message?


No, but I did appreciate the girls that gave me the Swedish Massage.

[Ytterbium]

Ok so you did not get the message.

European trucks are more developed than American counterparts. European trucks with trailer can freight nearly twice as much than an American one. A European trucker does not need mansion on wheels to survive. You must admit that it's highly unefficient to have a truck which is almost larger and longer than the trailer itself.
You don't need a pickup with 5 litre V8 engine to tow your boat. It works perfectly fine with a station wagon with a 2 litre engine.
Great irony that the land of capitalism is so unefficient, retarded and set in their ways.

[thod]

So we reckon US trucks are penis substitutes for the US truckers?

agree comletely. I used to be in the military, and the level of bureacracy was amazing. Trying to get the same thing accomplished in the private sector takes a tenth the time and a tenth of the money. I also have friends that work in various levels of civil service jobs and they complain about the same thing.

The big problem with the government trying to accomplishing something is that there is little of no accountability for resources. If your workers are slacking off, you just complain to your boss that you don't have enough people or enough money. They get you more, and they look better because now they have a larger workforce so it looks like the scope of their job has gotten bigger (read: more difficult/important), so at the end of the year they get a bigger pay raise.

Private enterprise can get the same thing done faster and cheaper and with the same quality because it is in their best interest to do so. That way they have larger profits, and can move on to the next job quicker and make more money again.

Its the same everywhere not just the US.

Yet the govenment doesnt have to provide the services. It can buy from private suppliers to reduce the scope for bureacracy. For example, the government buys cars from the makers, it doesnt make them itself.

What we supply is the list of services we want government to provide. It puts them out to tender and manages the bids. It even can pick the top 10 and split the contracts to prevent reliance on any one supplier and the monopolies that would induce. If you had privatly run prisons for example and someone didnt perform, you would only allow a competitor the contract if it didnt grow too big. Otherwise it would go to a higher priced newcomer. You have to ensure there is that competition.

The main problem is that for many goods and services there is no private market, for example military equipment.

[prometheus]

Ok so you did not get the message.

European trucks are more developed than American counterparts. European trucks with trailer can freight nearly twice as much than an American one. A European trucker does not need mansion on wheels to survive. You must admit that it's highly unefficient to have a truck which is almost larger and longer than the trailer itself.
You don't need a pickup with 5 litre V8 engine to tow your boat. It works perfectly fine with a station wagon with a 2 litre engine.
Great irony that the land of capitalism is so unefficient, retarded and set in their ways.


IIRC from my physics classes way back when. Once you get into that kind of tonnage, the wind resistance is a minor factor in efficiencies, it is mostly mass, in which case the difference wouldn't be nearly as much as you are implying. Not to mention most long haul freight now days is done as doubles, and triples.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Like this one PLUS another trailer. Illegal (like most things) in California.

[Ytterbium]

It's not all about tonnage. You can move more stuff on the same truck.
Truck and trailer can be maximum 25.25 meters and weigh up to 60 metric tonnes in Sweden.
I don't know how the rules are in different US states.

[Lights]

Great irony that the land of capitalism is so unefficient, retarded and set in their ways.

Not really. Most people in the United States buy foreign cars nowadays. Honda, Toyota, Subaru, etc. They are usually safer cars, get more mileage to the gallon, and are cheaper than American. In fact, the American automotive industry is in serious trouble. While the rest of the world has been investing in clean and more efficient technologies, the American automotive industry has stuck to bigger and badder, which will ultimately spell defeat. So the capitalism here is working wonderfully. In a couple decades, they would probably all be out of business if not for government bail outs. I'll take a prometheus stand on this one and say that we should just let them go bankrupt. It will be a huge blow to the American economy since all those jobs will be lost, but if American manufacturers can't compete against foreign companies without Big Brother, then I say let them die. The same with the airlines. My point is, American consumers are smart, whereas American companies are stupid.

[pavman]

Alot of foreign cars (Toyota/Honda off the top of my head) are made in the US by US workers...where alot of US cars are made in foreign countries now (like Mexico and Canada)...

I don't agree with Merle. We may be better off than other countries, from a socialist perspective, but we still have WAY too much socialist/fascist programs and laws, not to mention general governmental problems, than is desired.

Viva la free market! Take your pinko, commie, fascist crap somewhere else!

[Ytterbium]

Not really. Most people in the United States buy foreign cars nowadays. Honda, Toyota, Subaru, etc. They are usually safer cars, get more mileage to the gallon, and are cheaper than American. In fact, the American automotive industry is in serious trouble. While the rest of the world has been investing in clean and more efficient technologies, the American automotive industry has stuck to bigger and badder, which will ultimately spell defeat. So the capitalism here is working wonderfully. In a couple decades, they would probably all be out of business if not for government bail outs. I'll take a prometheus stand on this one and say that we should just let them go bankrupt. It will be a huge blow to the American economy since all those jobs will be lost, but if American manufacturers can't compete against foreign companies without Big Brother, then I say let them die. The same with the airlines. My point is, American consumers are smart, whereas American companies are stupid.It may work fine, but it has worked even better in the foreign countries with their superior products, obviously. A Japanese car may be built in the USA. But it's still is Japanese engineering and they dictate how they run their factory. I was refering to the companies and the politics. Since I don't know what every invidual thinks. So again why are they so rigid and set in their ways?

[prometheus]

It's not all about tonnage. You can move more stuff on the same truck.
Truck and trailer can be maximum 25.25 meters and weigh up to 60 metric tonnes in Sweden.
I don't know how the rules are in different US states.

Here in MT, ND, WY, the western Canadian provinces 110feet (33.528m) 80,000 Lbs. (36.28tonnes) Most of our really heavy (such as coal, iron ore, lumber etc) freight goes by rail also.

[Ytterbium]

Here in MT, ND, WY, the western Canadian provinces 110feet (33.528m) 80,000 Lbs. (36.28tonnes) Most of our really heavy (such as coal, iron ore, lumber etc) freight goes by rail also.110 feet is it for the whole vehicle? I read somewhere that it's only the length of the trailer that counts. Hence the unnessary large trucks.

Much goods go be rail here too. It's electrified, so it's nicer to the enviroment than trucks.

[thod]

It may be an aside but I have a question about the US education system.

Do they teach you that words like communism, socialism are bad. Not the political ideas behind these word but the words themselves.

So saying "you are a socialist" is supposed to be an insult? or "you are a republican" is an insult?

Most countires have large socialist parties and governments. It no different to saying "democrat party" and a lot (most?) are not located in the US. So saying "you are a socialist" is not regarded as an insult, they are picking it up in the same way as saying "you are tall" or "you have brown hair".

[prometheus]

It may be an aside but I have a question about the US education system.

Do they teach you that words like communism, socialism are bad. Not the political ideas behind these word but the words themselves.

So saying "you are a socialist" is supposed to be an insult? or "you are a republican" is an insult?

Most countires have large socialist parties and governments. It no different to saying "democrat party" and a lot (most?) are not located in the US. So saying "you are a socialist" is not regarded as an insult, they are picking it up in the same way as saying "you are tall" or "you have brown hair".


Ironically the school system is socialized, and they do (or use to at least) teach of the evils of socialism and communism. Remember the cold war?

Socialism is so good, check the products of the school system. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Sylvanus]

It may be an aside but I have a question about the US education system.

Do they teach you that words like communism, socialism are bad. Not the political ideas behind these word but the words themselves.

So saying "you are a socialist" is supposed to be an insult? or "you are a republican" is an insult?

Most countires have large socialist parties and governments. It no different to saying "democrat party" and a lot (most?) are not located in the US. So saying "you are a socialist" is not regarded as an insult, they are picking it up in the same way as saying "you are tall" or "you have brown hair".

We were taught communism was bad, but spent very little time on the subject. Nazi fascism was more important, never mind the fact that communism killed more people than fascism ever has. We were taught that fascism is an extreme version of capitalism when in truth it is merely just a different brand of socialism.

My most important education I learned by myself, I was pointed in the right direction by a friend lending me "The Road to Serfdom" 10 years ago, that is when I started getting interested in economics and politics. In the US, the word 'socialist' is considered an insult by most. Which is why the Democrat Party tries to distance itself from words that associate them with socialism, regardless of the fact that their platform is based on socialism.

[prometheus]

"The Road to Serfdom" 10 years ago, that is when I started getting interested in economics and politics. .
Excellent book, My first was Atlas Shrugged, and then The Law by Bastiet, then Our Enemy The State by Nock, and then The Road to Serfdom.

No real education beyond basic math and reading actually takes place in the Publik Schools. Their purpose it to teach respect to authority, and how to respond to bells and schedules.

Here (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) is an excellent book from John Gatto a NY teacher of the year.

[Sylvanus]

Excellent book, My first was Atlas Shrugged, and then The Law by Bastiet, then Our Enemy The State by Nock, and then The Road to Serfdom.

No real education beyond basic math and reading actually takes place in the Publik Schools. Their purpose it to teach respect to authority, and how to respond to bells and schedules.

Here (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) is an excellent book from John Gatto a NY teacher of the year.

I'll have to look into it. I love to read, but have little time for it, so it usually takes me months to read most non-fiction books.

I don't really have the desire to check right now, but from what I recall you are an atheist libertarian (I apologize if I got that wrong). I know she isn't much loved by non-right wing, non-Christians, but Ann Coulter has an excellent take on public education in her book 'Godless: The Church of Liberalism'. It probably isn't as in depth as your book, but it is funny, easy to read and accurate.

[pavman]

Anne Coulter rocks... :o)

Socialism/communism/fascism all bad... but I do remember really different feelings towards communism and socialism growing up than I have now...

I used to think that those in the Soviet Union weren't really people and didn't really live. As if we were in a colorful world in the West, they were in grey or black and white. That's the "feeling" I had growing up to that type of ideology. I believe this was colored by my education, which was in the socialist public school system. So yes, I think that we are taught generally to abhor these things. But in general I was taught to think on my own, and have since changed my view of socialism to one of misguided hegemony.

I mean, the idea that the state should take care of all your needs kind of works against every fiber in my being. I can see some basic social services (and benefited from said services as a child). But any government structure that tries to control too much of the population raises red flags.

Ironically, I can recall thinking that every house in India had a dirt floor. I think this was some sort of internal visual interpretation of the depiction of the struggle of India in Ghandi. :o)

[prometheus]

I don't really have the desire to check right now, but from what I recall you are an atheist libertarian (I apologize if I got that wrong). I know she isn't much loved by non-right wing, non-Christians, but Ann Coulter has an excellent take on public education in her book 'Godless: The Church of Liberalism'. It probably isn't as in depth as your book, but it is funny, easy to read and accurate.

I'm an Anarcho-capitalist (the purest form of libertarianism), I'm not an atheist, but I am against all organized religions that require "fellowship".

I don't know anything about Coulter except some people really like her and others really hate her.

About Dumbing Us Down, by John Gatto":

From Library Journal
In this tenth-anniversary edition, Gatto updates his theories on how the U.S. educational system cranks out students the way Detroit cranks out Buicks. He contends that students are more programmed to conform to economic and social norms rather than really taught to think.
Copyright 2002 Reed Business Information, Inc.

Book Description
This radical treatise on public education has been a New Society Publishers' bestseller for 10 years! Thirty years of award-winning teaching in New York City's public schools led John Gatto to the sad conclusion that compulsory governmental schooling does little but teach young people to follow orders as cogs in the industrial machine. In celebration of the ten-year anniversary of Dumbing Us Down and to keep this classic current, we are renewing the cover art, adding new material about John and the impact of the book, and a new Foreword.

[interjerator]

According to Pinitch, the poorest ten percent in America, live better than 2/3 of the world.

[Sylvanus]

Ok so you did not get the message.

European trucks are more developed than American counterparts. European trucks with trailer can freight nearly twice as much than an American one. A European trucker does not need mansion on wheels to survive. You must admit that it's highly unefficient to have a truck which is almost larger and longer than the trailer itself.
You don't need a pickup with 5 litre V8 engine to tow your boat. It works perfectly fine with a station wagon with a 2 litre engine.
Great irony that the land of capitalism is so unefficient, retarded and set in their ways.

Always these American whine whine the gas price went up omg fucking terrorist what ever. They know nothing.

It's strange that American companies move out because of "high" tax. When other companies manage to stay in their own countries with even higher taxes. It's just greed and unwillingness to develop.
Let these trucks speak for themselves European (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) and American (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.).

I was driving to work today and I saw a few trucks and I was thinking about this one. The 'American' truck you speak of, like you said (but grossly exaggerated), a European doesn't need a mansion on wheels. But most American truckers do. If you actually saw the short haul trucks, you would see that they don't have the large cabs because they don't need to sleep at night in their truck, unlike the long-haul truckers. The actual engine size is approximately the same, you could see this on closer inspection of the pictures. The larger cab doesn't add a significant amount of weight and actually streamlines it a bit better than your truck.





Sylvanus added to this post, 124 minutes and 21 seconds later...

I'm an Anarcho-capitalist (the purest form of libertarianism), I'm not an atheist, but I am against all organized religions that require "fellowship".

I don't know anything about Coulter except some people really like her and others really hate her.


I don't agree with everything she says, but she really knows how to hand it to the democrats. Her research skills are awesome, if you ever read her books or articles, she consistently finds ways that the liberals consistently lie and contradict themselves. She also has a way of keeping conservatives inline by calling them out when they act like liberals. Her articles on McKain and Huckabee are as equally scathing as the ones on Obama and Clinton.

[MixISTJandINTJ]

We need to really increase taxes on the wealthy and companies and then make sure that the government doesn't spend it poorly and uses it to make a better nation.

[prometheus]

and then make sure that the government doesn't spend it poorly and uses it to make a better nation.


Yea, and that has ever happened...when?


Dude, stop Bogarting the bong, be a friend.

[Sylvanus]

We need to really increase taxes on the wealthy and companies and then make sure that the government doesn't spend it poorly and uses it to make a better nation.

I hope you're joking.

After browsing a little, I saw another of your posts and realized that you are not joking. On page 4 of this thread I posted about bureacracy, most of it based on experience. This link follows the same line of thinking, and will completely quash your argument that the government could possibly spend our money wisely. It's too lengthy to quote and would lose water it down if I paraphrased it.

Secondly, it is ridiculous to think that taxing the wealthy more would benefit us all. That kind of Keynesian thinking caused stagflation in the 70's. Coolidge, JFK, Reagan and Bush (as well as many others) as knew that lowering taxes across the board, but especially for the wealthy and corporations leads not only to higher returns, but also greater economic prosperity.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[1OFMANY]

We need to really increase taxes on the wealthy and companies and then make sure that the government doesn't spend it poorly and uses it to make a better nation.


Not that I am advocating any particular stand point, but did you know that the top 1% of the nation pays 30% of the taxes collected?

[Bossy Mom]

We need to really increase taxes on the wealthy and companies and then make sure that the government doesn't spend it poorly and uses it to make a better nation.

I looked on your profile and see that you are 18 years of age. "Make sure the government doesn't spend it poorly"? Politicians and bureaucrats not only get "God complexes" but they make sure their pet projects and their friends and relatives are fed from the trough. "Uses it to make a better nation"? Well, for them, yeah. Not us.

You are young and will learn these things from experience (a knowledge of history helps, too). When I was 18 I was idealistic, but now I'm realistic (and a cynic when it comes to politicians). I'd trust a used car salesman before I'd trust a politician.

[Ytterbium]

I was driving to work today and I saw a few trucks and I was thinking about this one. The 'American' truck you speak of, like you said (but grossly exaggerated), a European doesn't need a mansion on wheels. But most American truckers do. If you actually saw the short haul trucks, you would see that they don't have the large cabs because they don't need to sleep at night in their truck, unlike the long-haul truckers. The actual engine size is approximately the same, you could see this on closer inspection of the pictures. The larger cab doesn't add a significant amount of weight and actually streamlines it a bit better than your truck.Even short haul trucks are smarter designed in Europe. Take a look how much space an American short haul truck (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) cab uses. That's the same amount as an European, Asian etc long haul truck sleeper cab will use. Then European trucks are made as low as possible to achieve maximum loading height.
A collegue told that a big thing he ordered from the USA was late. Why was it late? Because the tractor trailer had nowhere to dock so they could not load it on the truck. Don't tail lifts exist in the States? European trucks often have air suspension so they can raise or lower the truck to ease on and unloading too. Safety then, in the states it seems like a national sport to jack knife and decapitate as much car drivers as possible. I have never seen an American truck with underrun protection.

This thing with trucks is just a side show of all the strange things in the States, seen from an external perspective.

[prometheus]

Even short haul trucks are smarter designed in Europe. Take a look how much space an American short haul truck (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) cab uses. That's the same amount as an European, Asian etc long haul truck sleeper cab will use. Then European trucks are made as low as possible to achieve maximum loading height.
A collegue told that a big thing he ordered from the USA was late. Why was it late? Because the tractor trailer had nowhere to dock so they could not load it on the truck. Don't tail lifts exist in the States? European trucks often have air suspension so they can raise or lower the truck to ease on and unloading too. Safety then, in the states it seems like a national sport to jack knife and decapitate as much car drivers as possible. I have never seen an American truck with underrun protection.

This thing with trucks is just a side show of all the strange things in the States, seen from an external perspective.

As screwed up as this country is, I guess I still have a little nationalism left...I kept hearing this To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. while reading your post. :P

[Lights]

Not that I am advocating any particular stand point, but did you know that the top 1% of the nation pays 30% of the taxes collected?

Did you know the top 1% of the nation has over 30% of the nation's wealth? I've never understood why that whole "1% of the nation pays 30% of the taxes" is even a relevant argument.

[prometheus]

Did you know the top 1% of the nation has over 30% of the nation's wealth? I've never understood why that whole "1% of the nation pays 30% of the taxes" is even a relevant argument.


How can that fact NOT be relevant? Who is paying for all your handouts?

[1OFMANY]

Did you know the top 1% of the nation has over 30% of the nation's wealth?

And I say good for them! Here is another fact for you. If I tried real hard and worked my ass off and made myself generate a little luck, I could be in that 1%. So could you! And then you could give it all away as you see fit :)

[Lights]

And I say good for them! Here is another fact for you. If I tried real hard and worked my ass off and made myself generate a little luck, I could be in that 1%. So could you! And then you could give it all away as you see fit :)

Um...the middle class pays a higher proportion of their income than the rich. :thinking:

[1OFMANY]

Um...the middle class pays a higher proportion of their income than the rich.

What does that have to do with my statement?

I guess since we are just throwing out things with no relevence..then:

Did you know the new 45 nanometer pathways on Intel CPUs are 10 times smaller than the Rhino virus?

LOL -----------------------------


By the way..the rich can pay up to 37%. Do you know any "middle-class" people doing that?

I don't. And before you go jumping to conclusions...I am poor as hell. Always have been. I'm not defending "myself" like you want to believe. Im spoutin truth brotha! :)

[Lights]

What does that have to do with my statement?

I guess since we are just throwing out things with no relevence..then:

Did you know the new 45 nanometer pathways on Intel CPUs are 10 times smaller than the Rhino virus?

LOL -----------------------------


By the way..the rich can pay up to 37%. Do you know any "middle-class" people doing that?

