Why libertarianism FAILS.
Offline Quite simply, it ignores that everyone is part of a society and that they are responsible to eachother to make the society work.
The only libertarian utopia in the world right now is Somalia.
Theism is why we can't have nice things.
- Login to post comments
Offline Eloise wrote:Also it's easy to forget that those "honest means" that you keep throwing out like some kind of gospel, come at a price to society - ALWAYS - it doesn't need to be micromanaged all honest people can agree a healthy functioning democratic society is a cost we all should gladly bear, and we should pay extra according with the degree to which we exploit it for personal gain.
Dream on. What has anyone ever done that was not for personal gain?
So what? So people are selfish therefore we must set our systems in opposition to that nature? What makes you so certain that is a fruitful way to deal with the inherent selfish nature of man, to punish it into submission? When has that ever worked in history?
We're all self-serving bastards. That's why you socialist don't start your own colony, you want something for nothing and then try to tell me how happy I should be to live in such a society.
Yes EXC, socialists want something for nothing to be given to everyone not just the bourgeoisie few as is the case in your plutocrat ideal.
Profit, EXC, by definition is something for nothing so make up your mind is it virtuous or evil to take more than you have put in?
So we let Muhammed and his 4 wifes with 20 kids already have even more benefits to indoctrinate more kids with Islam? We let the Octomom get more sperm into her uterus? We let the Duggard family have more babies to please Yahweh? We give em what ever they need and never cut them off? I should be so happy to live in this society.
Octomom and the Duggards are products of the Lassez Faire obsessed widely capitalist privatised US economy, they have nothing whatsoever to do with socialism.
And FFS! already, Octomom's living expenses are paid for by Entertainment Tonight! Don't tell me private enterprise will regulate leeches out of society by pointing to some of the purest profit-chasing insanity in the history of the world as an example. WTF?
What is your definition of "exploit"?
I am using "exploit" as defined by Cambridge University:
Definitionexploit verb (USE WELL)
/ɪkˈsplɔɪt/ v [T] to use something for advantage We need to make sure that we exploit our resources as fully as possible.exploitable
adjective /ɪkˈsplɔɪ.tə.bl ̩/
/-t ̬ə-/ adj The coal mine is no longer commercially exploitable (= can no longer be used for profit). The lack of jobs in this area means that the workforce is easily exploitable (= employers can use workers unfairly for their own advantage). Bottom line is what is the criteria for taxation? What is the tax form going to have on it?
Essentially the same things that a tax form now has on it. Gross gain - losses = net gain ; for every person there is a fundamental level below which which net gain is untaxable, above that level net gain per person is all taxable at a basic but fairly low level (say ~20-25%) as a core contribution to the infrastructure of the society, up to another tier above which income would become increasingly taxable for reparation to the community in lieu of voidance caused by profiteering.
What you probably most want to know is what I would count as voidance that tax should be paid in lieu from gain above the second per capita level. I would hope that would be something which a people could democratically decide among themselves, according to what they agree to hold dear and what logic and science informs them is of practical benefit to protect in the interests of the society.
Personally I would consider, for example, an extremely massive income to count as voidance of the societies fiscal solvency, so a 10 million dollar bonus would attract a tax greater than 70% on every dollar in order to discourage that sort of leeching from the community, while a $200,000 salary package with benefits would be treated with far more deserved dignity and taxed at half that rate wherever feasible.
In another case I would consider profit taxes for a businesses ideally would be based on what was exploited in order to gain the advantage. In my ideal employee wages would be consider dear for the community to lose and therefore profiteering by wage discrimination would be discouraged with more tax where the difference between profit and payroll expenses is higher than the threshold amount. (ie more tax where profit - payroll > threshold)
Similarly incrementally rising taxes for profiteering by damage to the environment or risk-taking with the personal and/or financial security of the community and its individuals would be a part of my ideal implementation.
What is the criteria to recive welfare benefits? You haven't told us, you just have this vague leftist propaganda. What is the bottom line?
The bottom line with welfare benefits is that they are the bottom line. Everyone is entitled to at least that.