I don't. And before you go jumping to conclusions...I am poor as hell. Always have been. I'm not defending "myself" like you want to believe. Im spoutin truth brotha! :)

Where did you get the idea that some rich pay 37% :thinking:

[thod]

The poor man gets a speeding ticket and a $100 fine, all his disposable income for the month. The rich man gets exactly the same fine and it means nothiing. Now why shouldnt the rich man pay $100000 fine for the same offence. The idea is to make them suffer equaly for the crime. Why should rich men suffer less?

[prometheus]

What does that have to do with my statement?

I guess since we are just throwing out things with no relevence..then:

Did you know the new 45 nanometer pathways on Intel CPUs are 10 times smaller than the Rhino virus?

LOL -----------------------------


By the way..the rich can pay up to 37%. Do you know any "middle-class" people doing that?

I don't. And before you go jumping to conclusions...I am poor as hell. Always have been. I'm not defending "myself" like you want to believe. Im spoutin truth brotha! :)

I was once well off. I quit because of the inherit evil of this system. I'm just a part-time train wiper now. The moochers tried to climb my back to reach my level, but all they accomplished was lowering me to their finical level. Luckily I'm smarter than the average person with my income, I don't have any debt, and can live comfortably down here. Crab-pot psychology.

[1OFMANY]

Um...the middle class pays a higher proportion of their income than the rich.

Also..I used to be right along with you guys. I used to beat on the flat-tax drum, spout how "unfair" life was and how "rich" people suck. Then I grew up and looked into it myself. I was wrong. Hell I was one of the most radical socialists you would ever meet when I was 15-23. Now im 35 and some common fukkin sense settled into my head lol ( not much mind you but some )

[Lights]

Also..I used to be right along with you guys. I used to beat on the flat-tax drum, spout how "unfair" life was and how "rich" people suck. Then I grew up and looked into it myself. I was wrong. Hell I was one of the most radical socialists you would ever meet when I was 15-23. Now im 35 and some common fukkin sense settled into my head lol ( not much mind you but some )

I don't believe that life is "unfair" or that "rich" people suck.

[1OFMANY]

I don't believe that life is "unfair" or that "rich" people suck.


Well I did. :)

I was a complete wacko. Luckily my plans to destroy the "system" were undermined by my complete inability to operate coherantly on pot! :P

[Lights]

Well I did. :)

I was a complete wacko. Luckily my plans to destroy the "system" were undermined by my complete inability to operate coherantly on pot! :P

I never touch the stuff.

[1OFMANY]

I never touch the stuff.

Fortunately I havent in years either.

[Lights]

Fortunately I havent in years either.

So...where did you get the 37% statistic?

[Allie]

The poor man gets a speeding ticket and a $100 fine, all his disposable income for the month. The rich man gets exactly the same fine and it means nothiing. Now why shouldnt the rich man pay $100000 fine for the same offence. The idea is to make them suffer equaly for the crime. Why should rich men suffer less?

Because the rich is already paying $100,000 in taxes on income he made, while the poor man only paid $100 in taxes on his income? The first thing we see is that the rich man has no choice (on the high tax dollars), while the poor man does...he could drive slower.

[Ytterbium]

The poor man gets a speeding ticket and a $100 fine, all his disposable income for the month. The rich man gets exactly the same fine and it means nothiing. Now why shouldnt the rich man pay $100000 fine for the same offence. The idea is to make them suffer equaly for the crime. Why should rich men suffer less?That's how it works in Finland. The police took a high executive from the international company Nokia for speeding. Well they made a fortune out of that. I guess that the rich guy have second thoughts before next time.

[prometheus]

That's how it works in Finland. The police took a high executive from the international company Nokia for speeding. Well they made a fortune out of that. I guess that the rich guy have second thoughts before next time.


That's one of the stupidest thing I've heard today. If I was a "rich" man that lived there I'd say fuck you guys, I'd take my money, business, and brains elsewhere. Let the stupid prols starve. :irked:

MTA: This is why socialist countries have walls with armed guards around them. The people who actually do something besides parasitically suck unearned funds leave.

[AgentofGaming]

That's one of the stupidest thing I've heard today. If I was a "rich" man that lived there I'd say fuck you guys, I'd take my money, business, and brains elsewhere. Let the stupid prols starve. :irked:

MTA: This is why socialist countries have walls with armed guards around them. The people who actually do something besides parasitically suck unearned funds leave.

Yes but the rich man can leave but he can't leave with the educated workforce whose skills made him rich.
Also what about the rich man who is only rich because of the skills provided by his education which was in turn provided by his government. Does he steal the education invested in him if he leaves?

Actually the police in Finland seldom even have need to carry firearms.
Talking about leaving how come the Scandinavian countries have the heaviest tax rates of democratic countries and yet tend to have the most educated workforces?

[Bossy Mom]

Yes but the rich man can leave but he can't leave with the educated workforce whose skills made him rich.
Also what about the rich man who is only rich because of the skills provided by his education which was in turn provided by his government. Does he steal the education invested in him if he leaves?

Actually the police in Finland seldom even have need to carry firearms.
Talking about leaving how come the Scandinavian countries have the heaviest tax rates of democratic countries and yet tend to have the most educated workforces?

Don't they also have high suicide rates?

[prometheus]

Don't they also have high suicide rates?

And moose maulings? ;) (A moose bit my sister once)

[Ytterbium]

That's one of the stupidest thing I've heard today. If I was a "rich" man that lived there I'd say fuck you guys, I'd take my money, business, and brains elsewhere. Let the stupid prols starve. :irked:

MTA: This is why socialist countries have walls with armed guards around them. The people who actually do something besides parasitically suck unearned funds leave.Why? If you get caught the fine is % of what you make in a year. Not a fixed amount.

Guards? What are you writing. Gated communities are an American thing and does not exist here. High fences, walls and barded wires are a rare thing here.

[AgentofGaming]

Don't they also have high suicide rates?

Typically it happens in countries with less sunlight, and less religion. ie. Ex-USSR

However Japan and Belgium have higher suicide rates than Finland. Finland is governed by a Centrist party though, so I don't know if you'd consider it "socialist". Finland may also have a high suicide rate but oddly it tops the best image of government in the world and least corrupted.

Odd thing is according to the WHO the US has more suicide per capita than some less developed countries like India. As well the US has 1.5X the rate of the UK (Labour Party is socialist).

In fact Hong Kong the arguably one of the most economically free countries around is near the top and they have very low tax rates in fact they don't even have sales tax. They beat Sweden by 1.4 times.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. <-To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To sum up there doesn't appear to be much connection between whether a country's tax rate with suicide rate. There seems to be a misconception between the life of people in left-wing compared to right-wing democracies.

[Lights]

Don't they also have high suicide rates?

Since you are a conservative, you should probably know that red states have significantly higher suicide rates that blue states here in America.

[yondyr]

Until all forms of self destruction, whether reckless driving, overdosing etc are factored into the suicide rate one should look with suspicion at the official figures for all countries.

[AgentofGaming]

Until all forms of self destruction, whether reckless driving, overdosing etc are factored into the suicide rate one should look with suspicion at the official figures for all countries.

We'll just call those indirect suicide attempts via poor consideration of the consequences.

So that we can focus on direct attempts.

Of course any statistics are up for question, but in that they are taken and endorsed by international organizations they should have some level of relevancy, after all these organizations have their reputation on the line.

[thod]

Don't they also have high suicide rates?

Yes. Scandinavia does.

Doesnt the US have high greed rates?

Yes the people are insecure. They are driven to aquisition to ensure they have the basic means to live. This leads to warped personalities and unsound judgements.

There is a loss of perspective. You cannot win at life, we are all dead in the end. All that you can do is enjoy it while it lasts.

[Sylvanus]

So...where did you get the 37% statistic?

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Here's another good graph that has nothing to do with the first. The point made by the graph is that the GDP of lower taxed countries goes up more than expected and for heavily taxed countries it goes up less than expected because taxes destroy the incentive to earn more money.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Tax Trends in Other Countries: The Flat-Tax Fever
For many years, I have lobbied for implementing a flat tax, not only in California, but also for the entire U.S. Hong Kong adopted a flat tax ages ago and has performed like gangbusters ever since. Seeing a flat-tax fever seemingly infect Europe in recent years is truly exciting. In 1994, Estonia became the first European country to adopt a flat tax, and its 26 percent flat tax dramatically energized what had been a faltering economy. Before adopting the flat tax, Estonia had an impoverished economy that was literally shrinking--making the gains following the flat tax implementation even more impressive. In the eight years after 1994, Estonia sustained real economic growth averaging 5.2 percent per year.

Latvia followed Estonia's lead one year later with a 25 percent flat tax. In the five years before adopting the flat tax, Latvia's real GDP had shrunk by more than 50 percent. In the five years after adopting the flat tax, Latvia's real GDP has grown at an average annual rate of 3.8 percent (See Figure 8). Lithuania has followed with a 33 percent flat tax and has experienced similar positive results.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Lights]

Wow, by that graph it looks like the upper marginal peeps are paying the lowest tax rates since the onset of the Great Depression. That is comforting. I wish it went a little higher than 1997 though. I mean, 10 years ago is quite a gap to make the claim of 37% now.

[Sylvanus]

I'll try and get some newer graphs. I lost my internet at home, and I have a lot to catch up with at work, it may be a few days, I happened to have tht one bookmarked. Also, that is only personal income tax. Most rich people make a lot of their money through investment, so the capital gains tax applies in that case (I'll try to find that one too).
Personally, I hate the [emotional] argument that the rich should be taxed more because they don't work as hard or whatever other reason. They spent their time and money to get a good education with the possible risk that they may not succeed. Also, riskier/delicate work deserves to be compensated better (i.e. surgeons, CEOs, chefs, astronauts...). In the same way, rich investors take the risk that their investment will flounder, it is only right that they should takes the lions share of the reward of that investment (specifically, low taxes).

[Lights]

I'll try and get some newer graphs. I lost my internet at home, and I have a lot to catch up with at work, it may be a few days, I happened to have tht one bookmarked. Also, that is only personal income tax. Most rich people make a lot of their money through investment, so the capital gains tax applies in that case (I'll try to find that one too).
Personally, I hate the [emotional] argument that the rich should be taxed more because they don't work as hard or whatever other reason. They spent their time and money to get a good education with the possible risk that they may not succeed. Also, riskier/delicate work deserves to be compensated better (i.e. surgeons, CEOs, chefs, astronauts...). In the same way, rich investors take the risk that their investment will flounder, it is only right that they should takes the lions share of the reward of that investment (specifically, low taxes).

I never said that the rich should be taxed more. I think if we are going to be taxed, then we should all pay an equal proportion of our income. It seems silly to me that the middle class pay a higher proportion of their income than do the rich. I wouldn't be opposed to a flat tax for that reason.

[Sylvanus]

I never said that the rich should be taxed more. I think if we are going to be taxed, then we should all pay an equal proportion of our income. It seems silly to me that the middle class pay a higher proportion of their income than do the rich. I wouldn't be opposed to a flat tax for that reason.

I apologize, I was responding to previous posters, but it got mixed in with my reply to you.

[thod]

The point made by the graph is that the GDP of lower taxed countries goes up more than expected and for heavily taxed countries it goes up less than expected because taxes destroy the incentive to earn more money.


Not realy you are are trying to compare the situation of a man selling his labor to that of the super rich. The first earns by the hour and may cease work if there is no benefit, the second earns from ownership, his factories keep right on working no matter what. He doesnt close them down if he has to pay more tax since its zero effort to keep them working.

If the super rich should cease activiites it wouldnt matter. Other men will take those markets. Nobody is that much better than everyone else. There are always others trying to get rich. All you do is spread the wealth and thats a good thing.

In 1994, Estonia became the first European country to adopt a flat tax, and its 26 percent flat tax dramatically energized what had been a faltering economy.

In 1994 Estonia joined the EU meaning it become a very cheap production base. There is not a single poor country that hasnt seen its economic fortunes jump when it joins the EU. They were all gaining from the fall of communism.

We could have a flat tax of say 75% over $100k. This would remove the poor from paying any tax whilst ensuring the rich had their flat system.
In fuedal times the barons and lords payed tax to the king. The peasants payed nothing because they owned nothing. Just like today those that own the means of production pay the taxes.

Personaly i prefer an asset tax to income tax. You pay according to what you own rather than what you earn. This allows new and bright entrants in without the tax burden whilst the rich and non productive pay. Do not kid yourself that the rich are dynamic businessmen, once you get enough you pay others to do that for you and you live off the rents. People like you are paid to make the money and they fight you against each other to keep down your wages well below what you earn for them.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Having been around the US it is a shabby place. Its infrastructure is so run down and cheaply built. Try traveling a bit you find that other countries are much better set up with much happier people. You may note that mexico has even less tax than the US.

[Sylvanus]

Not realy you are are trying to compare the situation of a man selling his labor to that of the super rich. The first earns by the hour and may cease work if there is no benefit, the second earns from ownership, his factories keep right on working no matter what. He doesnt close them down if he has to pay more tax since its zero effort to keep them working.

If the super rich should cease activiites it wouldnt matter. Other men will take those markets. Nobody is that much better than everyone else. There are always others trying to get rich. All you do is spread the wealth and thats a good thing.


They may or may not maintain or sell their investments, depending on the risk vs gain for doing either. Let's assume a person does sell for a nice profit, and they want to reinvest it. If he finds an investment in another country that allows him to keep a bigger portion when he does decide to sell, he will be more likely to take his money over there. The net economic growth for the original country is negative. The investor doesn't care either way, he just wants to make money off his money. But if enough people do that (and they will), it causes stagnation of economic growth. That is everybody's problem. Similarly, if all investors just "cease activities" as you say, there will be a similar effect. Population goes up, while the production of the country stays about the same (no investments mean no economic growth, no production growth). Same effect as the first situation, it just takes longer.





Sylvanus added to this post, 32 minutes and 7 seconds later...




In 1994 Estonia joined the EU meaning it become a very cheap production base. There is not a single poor country that hasnt seen its economic fortunes jump when it joins the EU. They were all gaining from the fall of communism.


Estonia joined the EU in 2004, not 1994. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. Part of the requirements to join the EU is to have a functional economy, which they would not have met with a negative GDP. Without fixing the system they never would have been allowed entry.

We could have a flat tax of say 75% over $100k. This would remove the poor from paying any tax whilst ensuring the rich had their flat system.
In fuedal times the barons and lords payed tax to the king. The peasants payed nothing because they owned nothing. Just like today those that own the means of production pay the taxes.

Peasants (aka serfs) owned nothing, not even their own lives. They may as well have been slaves. Approximately 3/4 of everything they produced went straight to their local lord.

Personaly i prefer an asset tax to income tax. You pay according to what you own rather than what you earn. This allows new and bright entrants in without the tax burden whilst the rich and non productive pay. Do not kid yourself that the rich are dynamic businessmen, once you get enough you pay others to do that for you and you live off the rents. People like you are paid to make the money and they fight you against each other to keep down your wages well below what you earn for them.

So you want to get rid of the incentive to own anything? By shifting the tax burden onto fewer people, you require them to pay significantly larger than they did before. Your argument assumes that this is fair and reasonable (:rolleyes:).
For starters, lets assume that there two types of asset owners: rich and non-rich. The rich own their own homes, as well as rental units, companies and other investments. The would just shift their new tax burden on to the price of goods, services and rentals. Consumers wouldn't be paying taxes, but the cost would go up. Net effect approximately zero change. However, the non-rich now have a higher tax burden on their houses, and they have no power to pass that onto anyone else. This includes middle class and lower class owners, probably few have enough extra money to cover the new tax. There would be people defaulting left and right on their houses. Economic collapse that forces the country into another depression. Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together - mass hysteria

[thod]

So you want to get rid of the incentive to own anything? By shifting the tax burden onto fewer people, you require them to pay significantly larger than they did before. Your argument assumes that this is fair and reasonable ().
For starters, lets assume that there two types of asset owners: rich and non-rich. The rich own their own homes, as well as rental units, companies and other investments. The would just shift their new tax burden on to the price of goods, services and rentals. Consumers wouldn't be paying taxes, but the cost would go up. Net effect approximately zero change. However, the non-rich now have a higher tax burden on their houses, and they have no power to pass that onto anyone else. This includes middle class and lower class owners, probably few have enough extra money to cover the new tax. There would be people defaulting left and right on their houses. Economic collapse that forces the country into another depression. Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together - mass hysteria

Ok so lets suppose there are 2 men, one rents his apartment the other receives the rent. The first man pays $1500 a month in rent. He cannot stop working he has no money to invest. The second can live off what he recieves and can invest it. Simply by an accident of birth one is born into slavery to the other.

You cannot shift the tax burden to consumers. You have exactly the same market forces as ever. Try raising prices when taxes go up you will be undercut.

The non rich dont pay higher taxes. They pay according to ability to pay. The poor man has no ability to pay a $million tax bill, so there is no point in asking for it. If someone owns large assets then they will have to sell some to pay thier tax bill if they have no otehr income. This is good. It ensures you cant stay rich with no effort and redistributes the wealth to those that are up and coming.

The logical conclusion of having one man own everything and everyone paying him rent is back to the king idea. We want to distribute the wealth so that others get a fair shot too. We want to reward the hard worker that produces over the rentier that does not. Income tax penalises the man trying to drag himself up, asset tax only hits those that can afford to pay it according to their ability to pay.

[Sylvanus]

You cannot shift the tax burden to consumers. You have exactly the same market forces as ever. Try raising prices when taxes go up you will be undercut.

With your plan of taxing only property, the tax burden drives the cost up for all property owners across the board. All owners are still on the same playing field, just slightly different rules.


We want to reward the hard worker that produces over the rentier that does not. Income tax penalises the man trying to drag himself up, asset tax only hits those that can afford to pay it according to their ability to pay.

You make it seem that the owner just magically acquired this property and he is greedy because he expects the renter to pay for the use of it. In real life, most landlords don't outright own their property. They got a loan for it, and they're paying off the loan with what's left after he collects rent and handles all the maintenance. They are taking a risk, and rather than penalized with a higher tax burden he should be given incentives to continue. Your plan removes most of the incentive to take that risk.

Size of Tax Cuts
People do not work, consume, or invest to pay taxes. They work and invest to earn after-tax income, and they consume to get the best buys after tax. Therefore, people are not concerned per se with taxes, but with after-tax results. Taxes and after-tax results are very similar, but have crucial differences.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I for one think that tax rates are too high for everyone, and should be greatly decreased (along with decreasing spending). But the purpose of taxes are not to penalize a certain group of people, it is to collect income to run essential government functions.

[Bossy Mom]

Since you are a conservative, you should probably know that red states have significantly higher suicide rates that blue states here in America.

Whatever. I am not a conservative, I'm a classical liberal (not a modern-day liberal, who stole the word).

Also, aren't the Scandanavian countries having big problems with out-of-control immigration from the Middle East?

[Ytterbium]

Seems like some thinks they don't get anything in return from their tax money. Maybe you don't either? I get things in return for my spent money. Free health care, free education and so on. And why should my freedom be restricted because of this? Why do I have more freedom with less tax? Things which tax pays for you have to pay out of my own wallet. What happens when I can't? Where's the freedom if there's no roads, other infrastructure or any freedom to roam?

[Bossy Mom]

Seems like some thinks they don't get anything in return from their tax money. Maybe you don't either? I get things in return for my spent money. Free health care, free education and so on. And why should my freedom be restricted because of this? Why do I have more freedom with less tax? Things which tax pays for you have to pay out of my own wallet. What happens when I can't? Where's the freedom if there's no roads, other infrastructure or any freedom to roam?

Nothing is free. The more control government has over your wallet, the less freedom you have.

[Ytterbium]

Nothing is free. The more control government has over your wallet, the less freedom you have.

Why?

[quentin]

Who prints money? Who invents the economy?

And thus the inherent contradiction of libertarianism is exposed. You cannot have a civilized society without the rule of law. You cannot have a free market without the strong hand of government ruling over business interactions and enforcing property rights. If you disagree, there are quite a few third-world African societies where you might wish to relocate to and enjoy a Libertarian paradise within. You will have no secure property rights (because there is no strong hand of government and law) and your currency will be worthless (because it's all to the whims of business winds and not backed by any sort of governmental/societal stability), but hey - you're, like, FREE, man!

Libertarians are hippies who have read Hayek.

[Mr Zip]

Im always shocked and annoyed by the short sightedness of people who hate "rich People" . 80% of the taxes paid in this country are paid by the top 5% of the wage earners. Those are rich people who put a HUGE amount of money through the economy, and their taxes are what gives us libraries, roads, schools and so much of what makes america great.

Personally, I think its the biggest knee jerk reaction to an unbridled emotion called jealousy. They have that right, and most people I know who make a lot of money have earned their money, so why begrudge them? YOU have that right too.

When a person is angry, he cant be reasoned with easily.

Capitalism is what makes american great. Let people compete. You can't hold it down

[Lights]

Im always shocked and annoyed by the short sightedness of people who hate "rich People" . 80% of the taxes paid in this country are paid by the top 5% of the wage earners. Those are rich people who put a HUGE amount of money through the economy, and their taxes are what gives us libraries, roads, schools and so much of what makes america great.

Personally, I think its the biggest knee jerk reaction to an unbridled emotion called jealousy. They have that right, and most people I know who make a lot of money have earned their money, so why begrudge them? YOU have that right too.

When a person is angry, he cant be reasoned with easily.

Capitalism is what makes american great. Let people compete. You can't hold it down

80% paid by the top 5%? I would love to see some proof of those figures, because they sound like an exaggeration. The rich in this country, currently pay a lower percentage in their income taxes than do the middle class.

In fact, I'm stil waiting for someone to verify that 37% statistic.

[quentin]

Most major corporations in America pay 0% taxes.

There are these little things called loopholes in the tax laws that allow rich people to get away with paying little to nothing - with the right lawyers.

[Mr Zip]

80% paid by the top 5%? I would love to see some proof of those figures, because they sound like an exaggeration. The rich in this country, currently pay a lower percentage in their income taxes than do the middle class.

In fact, I'm stil waiting for someone to verify that 37% statistic.

My bad, that was off memory. the top 20% of wage earners pay 80% of the taxes, according to the congressional budget office.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Top 5% pay 53.25% of all income taxes (Down from 2000 figure: 56.47%). The top 10% pay 64.89% (Down from 2000 figure: 67.33%). The top 25% pay 82.9% (Down from 2000 figure: 84.01%). The top 50% pay 96.03% (Down from 2000 figure: 96.09%). The bottom 50%? They pay a paltry 3.97% of all income taxes. The top 1% is paying more than ten times the federal income taxes than the bottom 50%! And who earns what? The top 1% earns 17.53 (2000: 20.81%) of all income. The top 5% earns 31.99 (2000: 35.30%). The top 10% earns 43.11% (2000: 46.01%); the top 25% earns 65.23% (2000: 67.15%), and the top 50% earns 86.19% (2000: 87.01%) of all the income.

The rich earn their way. They create jobs, they create money and they pay more taxes. It doesnt mean theyre better, or anything other than they know how to make money.





Mr Zip added to this post, 5 minutes and 6 seconds later...

Most major corporations in America pay 0% taxes.

There are these little things called loopholes in the tax laws that allow rich people to get away with paying little to nothing - with the right lawyers.

Exactly. Most C-Corps are subject to double taxation. If you had a profitable corporation, YOUD DO THE SAME. Do you look forward to paying taxes?

it doesnt mean that taxable income isnt being generated, and that their salaries arent paying taxes. it just means they're putting it back into the company, or because of jacked up state and federal taxes their putting it overseas.

Nevada creates more corporations than nearly all the rest of the 50 states combined. California makes it impossible to do business and companies are fleeing the state, a ton are going to nevada. Why? because the ambitious will find a way. You can legislate and put bricks on the backs of the money makers, and the money makers will go elsewhere. Theyll take their jobs, their tax base and their contributions to the economy elsewhere.

Thats just human nature. To keep what is yours. I don't believe in greed. I believe there are a-holes in the world, but I don't feel a person who has earned his money in a capitalist society has any obligation to anyone but his stockholders and himself. Theres a million opportunities in this world, you have every right to go get some of that yourself.

[Lights]

My bad, that was off memory. the top 20% of wage earners pay 80% of the taxes, according to the congressional budget office.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Top 5% pay 53.25% of all income taxes (Down from 2000 figure: 56.47%). The top 10% pay 64.89% (Down from 2000 figure: 67.33%). The top 25% pay 82.9% (Down from 2000 figure: 84.01%). The top 50% pay 96.03% (Down from 2000 figure: 96.09%). The bottom 50%? They pay a paltry 3.97% of all income taxes. The top 1% is paying more than ten times the federal income taxes than the bottom 50%! And who earns what? The top 1% earns 17.53 (2000: 20.81%) of all income. The top 5% earns 31.99 (2000: 35.30%). The top 10% earns 43.11% (2000: 46.01%); the top 25% earns 65.23% (2000: 67.15%), and the top 50% earns 86.19% (2000: 87.01%) of all the income.

The rich earn their way. They create jobs, they create money and they pay more taxes. It doesnt mean theyre better, or anything other than they know how to make money.

Considering that the top 10% own 71% of the nation's net worth, I think there might be a considerable gap when you consider that the top 10% pay 64.89% of the taxes. I'm not complaining, but I don't think the rich have anymore right to bitch for lower taxes than the poor have right to ask for higher taxes.

[Mr Zip]

Considering that the top 10% own 71% of the nation's net worth, I think there might be a considerable gap when you consider that the top 10% pay 64.89% of the taxes. I'm not complaining, but I don't think the rich have anymore right to bitch for lower taxes than the poor have right to ask for higher taxes.

They pay more than you. You can't say they dont pay their share.

[quentin]

Personally, I think its the biggest knee jerk reaction to an unbridled emotion called jealousy.

Why is it jealousy to be angry at the inequities of an unfair world? Some people are born with everything and some people are born with nothing. We should all be born running on the same playing field - ideally. But unfortunately, we aren't. You are viewing everything through the very narrow perspective of a white, middle class American - more privileged at birth than 95% of the rest of the human race.

May you and people with your mentality be reincarnated as beggars forced to prostitute their bodies to Australian sex tourists in the slums of Calcutta in order to survive on a bowl of rice day. Where's your Horatio Alger capitalist spirit if you were born into such a situation?

[Mr Zip]

Why is it jealousy to be angry at the inequities of an unfair world? Some people are born with everything and some people are born with nothing. We should all be born running on the same playing field - ideally. But unfortunately, we aren't. You are viewing everything through the very narrow perspective of a white, middle class American - more privileged at birth than 95% of the rest of the human race.

May you and people with your mentality be reincarnated as beggars forced to prostitute their bodies to Australian sex tourists in the slums of Calcutta in order to survive on a bowl of rice day. Where's your Horatio Alger capitalist spirit if you were born into such a situation?


You're right. the world is unfair. Thats why we need people with such fairness making more money to better the world, not people shouting UNFAIR and trying to take away from those who have earned it.

You have no idea about me. You have ZERO idea of how much I give back, so Ill please ask you to not wish your evils on me.

Ever stop to think about how much the rich give to charity? How bill gates foundation gives back to the world? Ever watch extreme makeover home edition? those are just a few of the examples you even know about where the haves are trying to give back to the have nots. just a few.

You want em to give more? How are you going to do that.

[yondyr]

.. there is a way of phrasing one's responses in order not to make it personal...

[Mr Zip]

Why is it jealousy to be angry at the inequities of an unfair world? Some people are born with everything and some people are born with nothing. We should all be born running on the same playing field - ideally. But unfortunately, we aren't. You are viewing everything through the very narrow perspective of a white, middle class American - more privileged at birth than 95% of the rest of the human race.


I was born with nothing but my fathers last name. he never gave me a dollar, all he taught me was to be honest and to get to work. Are you sure I'm even white? or, are you just projecting your preconcieved patterns onto me.

[Lights]

They pay more than you. You can't say they dont pay their share.

Actually, they pay a lower percentage than me, so in all actuality, they don't pay their share. But like you said, they provide jobs, etc. So I don't mind them getting a break. I probably wouldn't have given them a 6% break as the stats seem to suggest, but I'm sure that gap will decrease in time.

[quentin]

I can safely assume that you were born in either North America or Western Europe. That makes you automatically richer and better off in all ways that matter than 90% of the rest of the people in this world. Libertarianism doesn't work in sub-Saharan Africa or South Asia. In fact, the problem there is an excess of anarchy and too little stable government. Look beyond the narrow confines of your comfortable suburban middle-class existence that you have never known anything beyond of. If you want raw, unfettered capitalism, I invite you to work for $100 a month in a dormitory in mainland China, same as millions, slaving away so that people like you can buy cheap plastic toys at Wal-Mart for a few cents less.

[Mr Zip]

Actually, they pay a lower percentage than me, so in all actuality, they don't pay their share. But like you said, they provide jobs, etc. So I don't mind them getting a break. I probably wouldn't have given them a 6% break as the stats seem to suggest, but I'm sure that gap will decrease in time.

Lower percentage?

My whole point is, rich people are not the bain of the good people of the world. Without controlling commerce, I don't see how you're going to make them give more back.

The world needs money. Problems need money to solve them. I'm all for incentives, rather than legislation which forces companies to look for alternatives and relocate, which is happening. I don't believe in "greed" per se (as most people see it), but I believe you need to motivate the people who are making alot of money to use their ingenuity to get more of that into social programs, etc. Theres a lot of ways to do that without making them leave the country





Mr Zip added to this post, 21 minutes and 41 seconds later...

I can safely assume that you were born in either North America or Western Europe. That makes you automatically richer and better off in all ways that matter than 90% of the rest of the people in this world. Libertarianism doesn't work in sub-Saharan Africa or South Asia. In fact, the problem there is an excess of anarchy and too little stable government. Look beyond the narrow confines of your comfortable suburban middle-class existence that you have never known anything beyond of. If you want raw, unfettered capitalism, I invite you to work for $100 a month in a dormitory in mainland China, same as millions, slaving away so that people like you can buy cheap plastic toys at Wal-Mart for a few cents less.

I was born in the US, true enough. I have volunteered for 2 years, using my own money in some of the poorest ghetto's in the united states where people are living in condemned housing, so I think I understand poverty. I've also been so dirt poor that I was days away from losing my house and considered stealing diapers because my kids didnt have any. Thats neither here nor there, unless you're saying I dont understand poverty. I don't have to experience it to know It needs to be addressed.

So I need to move to a communist china, or a third world country before I can be TRULY appreciative of capitalism? I dont get what point you're trying to make to me.

If you want raw, unfettered capitalism trade on the stock market. It doesnt get much more raw or unfettered than that.

[Lights]

The world needs money. Problems need money to solve them. I'm all for incentives, rather than legislation which forces companies to look for alternatives and relocate, which is happening. I don't believe in "greed" per se (as most people see it), but I believe you need to motivate the people who are making alot of money to use their ingenuity to get more of that into social programs, etc. Theres a lot of ways to do that without making them leave the country.

I suppose you would have to believe that greed doesn't exist in order to be fiscally conservative. My grandmother worked for US West for over 20 years before it was taken over by Qwest. Where do you suppose her retirement and 401K went after years of being a hard and dedicated worker? What Qwest and Nachio did, along with Enron and WorldCom, is more than enough proof to me that greed is very real.

[Mr Zip]

I suppose you would have to believe that greed doesn't exist in order to be fiscally conservative. My grandmother worked for US West for over 20 years before it was taken over by Qwest. Where do you suppose her retirement and 401K went after years of being a hard and dedicated worker? What Qwest and Nachio did, along with Enron and WorldCom, is more than enough proof to me that greed is very real.

Sure, that stuff happens. What enron did was illegal. those guys are crooks. People throw the word "Greedy" around when they speak about perfectly legal corporations, so I don't discount the word or deny it exists.

Enron was enron. Enron isnt every corporation out there.
Not every corporation does what enron did.

AND, Ive got to say. having a job is not a right. That sucks, but its how it is. People do the best they can, but a corporations obligations are to make money for their stockholders and to make a profit. Sometimes they dont. I've pumped hundreds of thousands of dollars into my company when it was losing money that I'm still paying off. Am I obligated to do that? They take the risk, they invest the initial capital, and layoffs happen. for the most part, it works when it all comes together, but just like life theres no guarantees. Theres no way in a free country to guarantee Jobs. Sometimes loyalty is not rewarded. Should laws be made to enforce loyalty? What would you suggest?

[Lights]

Sure, that stuff happens. What enron did was illegal. those guys are crooks. People throw the word "Greedy" around when they speak about perfectly legal corporations, so I don't discount the word or deny it exists.

Enron was enron. Enron isnt every corporation out there.
Not every corporation does what enron did.

AND, Ive got to say. having a job is not a right. That sucks, but its how it is. People do the best they can, but a corporations obligations are to make money for their stockholders and to make a profit. Sometimes they dont. I've pumped hundreds of thousands of dollars into my company when it was losing money that I'm still paying off. Am I obligated to do that? They take the risk, they invest the initial capital, and layoffs happen. for the most part, it works when it all comes together, but just like life theres no guarantees. Theres no way in a free country to guarantee Jobs. What would you suggest?

The distribution of wealth in this country is a joke and its widening. The top 10% own 71% of the nation's net worth. More and more, they are outsourcing jobs and investing overseas. Conglomerates are merging and acquiring more and more control, whereas the small business is going extinct. Energy and food prices are going up, foreclosures are skyrocketing, and the stock market is heading toward another Black Tuesday. All this while the working poor in this country prey they don't get sick, because then they would have to go to the hospital and get a bill that they couldn't possibly hope to pay off.

This is a cocktail for disaster. If you are against socialism, then I strongly suggest not creating a condition in which the poor are oppressed by a few rich.

What do I suggest doing? Stop electing stupid Republican congressman who spend without restraint. Stop electing Republican presidents who start trillion dollar wars. Stop listening to FOX. If you do that much, then it probably couldn't hurt. :laugh:

[Mr Zip]

The distribution of wealth in this country is a joke and its widening. The top 10% own 71% of the nation's net worth. More and more, they are outsourcing jobs and investing overseas. Conglomerates are merging and acquiring more and more control, whereas the small business is going extinct. Energy and food prices are going up, foreclosures are skyrocketing, and the stock market is heading toward another Black Tuesday. All this while the working poor in this country prey they don't get sick, because then they would have to go to the hospital and get a bill that they couldn't possibly hope to pay off.

This is a cocktail for disaster. If you are against socialism, then I strongly suggest not creating a condition in which the poor are oppressed by a few rich.

What do I suggest doing? Stop electing stupid Republican congressman who spend without restraint. Stop electing Republican presidents who start trillion dollar wars. Stop listening to FOX. If you do that much, then it probably couldn't hurt. :laugh:

The distribution of weath.... how would you distribute it?

Oppressed? Please, break that down for me. I dont see oppression from the true sense of the word.

Stupid republicans are the problem. Ahhh. The war is a separate issue. Please stay on track here. I disagree with the war too. I also dont watch FOX. Democrats spend without restraint, all politicians do.

You're making me sound uninformed. Please, don't appeal to athority, please tell me your economic plan. You know a bit of what I believe, I just see you complaining about rich opressing the poor. You're rattling sabres and being a hair dramatic. Are you a socialist? If you are, then we can just agree to disagree and move on. I'm cool if you are, im just telling you how things are out there. Corporations dont have to do business in america, and if they leave, then we all lose out. The rich arent bad, and corporations arent all bad, any more than individuals are.

[Lights]

The distribution of weath.... how would you distribute it?

Oppressed? Please, break that down for me. I dont see oppression from the true sense of the word.

Stupid republicans are the problem. Ahhh. The war is a separate issue. Please stay on track here. I disagree with the war too. I also dont watch FOX. Democrats spend without restraint, all politicians do.

You're making me sound uninformed. Please, don't appeal to athority, please tell me your economic plan. You know a bit of what I believe, I just see you complaining about rich opressing the poor. You're rattling sabres and being a hair dramatic. Are you a socialist? If you are, then we can just agree to disagree and move on. I'm cool if you are, im just telling you how things are out there. Corporations dont have to do business in america, and if they leave, then we all lose out. The rich arent bad, and corporations arent all bad, any more than individuals are.

I'm not a socialist, but I am a NewDem. As far as the poor being oppressed, just look at our health care. We are letting the pharmaceutical companies drive seniors over the border looking for affordable drugs and letting insurance companies and hospitals bankrupt those who fall on bad fortune.

My economic plan would be a flat tax. It worked in Russia and it could work here. Next, I would strip away if not eliminate many of the big government institutions such as homeland security, the IRS, and the department of education. I would develop some sort of universal health care plan in this country so everyone could have at least accessible emergency care, and so we would have a healthier country which in turn would save us tremendously over the long term. And I would reform Medicaid and Social Security, giving more options.

[Mr Zip]

I'm not a socialist, but I am a NewDem. As far as the poor being oppressed, just look at our health care. We are letting the pharmaceutical companies drive seniors over the border looking for affordable drugs and letting insurance companies and hospitals bankrupt those who fall on bad fortune.

My economic plan would be a flat tax. It worked in Russia and it could work here. Next, I would strip away if not eliminate many of the big government institutions such as homeland security, the IRS, and the department of education. I would develop some sort of universal health care plan in this country so everyone could have at least accessible emergency care, and so we would have a healthier country which in turn would save us tremendously over the long term. And I would reform Medicaid and Social Security, giving more options.

Russia is your economic model? RUSSIA? I will admit, i am intrigued by a flat tax.

Your plan would fail. You just got rid of im sure, millions of jobs. Are you going for ultimate fairness, or a viable economy? Where's our money for health care going to come from?

What in the world are you going to do with the corporations? Let them run amok, making money right and left while they CRUSH the little man?
I just noticed your INFJ. makes sense.

[Lights]

Russia is your economic model? RUSSIA? I will admit, i am intrigued by a flat tax.

Your plan would fail. You just got rid of im sure, millions of jobs. Are you going for ultimate fairness, or a viable economy? Where's our money for health care going to come from?

What in the world are you going to do with the corporations? Let them run amok, making money right and left while they CRUSH the little man?
I just noticed your INFJ. makes sense.

I'll ignore your petty taunts. :rolleyes:

Russia has been doing fantastic the last few years. You speak about being informed, then you should know that.

I think you are overestimating the number of jobs. I'm talking more along the lines of tens of thousand of jobs, many of which are unessesary. Anyways, as a proponent of the free market, you are obligated to support that assessment.

And universal health care is perhaps the most important thing that Americans need. Who is the biggest user of our overpriced health care system? Seniors. And that number increases each year. But who pays for the majority of those seniors? Social Security and Medicaid. Which are the two biggest expenses in our country right now. Personally, I prefer Obama's nonmandatory health care plan.

As far as corporations, we need to cut out their ability to influence lawmakers through lobbyists.

[Mr Zip]

I'll ignore your petty taunts. :rolleyes:

Russia has been doing fantastic the last few years. You speak about being informed, then you should know that.

I think you are overestimating the number of jobs. I'm talking more along the lines of tens of thousand of jobs, many of which are unessesary. Anyways, as a proponent of the free market, you are obligated to support that assessment.

And universal health care is perhaps the most important thing that Americans need. Who is the biggest user of our overpriced health care system? Seniors. And that number increases each year. But who pays for the majority of those seniors? Social Security and Medicaid. Which are the two biggest expenses in our country right now. Personally, I prefer Obama's nonmandatory health care plan.

As far as corporations, we need to cut out their ability to influence lawmakers through lobbyists.

Fair enough.

so, corporations wouldnt have access to lobbyists, but other special interests would? What about the foriegn corporations that helped get clinton elected (and im sure others)?

[Lights]

Fair enough.

so, corporations wouldnt have access to lobbyists, but other special interests would? What about the foriegn corporations that helped get clinton elected (and im sure others)?

Considering that Congress is suppose to be working toward the will of the people, not special interests, foreigners, or corporations, I think it would be wise of us to find ways to limit if not eliminate their ability to influence those politicians.

I hope that makes sense.

[Mr Zip]

Considering that Congress is suppose to be working toward the will of the people, not special interests, foreigners, or corporations, I think it would be wise of us to find ways to limit if not eliminate their ability to influence those politicians.

I hope that makes sense.

it doesnt. If you're going to limit special interests, you need to limit all of them, not just corporations, or you create imbalance.

Its been done in a few countries. Not many, but a few.

[Lights]

it doesnt. If you're going to limit special interests, you need to limit all of them, not just corporations, or you create imbalance.

Its been done in a few countries. Not many, but a few.

Oh, do you know which ones? I would be interested in reading how they have dealt with these problems.

[Mr Zip]

Poland, hungary and lithuania and one other I dont remember. From the old soviet breakup. Its been within a year or so so pretty new. Registered lobbyists.

[Sylvanus]

I'm not a socialist, but I am a NewDem. As far as the poor being oppressed, just look at our health care. We are letting the pharmaceutical companies drive seniors over the border looking for affordable drugs and letting insurance companies and hospitals bankrupt those who fall on bad fortune. My economic plan would be a flat tax. It worked in Russia and it could work here. Next, I would strip away if not eliminate many of the big government institutions such as homeland security, the IRS, and the department of education. I would develop some sort of universal health care plan in this country so everyone could have at least accessible emergency care, and so we would have a healthier country which in turn would save us tremendously over the long term. And I would reform Medicaid and Social Security, giving more options.

I agree with getting rid of the big government institutions. I agree with a flat tax (or the new Fair Tax Plan) (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.). People already have emergency medical care, government mandate says hospitals have to treat anyone for an emergency regardless of whether they can pay or not. Why would you advocate getting rid of the Department of Education while simultaneously recommend a Universal Health Care plan? While they both have very different aims, the reason someone could want either stems from the same root (socialism). The government (at all levels) is screwing up publik education, why do you think they can run health care any better? The current system has many problems, but none of them would be fixed by deprivatizing it.

[Mr Zip]

I agree.

Whats funny to me is we live in the economically greatest country in the world, with SO much economic opportunity that literally surrounds us, but yet I wasnt taught any of that in school. Things that are real.

I was never once taught how to balance my checkbook
I wasnt taught how to read a stock ticker, or buy stocks or bonds
I wasnt taught about compounding interest - how it works for you, or against you
I wasnt taught about the dangers of credit card debt.

People need it. Especially with the internet, any creative and ambitious person with a little education could make extra money, or learn to be an entrepreneur and solve alot of their own problems. Hell, even employ someone. or two. or 50. I see people everyday that just dont even know where to start.

[Sylvanus]

Who prints money? Who invents the economy?

And thus the inherent contradiction of libertarianism is exposed. You cannot have a civilized society without the rule of law. You cannot have a free market without the strong hand of government ruling over business interactions and enforcing property rights. If you disagree, there are quite a few third-world African societies where you might wish to relocate to and enjoy a Libertarian paradise within. You will have no secure property rights (because there is no strong hand of government and law) and your currency will be worthless (because it's all to the whims of business winds and not backed by any sort of governmental/societal stability), but hey - you're, like, FREE, man!

Libertarians are hippies who have read Hayek.

Libertarian Ideals:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.


Still one thing more, fellow citizens -- a wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.

Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, 1801


If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.

James Madison, Federalist No. 51


I want the people of America to be able to work less for the government and more for themselves. I want them to have the rewards of their own industry. That is the chief meaning of freedom. Until we can re-establish a condition under which the earnings of the people can be kept by the people, we are bound to suffer a very distinct curtailment of our liberty.

Calvin Coolidge, State of the Union message, December 3, 1924
...

The starting point for an evaluation of capitalism must be the principle that poverty is not an injustice: it is no more than the natural condition of humanity. There are therefore no "causes of poverty," only causes of wealth. This means that there is no such thing as "social justice" -- poverty in the presence of wealth is not as such a wrong. Only theft, taking by fraud or force, is a wrong. Property and contract, commerce and industry are what alter the natural condition of humanity thanks to the enterprise and imagination -- the hortative virtues of prudence -- of those who create the products of technological society and hire the people to manufacture them. Wealth is not found, it is created. It is not justice to "distribute" wealth that must be coercively taken from its creators in order to be given to those who have not created it. That is theft. And doing that, sacrificing freedom in order to create "equality," never accomplishes that end, since it is the distributors themselves, given power over people's freedom, who become "more equal than others."
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Libertarians believe that the government serves a purpose. The primary purpose is to make and enforce laws that prevent citizens from violating other citizen's rights. Among others is national security (preventing other nations from violating our rights) and infrastructure (roads, sewers etc.). The current government is so bloated by all the nonessential functions that it violates our rights in order to maintain the system.

I am not a libertarian for two reasons: 1)I am a Christian, and 2)The American Libertarian party for some reason feels that the legalization of drugs is so important that it often forces the rest of their more valid arguamnts to take a backseat.





Sylvanus added to this post, 5 minutes and 37 seconds later...

I agree.

Whats funny to me is we live in the economically greatest country in the world, with SO much economic opportunity that literally surrounds us, but yet I wasnt taught any of that in school. Things that are real.

I was never once taught how to balance my checkbook
I wasnt taught how to read a stock ticker, or buy stocks or bonds
I wasnt taught about compounding interest - how it works for you, or against you
I wasnt taught about the dangers of credit card debt.

People need it. Especially with the internet, any creative and ambitious person with a little education could make extra money, or learn to be an entrepreneur and solve alot of their own problems. Hell, even employ someone. or two. or 50. I see people everyday that just dont even know where to start.

We had an extracullicular club called FBLA (Future Business Leaders of America) at our school. But I had no desire to join, I figured I would be making tons of money as an engineer, I didn't want to waste my time, and didn't see any value in joining the club. I agree that our schools could be doing a lot more to teach kids about life in the real world. 90% of people that take algebra or trig will never use it after they finish school. But simple things like personal finance aren't even broached, that have so much more value than most of these classes.

[Lights]

I agree with getting rid of the big government institutions. I agree with a flat tax (or the new Fair Tax Plan) (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.). People already have emergency medical care, government mandate says hospitals have to treat anyone for an emergency regardless of whether they can pay or not. Why would you advocate getting rid of the Department of Education while simultaneously recommend a Universal Health Care plan? While they both have very different aims, the reason someone could want either stems from the same root (socialism). The government (at all levels) is screwing up publik education, why do you think they can run health care any better? The current system has many problems, but none of them would be fixed by deprivatizing it.

Actually, I'm certain many of the problems faced by health care would be solved by deprivatizing it. (See the Socialized health care thread) And as far as the goal of socialism, I don't think that way. I believe in less government, not more, but I am willing to recognize where privatization has gone awry. Really, I wish people would stop with the whole, "Oh God you support some socialization you must be a red commie bastard!" There is a big difference between embracing some social democracy ideals and aiming for a revolutionary socialist state. Look at Canada and the United Kingdom for crying out loud.





Lights added to this post, 2 minutes and 52 seconds later...

I agree.

Whats funny to me is we live in the economically greatest country in the world, with SO much economic opportunity that literally surrounds us, but yet I wasnt taught any of that in school. Things that are real.

I was never once taught how to balance my checkbook
I wasnt taught how to read a stock ticker, or buy stocks or bonds
I wasnt taught about compounding interest - how it works for you, or against you
I wasnt taught about the dangers of credit card debt.

People need it. Especially with the internet, any creative and ambitious person with a little education could make extra money, or learn to be an entrepreneur and solve alot of their own problems. Hell, even employ someone. or two. or 50. I see people everyday that just dont even know where to start.

I was. I took Personal Finance and Bookkeeping in high school. It's not like kids aren't offered the classes. Many just choose to take useless electives instead. But it sounds like you are advocating making those kinds of classses mandatory.

[Sylvanus]

Actually, I'm certain many of the problems faced by health care would be solved by deprivatizing it. (See the Socialized health care thread) And as far as the goal of socialism, I don't think that way. I believe in less government, not more, but I am willing to recognize where privatization has gone awry. Really, I wish people would stop with the whole, "Oh God you support some socialization you must be a red commie bastard!" There is a big difference between embracing some social democracy ideals and aiming for a revolutionary socialist state. Look at Canada and the United Kingdom for crying out loud.



I was. I took Personal Finance and Bookkeeping in high school. It's not like kids aren't offered the classes. Many just choose to take useless electives instead. But it sounds like you are advocating making those kinds of classses mandatory.

I've seen that thread. Everything in me tells me that it's wrong, but I don't have enough background to add anything of value to that thread (besides my 2 cents here), so I decided to stay out.

We had classes like that, but they were only for people that couldn't pass algebra and needed to get enough math credits to graduate. So only a small percentage of people actually took it. I have no idea if it actually teaches anything of value, or if the people that were forced to take it actually took something away or just put there time in for the grade.

I think that most American adults only know enough about personal finance to get by. They know that if expenses>paycheck, then it's time to get more credit cards. Then when there debt piles up it's too late, and they can't dig themselves out. Parents could probably do a better job than schools, assuming that they know how to do it in the first place. But if they don't, then I think that schools probably should.

A big reason I didn't join FBLA or any other clubs, is that I couldn't wait to get the hell out of school and go home and away from everyone else. If there were classes that taught the same sort of thing, without taking away from my time, I would have been much more willing to take it. As it was I had my class schedule so fine tuned that I got the minimum required credits and was able to get out of school at noon (the last two years) because I didn't take any more than I needed to (5 out of 7 classes, with no lunch).





Sylvanus added to this post, 39 minutes and 41 seconds later...

80% paid by the top 5%? I would love to see some proof of those figures, because they sound like an exaggeration. The rich in this country, currently pay a lower percentage in their income taxes than do the middle class.

In fact, I'm stil waiting for someone to verify that 37% statistic.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

A single person making over $357,700 pays 35%. That's the highest rate right now.





Sylvanus added to this post, 13 minutes and 3 seconds later...

Most major corporations in America pay 0% taxes.

There are these little things called loopholes in the tax laws that allow rich people to get away with paying little to nothing - with the right lawyers.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Intel's tax rate forecast for the third quarter was approximately 30.5 percent. The third-quarter tax rate is now expected to be impacted by additional taxes of approximately $250 million, plus or minus $25 million, related to a potential repatriation of approximately $6.3 billion of accumulated income earned abroad. The company’s tax rate forecast for the fourth quarter is unchanged at approximately 30.5 percent.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
The company expects that its effective tax rate in 2007 will be approximately 28.5 percent. This rate is lower than the company’s historical expected tax rate of 30 percent due to an expectation of a more favorable mix of income in lower tax jurisdictions. The rate will change year to year based on non-recurring events, such as the settlement of income tax audits, as well as recurring factors including the geographic mix of income before taxes, the timing and amount of foreign dividend repatriation, state and local taxes and the effects of various global income tax strategies.
etc...

[Lights]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

A single person making over $357,700 pays 35%. That's the highest rate right now.

Thank you. I've been asking for that stat forever!

[Colette]

Thank you. I've been asking for that stat forever!

Wow - that's some seriously light taxation going on over there. Where I'm from the top rate is .39 in the dollar, and kicks in after $65,000.

Nanny state....

*me rants and raves and shakes fists*

[Sylvanus]

Wow - that's some seriously light taxation going on over there. Where I'm from the top rate is .39 in the dollar, and kicks in after $65,000.

Nanny state....

*me rants and raves and shakes fists*

Where are you at? That's just federal income tax. Depending on where you live in America there is also state income or sales tax (or both). I think overall it is still lower than pretty much all socialist countries though.





Sylvanus added to this post, 0 minutes and 51 seconds later...

Thank you. I've been asking for that stat forever!

No problem, it only took a couple minutes to google.

[pavman]

Not to mention city income tax.

I was. I took Personal Finance and Bookkeeping in high school. It's not like kids aren't offered the classes. Many just choose to take useless electives instead. But it sounds like you are advocating making those kinds of classses mandatory.

It was mandatory to either take consumer something or economics at my high school. I learned to balance/use my checkbook, ironically, in 7th grade w/ my science/math teacher :o) And I'm sure my mother had some influence as well, since she *always* balanced her checkbook and compared it to statements...she also always calculated her MPG before the advent of onboard computers :thumbsup:

Look, income tax is ridiculous anyway. Its just there to allow the governments to create socialized programs. It used to be that when the US went to war, the rich people were petitioned by the government to fund the war, and in return they would get the spoils of the war. They also relied heavily on bonds to get funding for projects.

Then, after the UK decided to enact income tax laws, the US followed suit (about 20 years later). We've been swimming in our own shit ever since. :yuck:

The only legitimate tax, IMHO, is property tax.

pavman added to this post, 11 minutes and 19 seconds later...

Wow - that's some seriously light taxation going on over there. Where I'm from the top rate is .39 in the dollar, and kicks in after $65,000.

Nanny state....

*me rants and raves and shakes fists*

Actually, I am in the 30% tax bracket, but thanks to 401Ks and all the tax manipulation schemes that the government approves of, I can usually get it down to about 22% a year. :thumbsup:

The real kicker in the US is the FICA crap and the state taxes. FICA adds, for me, about another 6% or so tax to my take home. State adds about 1.5% overhead.

Unfortunately, the ones who suffer the most are the middle class in the US. But that doesn't mean they ought to. Its just how it is, because the rich can afford to hire experts to put their money in tax-free places, whereas the middle class cannot.

pavman added to this post, 4 minutes and 28 seconds later...

And lastly... I read something about suicide rates in this thread...

According to one of the classes I took in college, suicide rates are highest among middle class demographics because they have too much time on their hands. Of the middle class demographics, the upper-middle class had the highest suicide rate.

The poor are too busy trying to survive, the rich are too busy managing their assets.

[coffeeloverfreak]

I agree.

Whats funny to me is we live in the economically greatest country in the world, with SO much economic opportunity that literally surrounds us, but yet I wasnt taught any of that in school. Things that are real.

I was never once taught how to balance my checkbook
I wasnt taught how to read a stock ticker, or buy stocks or bonds
I wasnt taught about compounding interest - how it works for you, or against you
I wasnt taught about the dangers of credit card debt.

People need it. Especially with the internet, any creative and ambitious person with a little education could make extra money, or learn to be an entrepreneur and solve alot of their own problems. Hell, even employ someone. or two. or 50. I see people everyday that just dont even know where to start.

We had a mandatory world economics course in grade 11 that everyone had to take before they could graduate high school. We learned about the stock market, compound interest, debt, some basic economic theory (supply/demand, world markets, etc.) and we even had a mock stock market competition.

That said, I agree that education on personal finance is woefully inadequate. I took a university elective on the subject, mostly for the easy marks because I already knew most of it (my parents took it upon themselves to make sure we were well versed). But I have a lot of friends who don't know the first thing about money or debt. They rack up credit card debt like there's no tomorrow, they shift balances from one card to the next, they're "buy-now-pay-later" addicts, they have no idea how to complete their tax returns, what the tax benefits of an RRSP are, or how to get themselves back into the black. I'm usually the person they call for advice in these situations, though by that point it's often so far gone that it can be near-impossible to get them to see reason. And these aren't dumb people. They can pass advanced theoretical calculus without breaking a sweat, but they can't figure out how to make a personal budget or live within their means. I mean, how is that even possible?

Personal finance isn't rocket science. You spend less than you earn. You save a portion of your money for later. You invest, diversify, and build equity where possible. It's not exactly brain surgery. And yet, it's a mystery to so many people.

I actually strongly agree with the notion that personal finance should be mandatory learning in high schools. It would give a lot of people the fundamentals to build on, and could help prevent so many problems later on.

[ArchonAlarion]

None of this matters anyway, since the constitution is supposedly based on the social contract theory, yet written contracts must be voluntary and explicitly signed. The constitution was only signed by a few men in a stuffy building, and as long as one person in the country didn't like the constitution, than it was forced on them involuntarily.

Therefore, the Constitution is not a legitimate document.

[Lights]

None of this matters anyway, since the constitution is supposedly based on the social contract theory, yet written contracts must be voluntary and explicitly signed. The constitution was only signed by a few men in a stuffy building, and as long as one person in the country didn't like the constitution, than it was forced on them involuntarily.

Therefore, the Constitution is not a legitimate document.

:laugh: You make prometheus sound like a moderate.

I think you have twisted the definition of a social contract quite severely. By your definition, no government document in human history that has ever had at least one dissenter, is legitimate. I think that is pretty much, every document. :rolleyes:

[ArchonAlarion]

:laugh: You make prometheus sound like a moderate.

I think you have twisted the definition of a social contract quite severely. By your definition, no government document in human history that has ever had at least one dissenter, is legitimate. I think that is pretty much, every document. :rolleyes:


That, my friend, is entirely the point.

And no I'm not twisting the definition of a contract. It is an "explicit voluntary agreement" That means it must be voluntary and must be explicit, end of story.

A social contract would be an explicit volountary agreement. Otherwise, it is not a contract and not legit. The constitution was neither entirely voluntary (there have always been dissenters), nor was it explicit (They'd have to go to everyone in the country and ask if they wanted in, by signature. Than if someone didn't want in, than the constitution wouldn't apply to that person).

My friends and I can't sign a contract with McDonalds, for example, and than say that it is legitimate that everyone in the land must buy 12 hamburgers a day because of our contract.

[Lights]

Ah, you are sooooo cute. :lovestruck:

When prometheus does this it's infuriating, but for some reason, you are so extreme and so self assured that I can't help but get that same warm fuzzy feeling I get when I see puppies and kittens. It's a weird reaction but its hard to take someone seriously when they are trying to redefine the idea of a social contract so it suits their idea of anarchy. It's just too damn silly. It's like you are some sort of chibi INTJ with over exaggerated features. I love it!

Kawaii! :love:

[ArchonAlarion]

ah shucks, thanks :cool:

I would like to know the correct definition of a contract and how the constitution constitutes as one. :rolleyes:

[Lights]

Social contract: A theory on how government and societies began. Contractarians hold that societies were formed by the consent of the populations of various areas who decided, for whatever reasons (these vary from philosopher to philosopher) that it would be to their mutual advantage to band together and cooperate.

It says populations, not individuals. :thumbsup:

Or the Princeton definition.

Social contract: an implicit agreement among people that results in the organization of society; individual surrenders liberty in return for protection.

Not seeing anything there about an "explicit voluntary agreement". :laugh:

Of course, these are the definitions found in reality, not in Ayn Rand la la land.

[ArchonAlarion]

Social contract: A theory on how government and societies began. Contractarians hold that societies were formed by the consent of the populations of various areas who decided, for whatever reasons (these vary from philosopher to philosopher) that it would be to their mutual advantage to band together and cooperate.

It says populations, not individuals. :thumbsup:

Or the Princeton definition.

Social contract: an implicit agreement among people that results in the organization of society; individual surrenders liberty in return for protection.

Not seeing anything there about an "explicit voluntary agreement". :laugh:

Of course, these are the definitions found in reality, not in Ayn Rand la la land.

Well I can say that a cat is actually called a dog, but it doesn't change the fact that its a cat.

Would you say that when your friend agrees to come over on friday, its a contract? Thats implicit, not explicit. If he signed his name to a document agreeing that he will come over on friday AND he did it voluntarily, than it's a contract.

A contract must be an EXPLICIT, VOLUNTARY agreement. If something is IMPLICIT and INVOLUNTARY than it isn't a contract, even if lots of people call it that. It doesn't make it right. You can shout in my face that the Constitution is a social contract all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that it was implicit and involuntary.

[Lights]

Well I can say that a cat is actually called a dog, but it doesn't change the fact that its a cat.

Would you say that when your friend agrees to come over on friday, its a contract? Thats implicit, not explicit. If he signed his name to a document agreeing that he will come over on friday AND he did it voluntarily, than it's a contract.

A contract must be an EXPLICIT, VOLUNTARY agreement. If something is IMPLICIT and INVOLUNTARY than it isn't a contract, even if lots of people call it that. It doesn't make it right. You can shout in my face that the Constitution is a social contract all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that it was implicit and involuntary.

Dude, there is a difference between a "contract" and a "social contract". :laugh:

Get a dictionary. Or at least a history book so you can pretend you know what you are talking about.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[prometheus]

How is it that each of them comes to be stripped of his natural, God-given rights, and to be incorporated, compressed, compacted, and consolidated into a mass with other men, whom he never saw; with whom he has no contract; and towards many of whom he has no sentiments but fear, hatred, or contempt? How does he become subjected to the control of men like himself, who, by nature, had no authority over him; but who command him to do this, and forbid him to do that, as if they were his sovereigns, and he their subject; and as if their wills and their interests were the only standards of his duties and his rights; and who compel him to submission under peril of confiscation, imprisonment, and death?

The Constitution says:

"We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

The meaning of this is simply We, the people of the United States, acting freely and voluntarily as individuals, consent and agree that we will cooperate with each other in sustaining such a government as is provided for in this Constitution.

The necessity for the consent of "the people" is implied in this declaration. The whole authority of the Constitution rests upon it. If they did not consent, it was of no validity. Of course it had no validity, except as between those who actually consented. No one's consent could be presumed against him, without his actual consent being given, any more than in the case of any other contract to pay money, or render service. And to make it binding upon any one, his signature, or other positive evidence of consent, was as necessary as in the case of any other-contract. If the instrument meant to say that any of "the people of the United States" would be bound by it, who [*4] did not consent, it was a usurpation and a lie. The most that can be inferred from the form, "We, the people," is, that the instrument offered membership to all "the people of the United States;" leaving it for them to accept or refuse it, at their pleasure.

The agreement is a simple one, like any other agreement. It is the same as one that should say: We, the people of the town of A-----, agree to sustain a church, a school, a hospital, or a theatre, for ourselves and our children.

Such an agreement clearly could have no validity, except as between those who actually consented to it. If a portion only of "the people of the town of A-----," should assent to this contract, and should then proceed to compel contributions of money or service from those who had not consented, they would be mere robbers; and would deserve to be treated as such.

Neither the conduct nor the rights of these signers would be improved at all by their saying to the dissenters: We offer you equal rights with ourselves, in the benefits of the church, school, hospital, or theatre, which we propose to establish, and equal voice in the control of it. It would be a sufficient answer for the others to say: We want no share in the benefits, and no voice in the control, of your institution; and will do nothing to support it.

The number who actually consented to the Constitution of the United States, at the first, was very small. Considered as the act of the whole people, the adoption of the Constitution was the merest farce and imposture, binding upon nobody.

The women, children, and blacks, of course, were not asked to give their consent. In addition to this, there were, in nearly or quite all the States, property qualifications that excluded probable one half, two thirds, or perhaps even three fourths, of the white male adults from the right of suffrage. And of those who were allowed that right, we know not how many exercised it.

Furthermore, those who originally agreed to the Constitution, could thereby bind nobody that should come after them. They could contract for nobody but themselves. They had no more [*5] natural right or power to make political contracts, binding upon succeeding generations, than they had to make marriage or business contracts binding upon them.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

This is but part of this wonderful essay, that all should read.

[Lights]

Dude, you went off and copied and pasted an essay by an anarchist in order to help your little anarchist compatriot argue that social contracts, which by definition are implicit, must actually be explicit. I'm sorry, but that is just weak. Just because anarchists want them to be explicit, doesn't actually change their definition in reality. See I live in reality, and its a nice place with these things called dictionaries. :rolleyes:

[prometheus]

Dude, you went off and copied and pasted an essay by an anarchist in order to help your little anarchist compatriot argue that social contracts, which by definition are implicit, must actually be explicit. I'm sorry, but that is just weak. Just because anarchists want them to be explicit, doesn't actually change their definition in reality. See I live in reality, and its a nice place with these things called dictionaries. :rolleyes:


Why don't you try reading it and addressing the excellent points that flattened your "Social Contracts aren't Contracts" weak ass "argument" instead of relying upon personal attacks.

I'm truly sorry there are no great historical Socialist thinkers with excellent points, but this should be a clue to you that there is a flaw in your position.


Try getting a real job in the free market, and maybe you will feel less compelled to defend the theft and inherant evil of your socioeconomic ethos. You might actually swear it all off, become a productive member of society, and maybe, maybe, someday see the folly of your youthful beliefs and embrace Market Anarchism. Though i doubt it.


Here tackle just this lil' part here:

We, the people of the town of A-----, agree to sustain a church, a school, a hospital, or a theatre, for ourselves and our children.

Such an agreement clearly could have no validity, except as between those who actually consented to it. If a portion only of "the people of the town of A-----," should assent to this contract, and should then proceed to compel contributions of money or service from those who had not consented, they would be mere robbers; and would deserve to be treated as such.

[Lights]

Why don't you try reading it and addressing the excellent points that flattened your "Social Contracts aren't Contracts" weak ass "argument" instead of relying upon personal attacks.

Um...because I'm still waiting for someone to address my "It's in the dictionary" argument. :rolleyes:

I'm truly sorry there are no great historical Socialist thinkers with excellent points, but this should be a clue to you that there is a flaw in your position.

That's your opinion.


Try getting a real job in the free market, and maybe you will feel less compelled to defend the theft and inherant evil of your socioeconomic ethos. You might actually swear it all off, become a productive member of society, and maybe, maybe, someday see the folly of your youthful beliefs and embrace Market Anarchism. Though i doubt it.

You know, I might have actually taken offence to that if I didn't realize one thing. Most "market anarchists" who I have met in real life are social rejects who didn't have the social skills to make it in the real world so they took up their little philosophy so they didn't have to feel sorry for themselves and could blame it all on "establishment". I'm not saying that is what you and AA are like, but for all this talk of "free market" glory, I've never actually met any anarchists who were hopped up to run off to a 3rd world African country where it is a reality and try to make it work. :laugh:

[prometheus]

Social contract theory provides the rationale behind the historically important notion that legitimate state authority must be derived from the consent of the governed. The starting point for most of these theories is a heuristic examination of the human condition absent from any social order, termed the “state of nature” or “natural state”. In this state of being, an individual’s action is bound only by his or her conscience. From this common starting point, the various proponents of social contract theory attempt to explain, in different ways, why it is in an individual’s rational self-interest to voluntarily subjugate the freedom of action one has under the natural state (their so called “natural rights”) in order to obtain the benefits provided by the formation of social structures.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

And before you go there Socrates didn't write your or "my" Social Contract. That I didn't sign FYI.

Let's see you site some of those "great socialist thinkers" To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. This should be good. It's called supporting your arguments.

Market Anarchists aren't anti-social, though I could see why you could think so. When surrounded by thieving nanny state worshipers we tend to leave. We are making it work, try checking out this place.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Lights]

First off, you realize you are using wikipedia to argue against me, right? Second, I don't see anything that states that social contracts are "explicit". Third, I actually posted the Princeton definition which states clearly that social contracts are "implicit". Fourth, I really don't give a shit what a crazy anarchist has to say about socialist thinkers, since it isn't like you are completely objective in the matter. Fifth, I've met enough "market anarchists" in my life to know what kind of people they are. So no need to try to bullshit me. I've been through your part of Montana more than once.

[prometheus]

First off, you realize you are using wikipedia to argue against me, right? Second, I don't see anything that states that social contracts are "explicit". Third, I actually posted the Princeton definition which states clearly that social contracts are "implicit". Fourth, I really don't give a shit what a crazy anarchist has to say about socialist thinkers, since it isn't like you are completely objective in the matter. Fifth, I've met enough "market anarchists" in my life to know what kind of people they are. So no need to try to bullshit me. I've been through your part of Montana more than once.


Why are you actually posting here? This "post" is nothing more than "I'm rubber, you're glue" Furthermore, once again I'm offended that you are using tax money supplied equipment while being paid by us tax payers to spread such utter trash. Get to work, already.

MTA: As long as you are wasting our money, answer this, already.

We, the people of the town of A-----, agree to sustain a church, a school, a hospital, or a theatre, for ourselves and our children.

Such an agreement clearly could have no validity, except as between those who actually consented to it. If a portion only of "the people of the town of A-----," should assent to this contract, and should then proceed to compel contributions of money or service from those who had not consented, they would be mere robbers; and would deserve to be treated as such.

[Lights]

Why are you actually posting here? This "post" is nothing more than "I'm rubber, you're glue" Furthermore, once again I'm offended that you are using tax money supplied equipment while being paid by us tax payers to spread such utter trash. Get to work, already.

Um...I was just talking to AA and you came out of nowhere with this copy and paste shit that didn't really have anything to do with anything. I guess you just felt like embarassing yourself or something. :laugh:

Also, I don't know what you mean by tax payer supplied equipment since I bought my laptop with my own money and I only do volunteer social work since I'm still in school working toward my degree.

Now why don't you run off to one of those 3rd world countries in Africa that are in anarchy and practice what you preach? Most of us in this country are actually pretty happy and proud to be in a constitutional republic.

[prometheus]

Um...I was just talking to AA and you came out of nowhere with this copy and paste shit that didn't really have anything to do with anything. I guess you just felt like embarassing yourself or something. :laugh:



Lights spewth:
Dude, there is a difference between a "contract" and a "social contract".

Prometheus respondth:

How is it that each of them comes to be stripped of his natural, God-given rights, and to be incorporated, compressed, compacted, and consolidated into a mass with other men, whom he never saw; with whom he has no contract; and towards many of whom he has no sentiments but fear, hatred, or contempt? How does he become subjected to the control of men like himself, who, by nature, had no authority over him; but who command him to do this, and forbid him to do that, as if they were his sovereigns, and he their subject; and as if their wills and their interests were the only standards of his duties and his rights; and who compel him to submission under peril of confiscation, imprisonment, and death?

The Constitution says:

"We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

The meaning of this is simply We, the people of the United States, acting freely and voluntarily as individuals, consent and agree that we will cooperate with each other in sustaining such a government as is provided for in this Constitution.

The necessity for the consent of "the people" is implied in this declaration. The whole authority of the Constitution rests upon it. If they did not consent, it was of no validity. Of course it had no validity, except as between those who actually consented. No one's consent could be presumed against him, without his actual consent being given, any more than in the case of any other contract to pay money, or render service. And to make it binding upon any one, his signature, or other positive evidence of consent, was as necessary as in the case of any other-contract. If the instrument meant to say that any of "the people of the United States" would be bound by it, who [*4] did not consent, it was a usurpation and a lie. The most that can be inferred from the form, "We, the people," is, that the instrument offered membership to all "the people of the United States;" leaving it for them to accept or refuse it, at their pleasure.

The agreement is a simple one, like any other agreement. It is the same as one that should say: We, the people of the town of A-----, agree to sustain a church, a school, a hospital, or a theatre, for ourselves and our children.

Such an agreement clearly could have no validity, except as between those who actually consented to it. If a portion only of "the people of the town of A-----," should assent to this contract, and should then proceed to compel contributions of money or service from those who had not consented, they would be mere robbers; and would deserve to be treated as such.

Neither the conduct nor the rights of these signers would be improved at all by their saying to the dissenters: We offer you equal rights with ourselves, in the benefits of the church, school, hospital, or theatre, which we propose to establish, and equal voice in the control of it. It would be a sufficient answer for the others to say: We want no share in the benefits, and no voice in the control, of your institution; and will do nothing to support it.

The number who actually consented to the Constitution of the United States, at the first, was very small. Considered as the act of the whole people, the adoption of the Constitution was the merest farce and imposture, binding upon nobody.

The women, children, and blacks, of course, were not asked to give their consent. In addition to this, there were, in nearly or quite all the States, property qualifications that excluded probable one half, two thirds, or perhaps even three fourths, of the white male adults from the right of suffrage. And of those who were allowed that right, we know not how many exercised it.

Furthermore, those who originally agreed to the Constitution, could thereby bind nobody that should come after them. They could contract for nobody but themselves. They had no more [*5] natural right or power to make political contracts, binding upon succeeding generations, than they had to make marriage or business contracts binding upon them.

You do realize the Constitution is this nations Social contract. I realize the comprehension of the whole post is out of your skill set, so I emboldened the parts that relate.

Now, isn't Ms. Gram due around with your snack before nap time. :laugh:

[Lights]

Lights spewth:
Prometheus respondth:

You do realize the Constitution is this nations Social contract. I realize the comprehension of the whole post is out of your skill set, so I emboldened the parts that relate.

Now, isn't Ms. Gram due around with your snack before nap time. :laugh:

And what does any of that have to do with whether or not social contracts are defined in reality as "explicit"? I notice you left off the definition example I posted. You obviously had no idea what the hell we were talking about.

Seriously, stop embarassing yourself by pretending to know what people are talking about and coming and posting random anarchist crap. I love that your arguments are so weak that whenever someone wages a good argument about how you guys are misdefining or twisting things, you have to go and actually prove it by posting more anarchist crap rather than disprove that you are misdefining and twisting ideas.

Tell you what, just disprove that Websters and Princeton don't define social contracts as "implicit" agreements, and we can leave it at that.

[prometheus]

Tell you what, just disprove that Websters and Princeton don't define social contracts as "implicit" agreements, and we can leave it at that.

Spooner disproved your argument so much better than I could. I suggest you read it.

This part which you have ignored 4 times now really sums up the truth of the "implicit" argument.


We, the people of the town of A-----, agree to sustain a church, a school, a hospital, or a theatre, for ourselves and our children.

Such an agreement clearly could have no validity, except as between those who actually consented to it. If a portion only of "the people of the town of A-----," should assent to this contract, and should then proceed to compel contributions of money or service from those who had not consented, they would be mere robbers; and would deserve to be treated as such.

Here since you seem to have a phobia of reading dead mens words I'll rephrase it.

My Market Anarchist friends and I get together and write:

We, the people of Triad Region (Wyoming, Montana, Idaho), agree to levy a tax of 20% per annum on any bisexual men, people who eat quiche, wear Chacos, or can't prove ownership of at least 6 firearms.

Signed:

xxxxx

xxxxx

xxxxx

xxxxx

xxxxx

xxxxx

So when you sending us our money?

[Lights]

Spooner disproved your argument so much better than I could. I suggest you read it.

This part which you have ignored 4 times now really sums up the truth of the "implicit" argument.


We, the people of the town of A-----, agree to sustain a church, a school, a hospital, or a theatre, for ourselves and our children.

Such an agreement clearly could have no validity, except as between those who actually consented to it. If a portion only of "the people of the town of A-----," should assent to this contract, and should then proceed to compel contributions of money or service from those who had not consented, they would be mere robbers; and would deserve to be treated as such.

Here since you seem to have a phobia of reading dead mens words I'll rephrase it.

My Market Anarchist friends and I get together and write:

We, the people of Triad Region (Wyoming, Montana, Idaho), agree to levy a tax of 20% per annum on any bisexual men, people who eat quiche, wear Chacos, or can't prove ownership of at least 6 firearms.

Signed:

xxxxx

xxxxx

xxxxx

xxxxx

xxxxx

xxxxx

So when you sending us our money?

Uh huh. And there were elections for these representatives? Dude, your argument is so logically weak that you are completely embarassing yourself and INTJs everywhere. Anyone who knows the slightest bit of history about how the constitution wasn't just written but ratified by elected representatives, knows that you are just humiliating yourself by putting up a half cocked argument. I just feel sorry for you dog. It's pathetic.

And the fact of the matter is I can still go to a dictionary and look up the definition of "social contract" and still find the word "implicit" in its definition. Get real. Of course, I would love to know how long dead Spooner, managed to disprove that I am incapable of doing that. :laugh:

Just because you want to argue that is should be explicit doesn't mean that is how it is actually defined. :rolleyes:

[prometheus]

Uh huh. And there were elections for these representatives? Dude, your argument is so logically weak that you are completely embarassing yourself and INTJs everywhere. Anyone who knows the slightest bit of history about how the constitution wasn't just written but ratified by elected representatives, knows that you are just humiliating yourself by putting up a half cocked argument. I just feel sorry for you dog. It's pathetic.

And the fact of the matter is I can still go to a dictionary and look up the definition of "social contract" and still find the word "implicit" in its definition. Get real. Of course, I would love to know how long dead Spooner, managed to disprove that I am incapable of doing that. :laugh:

Just because you want to argue that is should be explicit doesn't mean that is how it is actually defined. :rolleyes:

Speaking of not knowing any history, you best sign up for some more classes next time.

But owing to the property qualifications required, it is probable that, during the first twenty or thirty years under the Constitution, not more than one-tenth, fifteenth, or perhaps twentieth of the whole population (black and white, men, women, and minors) were permitted to vote. Consequently, so far as voting was concerned, not more than one-tenth, fifteenth, or twentieth of those then existing, could have incurred any obligation to support the Constitution.

Yea they were elected alright I bet I can scare up 5% of the people around here to tax yo ass.

[Lights]

Speaking of not knowing any history, you best sign up for some more classes next time.

:laugh:

Yea they were elected alright I bet I can scare up 5% of the people around here to tax yo ass.

So the fact that nobody has overturned it in all these years means its some sort of implied, though not directly expressed agreement? If only there was word for such an agreement. :thinking: A word like..."implicit" maybe?

[prometheus]

The Oath of Lights:

Though I walk through the Valley of the Shadow of Anarchy I’m not scared, because I'm packing my dictionary and burn the fagots [1] as I goeth, I only fear to get wet in the Dyke[2]

1faggot (1)
1279, "bundle of twigs bound up," from O.Fr. fagot "bundle of sticks," from It. faggotto, dim. of V.L. *facus, from L. fascis "bundle of wood" (see fasces). Esp. used for burning heretics (a sense attested from 1555)

2dyke (dīk) Pronunciation Key
n.

1.
1. An embankment of earth and rock built to prevent floods.
2. Chiefly British A low wall, often of sod, dividing or enclosing lands.
2. A barrier blocking a passage, especially for protection.
3. A raised causeway.
4. A ditch; a channel.

[prometheus]

The argument is really about whether the US Social contract is legitimate, I feel I have more than shown it is not. I shall wait for some other opinions before wasting more of my time.

Since your whole argument is based on "implied"

Here is a bit of Dictionary (keeping with your level and all) wisdom for you.

implication

Relation between two propositions, one of which may be inferred from the other.
p q p É q
T T T
T F F
F T T
F F T

A material implication is a compound statement that is true except when its first component statement (the antecedent is true and its second (the consequent) is false. Thus, the truth of the antecedent ensures that of the consequent. Material implication is symbolized here in the form:

p É q

Example: "If Bob is competent, then Bob should get the job."

A strict implication (or entailment) is a tautologous statement of the same form.

Example: "If George is the same height as Janet, then Janet is the same height as George."

[Lights]

The word was "implicit" not "implied". :p

The Constitution wasn't an explicit contract, it was a social contract, which are implicit. Therefore, the argument that every individual has to agree to it for it to be legitimate is null.

[prometheus]

The word was "implicit" not "implied". :p

The Constitution wasn't an explicit contract, it was a social contract, which are implicit. Therefore, the argument that every individual has to agree to it for it to be legitimate is null.

implication
(ĭm'plĭ-kā'shən) pronunciation

n.

1. The act of implicating or the condition of being implicated.
2. The act of implying or the condition of being implied.
3. Something that is implied, especially:
1. An indirect indication; a suggestion.
2. An implied meaning; implicit significance.
3. An inference.

Close enough for social work. :p

[ArchonAlarion]

Lights, like I said, I don't care if a social contract constitutes a contract.

All that matters is that since it was not a real contract, than it was not legitimate.

You aren't answering the question of whether a few men can decide on a contract and then force it onto everyone else. How is that a contract? How is that a contract?

How...is...that...a...contract?

And what choice did the few dissenters have? To rebel and become disowned by their families and communities and be ostracized from society, perhaps imprisoned or killed?

And if everyone had agreed to the contract then, explicitly and voluntarily, Can't I negate the contract now and seceed from the state?

Lights, please stop dancing around the issue and participate in something beyond semantics.

[Lights]

Lights, like I said, I don't care if a social contract constitutes a contract.

All that matters is that since it was not a real contract, than it was not legitimate.

You aren't answering the question of whether a few men can decide on a contract and then force it onto everyone else. How is that a contract? How is that a contract?

How...is...that...a...contract?

And what choice did the few dissenters have? To rebel and become disowned by their families and communities and be ostracized from society, perhaps imprisoned or killed?

And if everyone had agreed to the contract then, explicitly and voluntarily, Can't I negate the contract now and seceed from the state?

Lights, please stop dancing around the issue and participate in something beyond semantics.

Dude, it's a social contract. It's implicit. As long as people are happy to go along with it then its fine. If you don't like it, then you can go to some 3rd world African country where anarchy is a reality and show us all how well it works. As long as you anarchists continue to live within the protection of our republic, you are just preaching bullshit. You know it and everyone knows it. It's easy to talk about how easy and better anarchy would be while you stand behind the safety of our established system, but I don't see you hustleing to prove it out in the world where you don't have a military, police force, and countless other "establishments" providing you protection in exchange for some of your liberties. Even prometheus pays tax on his property and gas, so I don't take anything he says worth a grain of salt. Heck, you are all on an internet that was built by the evil imposing "establishment' so your very presence here makes you hypocrites. It isn't semantics, you guys are just simply ignoring reality. It's cute, but it's delusional and impossible to take seriously.

Now I have no problem giving up some of my liberties in exchange for the protection of this country. When I pay taxes, I am volunteering that money. Not under threat, but because I feel it is my duty as a citizen and I know I have the power to influence how I pay by the people I elect. Now I understand you may not like this system, but nobody is keeping you here, and you have the choice to take up arms against the government if you don't agree with it. The reality is, either way you lose. That is why democracy is strong and anarchy is weak.

Call it unethical if you want, but ethics are human constructs. They don't exist in the physical universe. So they aren't going to be any help to you when you are dead. You only have rights if you can get other people to respect them. If I decide I want to come over and kill you and take all your stuff, then your individual rights aren't going matter a damn bit. You need me to respect your rights. And the only reason I'm going to do that is because there is a system in place where I know you will respect my rights as long as I respect yours. It's both implicit in our morality, and explicit in the laws of the land.

That's why anarchists have to have guns. But as soon as I get enough people together with guns, then we will come over and kill you and take your stuff. Unless you have some magic ability to make people stop cooperating, whoever can get the most guns together will have the power. That is the reality and that is why anarchy will not work. Individual rights don't matter worth a shit, once you are dead.

And that brings us to why you are here. You are trying to convert people. You are trying to "enlighten" people and get them to come over to your system in respect for your individual rights. The plan is obvious. You want to get enough people to come over to your side so that you will have the manpower necessary to protect your ideals. But guess what? It ain't gonna happen. It's the same flaw inherent in communism. There will always be people who will take advantage of the system. You have already lost, and you are just so wound up in the passion of your ideals that you haven't even realized it. Your system can't work, therefore it isn't practical, and therefore it is not sound judgement to practice your philosophy. :p

Now don't get me wrong. I don't think it's a bad goal to seek as much individual liberty as you can obtain within reason. It's important to not let the government strip you of your liberties. But when it comes to demanding that everyone respect your individual rights, while you don't respect the collective rights...it's just self defeating.

How is that for "something beyond semantics"?

[deepFlow]

There's no way I'd subscribe to anything remotely "purely capitalistic", because there's nothing inherent to capitalism that puts a premium on human rights. I do like a certain amount of property rights, but I think a balance is necessary. In my opinion, the worst problems in the world today and yesterday involve consolidation of power, and lack of security/stability/survivability.

The arguments over intricacies of pure ideologies don't compel me much because they seem like fart-bubble collisions in an ocean. Fun like videogame universes, but not a lot to do with real life. ...That could just be me showing my impatience with economic theory when divorced from humanistic morality, though, I guess.

It seems to me that some kind of government / community / layer of social agreement is necessary. It has proven necessary, through human history. Without it, power just begets more power, and chaos and violence reign. So it behooves a collection of people to find the right kind of government. We have governments today that work to varying degrees, and we work from where we are, compare notes, and look for ways to refine and improve them for our humanistic purposes.

Advocating anarchy of any kind seems wrongheaded. We already had anarchy. Way back when. How do you think we got to where we are today? It all started there and "naturally" worked its way here over a long stretch of time. Anarchy feels like luddite-collectivism, turn-the-clock-back neanderthalism.

One thing that is strange to me is when some libertarians seem to make a large point about invoking "mass murder", seemingly likening socialist ideas to communist regimes, but then in general turning around and seeming to be okay with the "mass death" of fiscal and biological unfortunates...

In my opinion, the only workable system in the long run is going to have to finally accept the fact that everyone has a right to live. Basic survival needs, and protection from predation, met. That to me seems to be a given. But then, that's the foundation of my particular core moral-political opinionation-nugget.

Some people argue in a way that seems to imply that they have a right not to be taxed ever. But I wonder, where did they get their money? Are they living in a purely barter-and-trade system? Are they not "leeching" off of the world's nations' internet backbones? Are not they benefitting from collectivism by living and working here (any of the national "heres")?

Sometimes self-described libertarians seem quite selective about their social responsibilities to others versus others' responsibilities to them. Sometimes it comes off like a petty, fickle, selfish anti-cooperative mode for the sake of itself.

I personally haven't come across libertarians who were at all existing in or busily implementing the ideal libertarian bubble (as Quentin points out), so they quite often come across as merely "petulant cheaters", in a way.

[Colette]

Now don't get me wrong. I don't think it's a bad goal to seek as much individual liberty as you can obtain within reason. It's important to not let the government strip you of your liberties. But when it comes to demanding that everyone respect your individual rights, while you don't respect the collective rights...it's just self defeating.


I'm not sure the trumpeting of individual rights at the expense of collective ones is "self-defeating" as you suggest, but rather perhaps vaguely disingenuous. People who persist in lauding the notion of individual rights and liberties over collective ones, are usually precisely the same group which benefits from, or takes advantage of, collective rights and benefits, without even realizing they are doing so. Prime examples of this are state-funded health care, education, scholarships, roading and infrastructure, community grant funding, and so on. The list is endless.

The other observation I'd make about this group, is that one often finds it over-populated with people who fall into one of two categories (and thus under-represented in general or other areas of the populace):

(i) People born with a 'silver spoon' in their mouths; who have had an ideal background and family upbringing, and the best education and opportunities Western society has to offer. The tendency of this group is to shy away from any empathy or identification with the 'collective', in order to preserve its own superior material and social status and standing;

(ii) People (quite often, but not invariably, of immigrant families), who have had to "claw their way up by the bootstraps" the hard way, and expect everyone else to do the same. Thus any type of collective right which is established or asserted in a way designed to help a particular group, and which may provide assistance considered to be "undeserving" for that group, is viewed with great suspicion, and resentment.

Collective rights can (as you pointed out) best be understood by reference back always to Rousseau's 'Social Contract'. You, as a member of the citizenry, have certain duties and obligations such as taxes, obedience to the civil and criminal law, respect for property and so on, and in exchange, the state (ostensibly representing collective rights and interests) undertakes to 'look after' you in times of need, and provide you with certain basic rights, freedoms, and liberties.

To suggest that such a contract shouldn't exist, or is redundant, seems to me to encourage a descent into the most depraved and uncivilized form of anarchy, or "law of the jungle"; and I'd further add that I consider US society is becoming more and more like this, and less like the sort of 'social democracy' envisaged by Rousseau and his political adherents.

[Theodoric]

Browsing the posts, it appears that many people here on the side of socialism believe that the market economy (capitalism, or to put it more succinctly the economic system adopted by the few societies that are not struggling) has a tendency to produce an 'unfair' distribution of wealth, and that the welfare state can produce social justice.

This is not the case. In a free market, unburdened by protectionist practices and with unregulated free and competitive exchange, each person earns what they contribute. Employers then estimate what consumers will be willing to pay for their products and subsequently multiple employers compete with one and other not only on the basis of product pricing, but to hire workers with the various skills necessary for the production of their product. Therefore, the person with the most skills (brought about by education and hard work) will invariably earn more, because they are the most competitive and most sought after by prospective employers. Unskilled laborers will therefore earn less, because practically anyone is able to do menial labor, thus making the labor pool much greater. Therefore, the wage each individual earns is neither fair nor unfair, they are merely just the result of judgments made by both employer and consumer about the potential value of services rendered.

Conversely, the welfare state (socialism, or more succinctly the economic system adopted by the majority of societies that are failing) does not create a 'more just' outcome than the aforementioned free market. What the welfare state does is to politicize social relationships.

Rather than people's wealth being the results of voluntary and competitive exchange they are now influenced and determined by the coercive redistribution by the state. Each individual's standard of living is now not determined by their skills, productivity, or investments, but rather dependent upon how much political power and influence that they, and the various groups they belong to, wield. Thus, the market economy reduces political power and eliminates political privilege. In fact, many socialist societies in the past have merely transfered wealth and social standing from one group, the entrenched business leaders, to another, the political ruling elite. Joseph Stalin and the upper levels of the Soviet Government enjoyed privileged lifestyles. Attending lavish banquets, living in palatial estates, and having enormous material wealth while many of the citizens were waiting in lines for basic necessities. The governments of Cuba, Venezuela, and Iran are practically mirror images of Stalin's USSR where the ruling elite enjoy lavish lifestyles but the average citizen is subjected to rampant unemployment and the subsequent crushing poverty that it creates.

Socialist systems, such as socialized medicine and welfare, have a similar track record of excesses and the inability of the governments' that implement them to properly distribute benefits. In England the NHS (National Health Service) is having difficulty properly treating the patients under its care. With the advent of new drugs and procedures to combat highly advanced illnesses such as cancer it is possible to significantly improve their lives. However, sue to political wrangling and bureaucratic oversights most of these procedures are out of reach for normal citizens. However, the ruling elites in the Parliament and the antiquated royal family do not have these issues but rather are able to enjoy the best service and care at the taxpayers' expense.

In Canada, access to many center such as CT Scanning Centers, Open Heart Surgery Centers, and installed MRI units is severely reduced, resulting in extended waiting times for patients and increased costs due to lack of resources, funding, and facilities. It is also estimated that between 3 and 4 million Canadians do not have a regular medical doctor, resulting in frequent trips to emergency rooms for basic services which then results in longer waiting times and reduced care.

The biggest problem with socialist programs is the increased bureaucratic overhead that is needed to monitor them. Large numbers of people are employed to monitor and process applications for federal assistance programs. These people produce no tangible product or service that generates revenue, and due to this they are non sustaining. In short, it is not only the social program that needs government funding, but it is also the increased overhead that is necessitated by these programs needs government funding. Due to this, increased government programs either due to extending them or implementing new ones require massive amounts of cash infusions and increasingly larger numbers of people to monitor them. Sapping the already strained workforce by pulling people out of the productive economy where they produce consumable goods and services which help to increase economic production thereby increasing sustainable growth to putting them in the government where they produce nothing and contribute nothing to economic growth.

In short, socialist programs harm the economy in three ways. First, they remove people from the economy to monitor these programs. These people then contribute nothing to the continued growth of the economy. Two, they enable people to stay out of the economy and therefore contribute nothing to the growth of it. Lastly, it places the increased tax burden upon individuals that do not receive aid from these programs and as these programs grow, you end up with a ever decreasing segment of the population having to support an ever increasing segment of the population. I think the best way to explain the problems with the welfare state can be summed up in one phrase.

An enforced fairness has a distinct way of being unfair to those that excel.

[Lights]

I'm not sure the trumpeting of individual rights at the expense of collective ones is "self-defeating" as you suggest, but rather perhaps vaguely disingenuous. People who persist in lauding the notion of individual rights and liberties over collective ones, are usually precisely the same group which benefits from, or takes advantage of, collective rights and benefits, without even realizing they are doing so. Prime examples of this are state-funded health care, education, scholarships, roading and infrastructure, community grant funding, and so on. The list is endless.

You make a good case.

In a free market, unburdened by protectionist practices and with unregulated free and competitive exchange, each person earns what they contribute.

Would you care to explain how such a system could be formed that wouldn't lead to monopolies, destruction of the environment, discrimination, coercive blacklisting, etc?





Lights added to this post, 67 minutes and 0 seconds later...

Since you seemed to change your mind about replying...


I love this "Free Market" argument that is the holy grail of every right winger, but it doesn't really impress me. It's nothing but a rhetorical song and dance; a system that couldn't possibly exist in the real world. It's a theory and there has never been such an economy.

If I learned anything from being the grandson of a faithful employee of US West, turned Qwest; it is that the power of greed in the real world makes the theory of a free market nothing but a dream. I'm sure the families of workers from Enron, WorldCom, and other such fine businesses learned the same lesson.

Even if such a thing were possible, it overlooks many of the benefits to having a regulated system. A regulated system does much to protect the earth, air, and water from being polluted, it protects animal and plant populations from being over harvested, it cuts down on traffic congestion, it protects pensions and retirement funds from being exploited, it keeps people from hoarding resources, it keeps dangerous products from being manufactured, it increases the quality of communities, it develops interconnected networks such as the internet, it allows for copywrite protection, and it provides for safety in the workplace. Not to mention that government programs allow for equal protection such as the case of police and fire departments and provide education to everyone thereby increasing the capabilities of the entire workforce. Tasks which private businesses could not accomplish because it would not be profitable to protect everyone, or to school those who could not afford it.

And finally, a free market is incompatible with the coercive nature of corporate America. Not to mention we would probably be suffering if our government didn't bail out a lot of businesses that were going under.

[Theodoric]

Would you care to explain how such a system could be formed that wouldn't lead to monopolies, destruction of the environment, discrimination, coercive blacklisting, etc?

Happily.

Protectionist practices are those that are implemented to limit trade, especially between nations. These are inherently built to foster monopolies because they actually limit the ability of other nations and industries to directly compete with the already established ones. This in turn encourages the already well established industries to languish and stagnate, completely free of the will and incentive to modernize and innovate.

Take for example the American car industry. Because of foreign imports, especially Japanese and Korean ones, American car manufacturers have been forced to implement better safety measures and increased efficiency. One merely needs to look at recent sales to understand this. Toyota, which has been extremely innovative, has produced ultra efficient hybrid cars due to the increasingly higher demand for oil. GM on the other hand, has been producing the same inefficient mega SUVs that it has been for the past decade. Toyota's sales in the past year have risen exponentially, whereas GM has been posting record breaking loses. They have been forced to play 'catch up', creating more efficient cars, trucks, and SUVs and building new hybrid vehicles. Now, if the US implemented protectionist trade policies that would have severely limited the importation of foreign cars so that GM could maintain its stranglehold on the car industry they would have never been forced to implement change and would have kept producing the same inefficient polluting vehicles that they were without having to compete or give in to consumer demand. The oil industry is yet another wonderful example of this.

Since our good friends in Exxon / Mobile want to keep seeing record breaking profits they have suggested to the American govt that they keep new technologies such as hydrogen fuel cells from coming to market and have used their intense lobbying power to ensure that new companies that wish to build hydrogen refueling stations and cars are limited in their capacity to do so. The technology is already there and is sustainable. Parts of California already are building hydrogen stations and the LAPD is using modified Crown Victoria police cruisers that run on hydrogen. In fact, it is due to the American government's protectionist practices for the oil industry and subsequently the middle eastern governments that we are having issues with global warming and terrorism.

Copyright regulations and patents are yet another prime example of protectionist policy gone awry. Originally intended to give incentive to creators to further innovate and improve upon their ideas, current copyright / patent law has done the exact opposite. With the constant lengthening of copyright terms artists and corporations can produce one thing and then keep reaping the benefits of it while never further innovating. A prime example of this is the Disney corporation, which keeps lobbying congress to keep extending the terms of copyright. The ironic part of this is that Disney for years has been producing works that have been derivative of already established stories and fables. 'Beauty and the Beast' was a traditional French fairytale. It was later adopted by several French authors and playwrights, being produced into several plays, theater productions, and books. However, Disney when they made their feature length film never had to pay one of these people for using their work in this purely derivative production. However, Disney now enjoys copyright protections on this for practically another 100 years, making other artists completely unable to make a derivative work based on this film which is how Disney was able to become such a huge success. Patent laws are no better. Originally intended to encourage invention and innovation, they have now become nothing more than ways for companies to litigate financial rewards from their competitors. This is especially apparent in the telecommunications industry, where companies patent code and systems without ever implementing them, and then when a competitor successfully implements something that closely resembles their patent they litigate. This has caused many companies to be extremely wary on rolling out new or innovative technologies for fear that some no name patent corporation will crawl out from the woodwork and file patent infringement cases against them.

Lastly, government socialist programs are inherently discriminatory. Affirmative Action is a great indicator of this. Affirmative Action discriminates with the bias toward minorities, regardless of their class, skills, or abilities. This directly contradicts the Equal Protection Claus, which states that "no state shall… deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Here, Affirmative Action affords unequal protection of rights and economic freedoms based solely on race or gender. Also, race and gender based Affirmative Action, especially when applied to education and government, has mainly benefited middle and upper class minorities and women while ignoring the needs of lower income whites and males. A purely market driven economy would not need to be concerned with race or gender because in a market economy business and industry are concerned with a workers skills, not their skin color.

Indeed, there is certainly a need for some regulation if industries, especially when concerned with environmental concerns. However, we have seen mostly that protectionist policies and regulations have been more stifling toward innovation. Socialist policies do nothing more than to foster monopolies, environmental destruction, discrimination, and decreased innovation which you claim that a free market society leads to.

[Lights]

Ok...you went on a long crusade to talk about a lot of the disadvantage of a regulated market, many of which I disagree with, but you never answered my question.

How are you going to set up a free market system that wouldn't lead to monopolies, destruction of the environment, discrimination, coercive blacklisting, etc?

When you attack an idea without ever actually proving yours, it's called retortion. It's a logical fallacy. An example of your debate style would be trying to prove that chocolate is the best ice cream by arguing about how much vanilla sucks. You aren't proving a danm thing about chocolate icecream, only that you don't like vanilla.

In this situation you aren't proving a case for a free market by simply stating some specific case examples of where regulated market didn't function correctly. I could spend an hour finding countless cases where the regulated market has worked perfectly, and that would not get me an inch closer to finding out why you believe you can set up a practical free market. Please get back to me when you are actually willing to answer my question. However, I get the feeling that you don't have an answer because there is none, and the reality is you can't provide a true, practical alternative to that which you are building a case against.

Like every Free Market supporter, you only have theories. I redirect your attention to my case against the idea of a free Market along with some of the benefits of a regulated market.


I love this "Free Market" argument that is the holy grail of every right winger, but it doesn't really impress me. It's nothing but a rhetorical song and dance; a system that couldn't possibly exist in the real world. It's a theory and there has never been such an economy.

If I learned anything from being the grandson of a faithful employee of US West, turned Qwest; it is that the power of greed in the real world makes the theory of a free market nothing but a dream. I'm sure the families of workers from Enron, WorldCom, and other such fine businesses learned the same lesson.

Even if such a thing were possible, it overlooks many of the benefits to having a regulated system. A regulated system does much to protect the earth, air, and water from being polluted, it protects animal and plant populations from being over harvested, it cuts down on traffic congestion, it protects pensions and retirement funds from being exploited, it keeps people from hoarding resources, it keeps dangerous products from being manufactured, it increases the quality of communities, it develops interconnected networks such as the internet, it allows for copywrite protection, and it provides for safety in the workplace. Not to mention that government programs allow for equal protection such as the case of police and fire departments and provide education to everyone thereby increasing the capabilities of the entire workforce. Tasks which private businesses could not accomplish because it would not be profitable to protect everyone, or to school those who could not afford it.

And finally, a free market is incompatible with the coercive nature of corporate America. Not to mention we would probably be suffering if our government didn't bail out a lot of businesses that were going under.

A person shows true weakness in their idea, when their only recourse is to attack the established ideas of others. If you don't want your argument for a free market to come up as wishful thinking, then you are going to need to prove that it is indeed practical and possible to institute such a system.

[Theodoric]

Ok...you went on a long crusade to talk about a lot of the disadvantage of a regulated market, many of which I disagree with, but you never answered my question.

How are you going to set up a free market system that wouldn't lead to monopolies, destruction of the environment, discrimination, coercive blacklisting, etc?

A person shows true weakness in their idea, when their only recourse is to attack the established ideas of others. If you don't want your argument for a free market to come up as wishful thinking, then you are going to need to prove that it is indeed practical and possible to institute such a system.

That's just it, you don't set up a free market. The free market is an ever changing entity which modifies itself and evolves when new systems are introduced. The free market is, in a sense, organic in nature because of this. Socialistic economics on the other hand is a manufactured system which is mired in bureaucratic wrangling, regulations, and unyielding laws. This in turn makes it unable to adapt and change when outside forces are placed upon it. When this happens it has shown us historically that socialist economic policy is doomed to failure, bringing down the societies in which they are founded and subjecting them to years of economic disaster.

Because of the nature of the free market in which it is not set up, but merely occurs on its own without government interference, I could only answer your question by pointing out the disadvantages of the regulated market. I guess I could have merely said that I would have allowed the market to establish itself without allowing the government to muddle in its affairs, only allowing for some slight regulations to creep in when real problems actually surfaced and not perceived or speculated ones, but that to me seemed a rather weak argument. So I thought it better to point out the failings of the regulated market. I admit that the free market is not a perfect solution to many problems and inequality does occur but the free market has one big advantage over regulated markets. IT WORKS!

A good case for free market enterprise is the current subprime loan / mortgage 'crisis'. In a free market, people would simply walk from the homes that they purchased on poor credit that are now worth less than the mortgages that they obtained. This would then force the banks that made these junk mortgages to redefine their policies, ie, adapt to market conditions. This makes perfect sense because when something is worth less than what you are paying for it you should stop paying for it and give it up. Businesses do this all the time with failed investments and products that are no longer sustainable and bringing them income. If banks can make "business decisions" to ignore risks, to lend money with no down payment, and fire people at at the first sign of trouble without any remorse, why shouldn't consumers be able to do the same? In the free market, this is completely possible. What would happen once people walk away from these failed investments is that it would force banks to reevaluate their current policies and adapt to this new pressure that the market created. With these walkouts, the banks would need to truly make changes to their policy and need to do one of two things. Either work with people by waiving the exorbitant fees that they thought they would get to collect and readjust their mortgages to reflect the real values of the home or the banks could simply get stuck holding the bag and eventually become bankrupt.

However, in a regulated market we would start to see the bailouts that some busybody politicians are advocating. In them, the government would buy up these junk mortgages and collect payments on them. These bailouts, while seeming like they help the consumer keep their house and credit intact, do only one thing. Help out the banks by allowing them to cash in on these junk mortgages, collect their fess, and placing the burden of this crisis on the taxpayer while they, ahem, laugh all the way to the bank.

The simple fact of the matter is that regulated markets are failed and broken things that do not work. When something is broken, it needs to be replaced.

[Lights]

My friend, you have just proven my point. All you have is theories. You want the market to be free, but admit that some regulations are necessary. That already is not a free market. You should have simply stated, "I think the market would work best with the least amount of government interference possible." However, even that would be a difficult case to make because you are still working with assumptions and attacking the regulated market without actually building a case for an unregulated market. All this, "a free market would" stuff, that doesn't have evidence to back it up is simply speculation based on theories. And you can't make the assertion, "IT WORKS" about a free market when no such system has ever actually existed in a nation's economy.

In fact, the reality that the markets have naturally moved toward regulation as we have progressed in history, probably indicates that such a system is necessary if not better than the alternative.

Also, the thing about making a case with retortion by attacking the established example of a regulated market, is you are only proving that a regulated market exists. You aren't actually comparing it to an established free market, since an established free market has never existed. So any of the arguments you are making about a regulated market have no comparison to a free market, and are therefore useless arguments to make. For all we know, in reality, a free market would be far worse than a regulated market. An example of your debate style in this situation would be saying that the Tooth Fairy is better at taking care of teeth than the dentist, by making arguments about why dentists aren't perfect at taking care of teeth. How does that prove that the Tooth Fairy, a nonexistant entity, is any better or worse than dentists? Just because you might be able to reason that the Tooth Fairy would be better at taking care of teeth than the dentist (since she has magic ;)) doesn't mean that is the case in reality.

Your only course of action in this discussion, that wouldn't be idle speculation, that you could use to build case for an unregulated market is citing examples where deregulation and privatization have been improvements over the established regulated market. However, as I can see below, Collete has already foreseen that opening and provided some examples of the alternative. So honestly, at this particular point, the only case you could effectively make is that a freer market in some situations is better than a regulated market. However, that requires that you concede that in some cases, a regulated market is better than a free market. That would be the logical conclusion, but I'm curious how much pride you have invested in your ideas.

It's clear that even though all you have is theories, you have reasoned a conclusion within yourself that freer markets (the Tooth Fairy) would always be better than regulated markets (the dentists), and have therefore lost the ability to objectively reason the most practical and realistic answer (the Tooth Fairy doesn't actually exist). Sadly, that means any further discussion with you on this issue would be pointless as you have no particularly strong case to make. Well...no argument other than you personally don't like regulated markets. (But then again, who isn't afraid of the dentist :laugh:)

[Colette]

That's just it, you don't set up a free market. The free market is an ever changing entity which modifies itself and evolves when new systems are introduced. The free market is, in a sense, organic in nature because of this. Socialistic economics on the other hand is a manufactured system which is mired in bureaucratic wrangling, regulations, and unyielding laws. This in turn makes it unable to adapt and change when outside forces are placed upon it. When this happens it has shown us historically that socialist economic policy is doomed to failure, bringing down the societies in which they are founded and subjecting them to years of economic disaster

So because something is 'natural and organic' ergo it is good by definition? The price of privatization and deregulation in my country has been the death of jobs and manufacturing industries here (killing off entire towns), private companies setting up monopoly or duopoly situations, and raking in profits for themselves at the expense of consumers and quality, and exporting those profits offshore, without any significant investment in the local economy.

I'm not necessarily advocating re-regulation or state owned and run enterprises being reinstated here, but I think it now needs to be acknowledged that there were advantages to state-run enterprise (particularly in the areas of utilities and other essential services such as post and rail); in that Governments were usually under a statutory obligation, and were accountable to taxpayers, to deliver a high quality and cost effective set of services. That imperative simply doesn't exist for private companies, who can essentially do what they damn well please, and to hell with anybody else.

Yours is such a long post that I will have to address your other points as I have time and energy to do so.

[ArchonAlarion]

You socialists are obviously blind.

You say capitalism doesn't work, yet you turn a blind eye to the failures of socialism. My question, once again, is why do you think you have a right to force others to do your bidding? Maybe you happily pump money into the state, but most people do not even if they aren't market anarchists. At the very least, they are unhappy to where a portion their money goes, but can't do anyhting about it in fear of imprisonment.

Lights, are you an N or an S? Are you saying that if all the countries in the world were to become communist than I couldn't argue for a freemarket because it didn't exist? That is flawed logic. There is nothing wrong with theory supported by the failures of the existing system.

Please understand that after, hmm... only... 8000+ years of state brainwashing that maybe you are missing something.

By the way, I'm not coping out of this argument, but many others have refuted your monopoly theory like... Stefan Molyneux. Seeing as you are in a heated debate, I doubt you'll take the time to LISTEN to what he or others like him have to say.

So far you haven't proven anything to me except:
1.You don't believe in theories
2.You can't agree that a social contract is unfairly called a contract, when it has nothing to do with one
3.You are not aware of how a freemarket functions
4.You are not aware of how tough it'd be to create a monopoly AND sustain one in a totally freemarket
5.You do not believe in ethics or morals because they are inconvenient for your case supporting collectivism
6.You obviously know nothing about the American revolution and how the colonists were able to able to go from 5% of imports to Britain to 40% by 1775. An example of a laissez faire market.

All this pseudo-insulting aside, I don't want to become hated on this forum. I just don't want to live and die under a totalitarian regime, and I wouldn't want that for anyone else.

[Theodoric]

My friend, you have just proven my point. All you have is theories. You want the market to be free, but admit that some regulations are necessary. That already is not a free market. You should have simply stated, "I think the market would work best with the least amount of government interference possible." However, even that would be a difficult case to make because you are still working with assumptions and attacking the regulated market without actually building a case for an unregulated market. All this, "a free market would" stuff, that doesn't have evidence to back it up is simply speculation based on theories. And you can't make the assertion, "IT WORKS" about a free market when no such system has ever actually existed in a nation's economy.

I think there is some confusion as to what a free market really is. The free market is not completely without regulation and is not the complete antithesis of socialist markets. A free market, by its very definition, is an environment buyers and sellers do not coerce or mislead each other nor are they coerced by a third party. In the aggregate, the effect of these decisions en masse is described by the natural law of supply and demand. To put it bluntly, the free market is where the government does not step in a muddle things up by putting price controls and production caps on goods or services. One could argue that price controls are needed in some industries, such as pharmaceuticals. However, one could also argue that increased government regulation in the form of long running patents and subsidized research has allowed pharmaceutical companies to become virtual monopolies, squeezing out competition by making it impossible for smaller companies to compete with them. Oil is another prime example. If governments did not interfere with the production of oil and would simply allow corporations to produce as much of it as the markets would allow and actually met demand we would not be seeing the ever increasing price of oil which has subsequently increased prices for all goods and services and curtailed economies worldwide.

Since prices in a controlled market, where governments control the price of goods and services as opposed to consumers, these prices have now been politicized. This means that whoever wields more political influence is able to twist market structures and pricing to their own ends, thereby eliminating competition.


In fact, the reality that the markets have naturally moved toward regulation as we have progressed in history, probably indicates that such a system is necessary if not better than the alternative.


And yet historically it has been proven that increased regulation (socialism) has only led to further economic disaster and has, in truth, not been able to deliver on any of its promises. Universal employment has never been reached in societies that have adopted socialist economic policy. These societies have only ever enjoyed decreased production and inferior goods, rather than economic freedom. Increased economic prosperity has not been achieved for workers in these societies either. The only thing that they really have been able to do is transfer wealth from one group, established corporations, to another, the government. In practice, a state run monopoly is no better, and sometimes in fact worse, than a corporate one.


Also, the thing about making a case with retortion by attacking the established example of a regulated market, is you are only proving that a regulated market exists. You aren't actually comparing it to an established free market, since an established free market has never existed. So any of the arguments you are making about a regulated market have no comparison to a free market, and are therefore useless arguments to make.

By attacking the established regulated market economies I have been able to prove that they do not work and are broken. While you may be content to keep trudging down the same path that has only proven to fail I am not. I am more willing to adopt the theoretical free market model and then if and when such problems as monopolies, environmental disaster, etc. occur we can apply controls to correct these.

While the free-market is an idealized abstraction, it is useful in understanding real markets whether artificially created and regulated by governments or non-governmental agencies, or phenomena such as the black market and the underground economy, which can be remarkably robust in persisting despite attempts to suppress these markets; in fact, many proponents of the free market point to sectors such as the drug trade to prove the phenomenon is both spontaneous and can function without government intervention. Pricing structures in these instances are completely controlled by suppliers and consumers. Suppliers can only charge as much as a consumer is willing to pay, and suppliers are forced to meet demand of consumers or risk being overtaken by a competitor who is willing to meet demand.

[ArchonAlarion]

No I disagree. The freemarket is totally voluntary, whereas the government is totally coercive. They are incompatible. If you believe that using the state is okay and permissable than you believe that using force is okay and permissable. From philosophy that is repugnant and from history its unworkable.

[Theodoric]

So because something is 'natural and organic' ergo it is good by definition? The price of privatization and deregulation in my country has been the death of jobs and manufacturing industries here (killing off entire towns), private companies setting up monopoly or duopoly situations, and raking in profits for themselves at the expense of consumers and quality, and exporting those profits offshore, without any significant investment in the local economy.

Or was it the increased taxation by your government and trade unions artificially inflating wages that has forced companies to move offshore to remain competitive that led to the death of manufacturing industries? Maybe it was the fact that consumers were unwilling to purchase overpricing goods and started looking abroad for less expensive alternatives.


I'm not necessarily advocating re-regulation or state owned and run enterprises being reinstated here, but I think it now needs to be acknowledged that there were advantages to state-run enterprise (particularly in the areas of utilities and other essential services such as post and rail); in that Governments were usually under a statutory obligation, and were accountable to taxpayers, to deliver a high quality and cost effective set of services. That imperative simply doesn't exist for private companies, who can essentially do what they damn well please, and to hell with anybody else.

So you are advocating state run monopolies, rather than corporate ones? In a free market, it would be difficult to create and maintain a monopoly because there are no government price controls and regulations that are placed in favor of established corporations. However, in a controlled market dominated by government enterprise there is not even the possibility of competition.

Government accountability to the taxpayer is not a precedent. The increased fiscal irresponsibility on the behalf of governments where waste and corruption are rampant and people are promoted and placed in positions of power not because they are skilled, but because they are well connected , has shown the failure of states to adequately address economic issues.

But hey, who cares? If the government starts to run out of money due to poor planning they can just raise taxes which people are obligated to pay. At least with private enterprise they do not have the luxury of being able to force more money out of people and are obligated to provide cost effective services lest a competitor come in and snatch up their business. In a free market, companies can only charge what the market will bear. In a controlled market that is dominated by government enterprise the government can "essentially do what they damn well please, and to hell with anybody else." because they do not have to fear any sort of competition.





Theodoric added to this post, 18 minutes and 20 seconds later...

No I disagree. The freemarket is totally voluntary, whereas the government is totally coercive. They are incompatible. If you believe that using the state is okay and permissable than you believe that using force is okay and permissable. From philosophy that is repugnant and from history its unworkable.

I only believe that using the state is permissible if, and only if, the free market does not do what it is supposed to, ie, regulate and correct itself. Since the free market is merely a theoretical thing at this point, probably because governments are unwilling to give up control of anything, there needs to be some sort of way to correct it should any issues arise.

You can't just say that the free market will always work because in theory that is how it would be. That is almost as blind and naive as socialists saying that we need more market regulation. The only reason that it is not nearly as blind is because socialism has already proven to be a broken economic model. The free market has not.

[ArchonAlarion]

No, I still disagree. I'm not trying to be a dick, but I think that the state is useless, and will find a way to expand and expand and expand. If you have the time try reading some ancap literature like the Machinery of Freedom by David Friedman (I'm reading it now) or online publications and videos. I don't claim to be an expert on the theory, only a student. It might also be useful to learn some Austrian economics.

[Colette]

No I disagree. The freemarket is totally voluntary, whereas the government is totally coercive. They are incompatible. If you believe that using the state is okay and permissable than you believe that using force is okay and permissable. From philosophy that is repugnant and from history its unworkable.

With respect I think you are ill-informed in these views. This is a debate of the variety that needs to proceed on accurate information, otherwise it is pointless. It's becoming rather obvious that you haven't either studied economics or politics, and that you haven't done much reading in the area either. May I suggest you qualify your views more carefully, given this fact? Otherwise you will simply annoy serious posters participating in this thread.

[Theodoric]

No, I still disagree. I'm not trying to be a dick, but I think that the state is useless, and will find a way to expand and expand and expand. If you have the time try reading some ancap literature like the Machinery of Freedom by David Friedman (I'm reading it now) or online publications and videos. I don't claim to be an expert on the theory, only a student. It might also be useful to learn some Austrian economics.

So what you are saying is that you are willing to implement an untested, theoretical economic model that has no precedent without even the possibility of controls should it fail?

This seems to me at best far fetched and self defeating and at worst a disastrous and irresponsible way of going about things.

Maybe you should try and read something other than literature that you already agree with so as to gain a better view of economic systems so that you can see if your theories are workable.

[ArchonAlarion]

Well when we post examples and theories you guys are unwilling to look at them. You say that because they are theories they aren't valid.

How am I ill-informed? The whole purpose and means by which the state exists is through initiating force. Taxes, laws, wars. They get their money through taxation which they must coerce people into giving them. They make laws to force people to obey them. They back up these laws with threat of force. The U.S. is legitimized by an illegitimate contract.

The free market is not coercive. It exists through trade, agreements, and voluntary means. You aren't forced to choose one business over another, you aren't force to participate in a market, you aren't forced to obey if a business tells you to buy their products or services.

And your socialist theories have already failed time and time again. They created weak economies, poor standards of living, rampant slaughter, and the only way they can heal themselves is by privatization. Why can't you see that when you give some individuals the power to rule other individuals and the power to force others to fund them and you legitimize all of this that they will become power hungry? If you give the state more power, than they will have more power! Why is it moral for some people to steal, and to kill, and to coerce, but immoral when they aren't a state official. That's totally arbitrary and subjective!

[Theodoric]

Well when we post examples and theories you guys are unwilling to look at them. You say that because they are theories they aren't valid.

Agreed. You cannot simply say something is not valid if it is a theory. If we did that, then there would be no change or progress.


How am I ill-informed? The whole purpose and means by which the state exists is through initiating force. Taxes, laws, wars. They get their money through taxation which they must coerce people into giving them. They make laws to force people to obey them. They back up these laws with threat of force. The U.S. is legitimized by an illegitimate contract.

Agreed. I do believe that the state should be limited in its power and ability to influence economic policy. However, the state does provide some use as far as protection from threat of force and violence from both internal and external forces. I highly doubt all your self defense will stand up to a determined group of armed individuals that far outnumber you in terms of people and firepower. If an anarchy would be established, people would start to coalesce into groups, which in turn will be headed by a leader (or a group of leaders) which in turn will start to form ever increasingly larger governments of their own. But that is something for another thread. This one is about economic policy, not anarchist theory.


The free market is not coercive. It exists through trade, agreements, and voluntary means. You aren't forced to choose one business over another, you aren't force to participate in a market, you aren't forced to obey if a business tells you to buy their products or services.

Agreed.


socialist theories have already failed time and time again. They created weak economies, poor standards of living, rampant slaughter, and the only way they can heal themselves is by privatization.

Agreed!


Why can't you see that when you give some individuals the power to rule other individuals and the power to force others to fund them and you legitimize all of this that they will become power hungry? If you give the state more power, than they will have more power! Why is it moral for some people to steal, and to kill, and to coerce, but immoral when they aren't a state official. That's totally arbitrary and subjective!

Since when did states and corporations become moral entities? They are both legal entities, only bound by what laws and regulations that have created them and only look out for their own self interest. Saying that a state or corporation is or needs to be moral is a fallacy, since morality plays no part in their creation or survival. Individuals can have morality. Organizations do not.

This is why there should be more controls placed upon the state, and less controls placed upon the individual and the business. The problem is that there needs to be an entity that can regulate the state since it is not a self regulating entity. The free market economy is self regulating due to consumer demand and competition. However the state has no competition and can do as it pleases since there is no consequences to its actions. In effect, the state is by very definition a monopoly.

So the question is, what types of controls can there be placed on the state?

[Lights]

So far you haven't proven anything to me except:

I already made my case against you.

Dude, it's a social contract. It's implicit. As long as people are happy to go along with it then its fine. If you don't like it, then you can go to some 3rd world African country where anarchy is a reality and show us all how well it works. As long as you anarchists continue to live within the protection of our republic, you are just preaching bullshit. You know it and everyone knows it. It's easy to talk about how easy and better anarchy would be while you stand behind the safety of our established system, but I don't see you hustleing to prove it out in the world where you don't have a military, police force, and countless other "establishments" providing you protection in exchange for some of your liberties. Even prometheus pays tax on his property and gas, so I don't take anything he says worth a grain of salt. Heck, you are all on an internet that was built by the evil imposing "establishment' so your very presence here makes you hypocrites. It isn't semantics, you guys are just simply ignoring reality. It's cute, but it's delusional and impossible to take seriously.

Now I have no problem giving up some of my liberties in exchange for the protection of this country. When I pay taxes, I am volunteering that money. Not under threat, but because I feel it is my duty as a citizen and I know I have the power to influence how I pay by the people I elect. Now I understand you may not like this system, but nobody is keeping you here, and you have the choice to take up arms against the government if you don't agree with it. The reality is, either way you lose. That is why democracy is strong and anarchy is weak.

Call it unethical if you want, but ethics are human constructs. They don't exist in the physical universe. So they aren't going to be any help to you when you are dead. You only have rights if you can get other people to respect them. If I decide I want to come over and kill you and take all your stuff, then your individual rights aren't going matter a damn bit. You need me to respect your rights. And the only reason I'm going to do that is because there is a system in place where I know you will respect my rights as long as I respect yours. It's both implicit in our morality, and explicit in the laws of the land.

That's why anarchists have to have guns. But as soon as I get enough people together with guns, then we will come over and kill you and take your stuff. Unless you have some magic ability to make people stop cooperating, whoever can get the most guns together will have the power. That is the reality and that is why anarchy will not work. Individual rights don't matter worth a shit, once you are dead.

And that brings us to why you are here. You are trying to convert people. You are trying to "enlighten" people and get them to come over to your system in respect for your individual rights. The plan is obvious. You want to get enough people to come over to your side so that you will have the manpower necessary to protect your ideals. But guess what? It ain't gonna happen. It's the same flaw inherent in communism. There will always be people who will take advantage of the system. You have already lost, and you are just so wound up in the passion of your ideals that you haven't even realized it. Your system can't work, therefore it isn't practical, and therefore it is not sound judgement to practice your philosophy.

Now don't get me wrong. I don't think it's a bad goal to seek as much individual liberty as you can obtain within reason. It's important to not let the government strip you of your liberties. But when it comes to demanding that everyone respect your individual rights, while you don't respect the collective rights...it's just self defeating.

How is that for "something beyond semantics"?

I'm also a Democrat, not a communist or socialist. I never said capitalism doesn't work. I haven't turned a blind eye to the failures of socialism. The only argument I have made against a free market, is it is illogical to claim it is better, when it has not been tested in the real world. The fact, that you are incapable of realizing the fallacy of arguing against an established system to support an unestablished system is your shortcoming. I don't believe in totalitarian regimes. But I also don't believe in anarchy. There is this place called the middle ground on these issues, and I think its rather unintelligent of you to insist that I take up the other extreme just because I don 't agree with you.

[Lights]

By attacking the established regulated market economies I have been able to prove that they do not work and are broken. While you may be content to keep trudging down the same path that has only proven to fail I am not. I am more willing to adopt the theoretical free market model and then if and when such problems as monopolies, environmental disaster, etc. occur we can apply controls to correct these.

While the free-market is an idealized abstraction, it is useful in understanding real markets whether artificially created and regulated by governments or non-governmental agencies, or phenomena such as the black market and the underground economy, which can be remarkably robust in persisting despite attempts to suppress these markets; in fact, many proponents of the free market point to sectors such as the drug trade to prove the phenomenon is both spontaneous and can function without government intervention. Pricing structures in these instances are completely controlled by suppliers and consumers. Suppliers can only charge as much as a consumer is willing to pay, and suppliers are forced to meet demand of consumers or risk being overtaken by a competitor who is willing to meet demand.

I agree, that when it comes to government involvement in the market, it is often a disaster. And in many cases it would be prudent to not have regulation. But if we have learned anything from the rest of the world and even from our own history, it would be that it is wise to have certain regulations always in place. When I read a story about a factory fire in some developing nation, where all the employees were locked inside by there employers and therefore could not escape, because their country didn't have protections to ensure their safety, I don't jump to the idea of absolving government regulations meant to protect workers here. When I read about the coercion of immigrants fresh off the boat by businesses here during our industrial revolution and how they were forced to work 14 hour days in unsafe conditions, and faced being blacklisted so they couldn't get a job anywhere if they complained, I don't jump at the idea of absolving those regulations. When I remember how my grandmother lost much of her 401K and retirement after her corrupt CEO pumped the stocks, I don't want absolve those regulations. When I found out that there have some chemical companies in our area which have dumped pollution directly into the drinking water, even with regulations, I definitely don't want to absolve those regulations, otherwise we probably would never have found out about it and would be poisoning ourselves. Then there were logging companies which were clear cutting before government regulation. And other companies which were over harvesting land and animal populations in order to keep prices low. The list goes on and on of many of the reasons why certain regulations are just necessary. I agree we could do without a great deal of regulations, but a freer market is not going to aim to protect workers, the environment, or our resources. It usually just isn't profitable to do so.

[prometheus]

I am curious as to why you continue

He has a vested interest in perpetuating the welfare state.

A bureaucrat is the most despicable of men, though he is needed as vultures are needed, but one hardly admires vultures whom bureaucrats so strangely resemble. I have yet to meet a bureaucrat who was not petty, dull, almost witless, crafty or stupid, an oppressor or a thief, a holder of little authority in which he delights, as a boy delights in possessing a vicious dog. Who can trust such creatures?

Marcus Tullius Cicero

What do you do for a living?

[Lights]

He has a vested interest in perpetuating the welfare state.

Actually, I'm a proponent of the Developmental Theory, of social work.

I believe social workers should seek social interventions that have a positive impact on economic development. Therefore, it justifies social programs in terms of economic efficiency.

The welfare state economists views would be institutional, or a belief in entitlements for particular needs.

And I believe I've mentioned more than once now that I'm not employed as a social worker. Although your recourse to use personal attacks once again hints at the overall strength of your arguments. :rolleyes:

[Colette]

Actually, I'm a proponent of the Developmental Theory, of social work.

I believe social workers should seek social interventions that have a positive impact on economic development. Therefore, it justifies social programs in terms of economic efficiency.

The welfare state economists views would be institutional, or a belief in entitlements for particular needs.

This sounds interesting. Could you post/cite some links, where I can have a look at it?

[Lights]

I haven't done much research online about it, but here is a great book about it.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I'm also sure you can find many journals written by social workers on the "developmental perspective" of this or that. However, it seems to be the route that an increasing number of social workers are taking as resources continue to become scarce and competition for them becomes more intense.

Basically it has 3 tenets.

1. Investments and evaluation in services to people in order to obtain the most value for your dollar. An example would be wise investments in education, which in turn develops a better labor force, and which lead to overall improvements in the economy.
2. Investments and evaluation in physical facilities which leads to the development of social infrastructure such as roads, bridges, irrigation, drinking water systems, clinics, counseling centers, the internet, etc. These allow for the development of both new and old economic entities. An example would be a transportation system which allows for workers to get to and from work.
3. Investments and evaluation in programs which help people gain employment or self employment. Obviously programs which help train and educate people so they can get a job pays huge dividends in comparison to the alternative.

[Theodoric]

I agree, that when it comes to government involvement in the market, it is often a disaster. And in many cases it would be prudent to not have regulation. But if we have learned anything from the rest of the world and even from our own history, it would be that it is wise to have certain regulations always in place.


Certain regulations are very necessary to have in place. Like you said, when an activity is destruction or counter productive, then a regulation is needed to correct this activity.

Like I stated in an earlier post, a free market is where prices of goods and services are arranged completely by the mutual consent of sellers and buyers. By definition, in a free market environment buyers and sellers do not coerce or mislead each other nor are they coerced by a third party. In the aggregate, the effect of these decisions is described by the natural law of supply and demand. Free markets contrast sharply with controlled markets, in which governments directly or indirectly regulate prices or supplies, distorting market signals. In a free market, it merely means that the government does not go about fixing prices. The government is still able to regulate how businesses are operated. However, you seem to believe I am advocating an economic model where there are NO regulations.

Because of the protectionist practices foisted upon the market we have seen rampant corruption. When I hear of telecommunications giants ComCast and Verizon shooting down municipal wireless internet in Philadelphia because they do not want to compete with the state which will provide better service at a lower cost, I cry deregulate. When I have no choice in the provider of cable television and programming because cable companies have lobbied government officials to create protectionist barriers making them monopolies, I cry deregulate. When I have no choice in who supplies me with electricity and am stuck with a price gouging multinational corporation that threatens to cut the power if I don't pay their arbitrary fees, I cry deregulate. When I find that life saving medicines are priced beyond the range of ordinary citizens because pharmaceutical corporations such as Johnson and Johnson have lobbied congress for patent extensions which makes it impossible for others to compete and lower prices, I cry deregulate. When gasoline tops $4 a gallon and people are forced with the decision of eating or being able to get to work to provide income to their families because the oil producing countries that control a state monopoly have decided to cut production to not meet demand, I cry deregulate. When common foodstuffs become out priced and nutritional foods are beyond the reach of the most needy because government regulation and price fixing to benefit farm corporations and increase their bottom line, I cry deregulate. When the Federal Reserve keeps cutting interest rates to bail out corrupt financial corporations yet only fuels increasing inflation while wages are stagnant, I cry deregulate.

And these price fixing and protectionist practices only benefit the corporations. And because of the increasingly politicized nature of increased regulations it stands to reason that he who has the most power and influence in politics is he who wins. Or in this case, gets to dictate economic policy.

Regulations are sometimes necessary and can benefit the greater good. However, increased regulation and taxation on corporations which is closer to the socialist economic model only increase the cost of business, and therefore the prices for the consumer because of those costs being passed on to them. In this scenario, the only ones that benefit are the government and the corporations. The consumer ends up just being the big loser.

[Lights]

I have no opinion on whether supply or demand should be regulated by the government or not. The only socialized regulations I am interested in are those meant to protect workers, the environment, resources, etc. You are right when you make the assertion that I believe a free market is one with no regulation by the government. I believe the government and private sector should be mutualistic, and should work to benefit from one another. In many cases, I think the government should even stay out of market affairs and vice versa when it comes to businesses in government affairs. Nothing would give me more pleasure than to see lobbyists no longer influencing Congress.

I am curious, however, how your particular theories on a freer market would improve the situation in health care so that everyone who wants to be, could be covered and people would not be losing their houses and life savings when they fall on misfortune?

Another issue I see is your argument has been to leave the market alone, but it only takes one company to utilize the government to completely undermine the entire idea. So how would you institute an uninstitutable idea such a free market in the real world? Anarchists have come to the conclusion that the only way this is achievable is eliminating the role of government in the market entirely. What argument are you making about how a free market would be practical in a world where it seems it would be impossible for it to form? How are you going to keep third parties from influencing said market? How are you going to protect the rights of the workers in such a market? It still seems to me to just be a fantasy of the way things "should be" with no bearing on how things work in the real world.

In fact, it seem the closest real life model to that which you are advocating is Hong Kong. And where is that located?

Hong Kong advocates and practices free trade - a free and liberal investment regime, the absence of trade barriers, no discrimination against overseas investors, freedom of capital movement, well-established rule of law, transparent regulations, and low and predictable taxation.

If only the leaders of Enron, WorldCom, and Qwest had been situated there, we would have gotten to see them shot rather than evade punishment in the court systems for years. :p

[prometheus]

Nothing would give me more pleasure than to see lobbyists no longer influencing Congress.



Hey, finally something we can agree on. I'd go one step further and say they are criminals. Just about everything else you are still wrong about, though. :p

MTA: I'd better explain why I think they are criminal. They have defrauded consumers, by using protectionist policies to unfairly raise the cost of consumer goods.

[Lights]

Hey, finally something we can agree on. I'd go one step further and say they are criminals. Just about everything else you are still wrong about, though. :p

Strange, as long you are disagreeing with me, then I know I am on the right track. :p The fact that we actually agree on anything just means that hell must have frozen over.

[stasis]

The discussion about socialized healthcare has been moved here (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.).

[Colette]

Ok, you're right. I hate everyone that is too slutty to keep their legs shut when they shouldn't be having kids

Just as a matter of interest, does the comment regarding 'sluttiness' include men? Further, children do require a financial investment, yes, but in turn, they are the investors of the future (regardless of the relationship or lack of one, which brought about their existence). That being the case, why must they simply be regarded in your kind of argument as a 'burden on the taxpayer'?

or too lazy or old to produce anything of worth. If I only had my way we could pull them from the federal teat, and they can starve and die like they deserve. I feel much better now that I have that off my chest

Studies in my country show that the proportion of 'lifestyle beneficiaries' is actually quite low, in terms of the total number. I can cite these studies if pressed to do so. This would indicate that welfare still is, largely, a minimalist safety net, being used by those who genuinely need it, not a lifestyle choice or result of inherent 'laziness'. The beneficiaries who do rip off the system embezzle a disproportionately large amount of money, so to some extent this increases the 'dramatic' effect, and skews perceptions of what is really going on.

Go to a place like India for a couple of days (as I have) and you'll change your mind real fast. People die on the streets there, while others simply walk past, turning a blind eye. Nobody who has lived in the third world for more than a day, would seriously argue for a completely 'hands off' welfare system.

[Sylvanus]

Just as a matter of interest, does the comment regarding 'sluttiness' include men? Further, children do require a financial investment, yes, but in turn, they are the investors of the future (regardless of the relationship or lack of one, which brought about their existence). That being the case, why must they simply be regarded in your kind of argument as a 'burden on the taxpayer'?

Studies in my country show that the proportion of 'lifestyle beneficiaries' is actually quite low, in terms of the total number. I can cite these studies if pressed to do so. This would indicate that welfare still is, largely, a minimalist safety net, being used by those who genuinely need it, not a lifestyle choice or result of inherent 'laziness'. The beneficiaries who do rip off the system embezzle a disproportionately large amount of money, so to some extent this increases the 'dramatic' effect, and skews perceptions of what is really going on.

Go to a place like India for a couple of days (as I have) and you'll change your mind real fast. People die on the streets there, while others simply walk past, turning a blind eye. Nobody who has lived in the third world for more than a day, would seriously argue for a completely 'hands off' welfare system.

I apologize if you misunderstood my intent, I was merely being facetious. I realize that the cost of welfare compared to all the other unnecessary government spending is relatively low, especially considering it has mostly been shifted to the states. But there is a hidden cost in there too. Not only are they costing the government money (and you through increased taxes). They also aren't producing any taxes (not that I like taxes, but if we've got them everyone should pay in equally) or producing anything for society (a double whammy). The net effect is a smaller economy than we could have, which means higher prices for our stuff.

I think India has numerous problems that are truly saddening that would be way too much to go into in this thread. Among these are the caste system and a socialist government. I agree that a completely hands off system would be devestating if imposed all at once (just like it would here). They are coming into their own slowly, and as industrialization becomes more prevalent over there I believe there will be much less poverty and (hopefully) people dying in the streets will become a thing of the past.





Sylvanus added to this post, 0 minutes and 47 seconds later...

What about the children. ;)

Will somebody please think of the children!

[Colette]

Not only are they costing the government money (and you through increased taxes). They also aren't producing any taxes (not that I like taxes, but if we've got them everyone should pay in equally) or producing anything for society (a double whammy). The net effect is a smaller economy than we could have, which means higher prices for our stuff

Just to clarify, are you talking about welfare recipients here? Are you referring to people on long term welfare, or does your comment apply equally to those on short term welfare?

Incidentally if you're going to use an inflationary argument against welfare beneficiaries, you might like to consider the relative extent to which high income earners contribute to the net inflationary effect, versus low income earners/beneficiaries (for inflationary purposes, I'd both those last two groups together, in terms of low inflationary effect). High income earners engage in high spending, property investment, and speculation, all of which are factors increasing the level of inflation and interest rate volatility, which in turn disadvantages the ordinary 'consumer'. So if you want to look at 'who costs the taxpayer more', the arguments aren't as clearcut as you may like to imagine.