I know you fear a policy like this, you think it's social suicide and no matter how many sociological studies I cite to demonstrate otherwise you will continue to fear it because your fear is irrational.
Take your Danish Software engineer for an example, he grew up in a welfare state where income is redistributed about the community virtually equally. Is he a lazy good for nothing nobody who lounges on welfare because he can?
If you're right that making welfare freely and unequivocally available to a population is societal suicide and universally breeds good for nothing octomoms, how is it that Octomom is a product of the US and he is a product of Denmark?
How many ways must I show you that your fear of welfare is completely irrational?
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
- Login to post comments
Offline So, I'll begin at the beginning.
But if your business required the use of a lot of roads, fire protection, healthcare for your workers, etc..., you would be happy to stay in Denmark and have others pick up the tab. So it's pretty irrational and unsustainable to not have pay as you go economics. People and capital will move to where it's a better deal.
Others are not picking up the entire tab - you are paying your share of taxes and therefore, your share of the tab. The idea being we all contribute to the infrastructure. Not, you contribute and I'll reap the benefits. Hey, sound familiar? You are paying, you are benefiting. Sounds fair to me.
Again, I'll ask where are people and capital going to go to? Where is this better deal? The US? North Korea? Where is a capitalist economy without taxation?
Um, you might want to rethink fire and police. Contemplate Mrs. O'Leary's cow. Or, if you would rather a more modern scenerio - We have had winds of close to 100 miles an hour along the Columbia River in Oregon this last week. A little less wind in town, but very breezy. Lots of trees in the area - you know, I don't think that my neighbor's house could burn down without setting most of town on fire as well under these conditions.
EXC wrote:This situation is similar to auto insurance. Owning a car or a piece of property poses a risk to others. So I don't have a problem with the government mandating you get insurance to cover it. Or mandating your car is safe or your property is fire safe and the fire will be put out so as not to be a burden to others. I live in California. So of course the government must make sure people are not a fire hazard to others.
What I object to is the government deciding the form of fire protection I must have. With technology, people can install high tech sprinklers with advanced sensors. The people that use this technology should be pay less for fire protection. But we collect taxes to pay the fire department not or your risk but with income and sales taxes. So there is little incentive to innovate. We're stuck paying for an expensive fire department with expensive pensions. That's one reason we're broke.
Fire departments are essentially protected monopolies. They have a guaranteed source of revenue, they don't have to become efficient and go out in the free market and compete. The leftists bitch about oil and insurance companies working in collusion and being a monopoly, but if you put public servant or union in your title, then they are OK will being a monopoly that bankrupts the public.
I have lived out west my entire life. Arizona, Hawaii, Washington, Oregon. I know about forest fires. I was living in eastern Washington the last time the Tyee fire blew up. Tyee is a blind canyon on the eastern side of the Washington Cascade mountains. No one lives there- at least not for long - but it will catch fire from lightning strikes, and under the right circumstances, there will be fire from Wenatchee to Chelan - over 50 miles north to south.
There are people who very carefully fire proofed their house when they built them. Steel roofing, no external wood trim, no bushes around the house, no trees for a hundred feet, external sprinklers, etc. Their house didn't burn - but they evacuated. And they spent time in a shelter at the taxpayers' expense. The problem with trying to apportion costs like an accountant is that the costs are not as simple as we would all like them to be. Do we have to pay for our own fire protection and emergency shelter? Do we have different criteria depending on whether you live in an apartment building and have no control over your neighbors, live in suburbia where you have no control over your neighbors, or live out in the country where there is enough distance between you don't have to worry about your neighbors? You think the insurance companies will apportion risk fairly? You would be so naive.
Oh, and don't tell me of course, people should pay for their own shelter. There wasn't any left. Chelan is a very small town and has only a few small hotels for the summer season. They fill up quickly when the mountains catch on fire. Most people want to stay close to their houses and aren't interested in sheltering 50-100 miles away. So they stay at the local schools.
It is also obvious that you have never worked for a fire department. Around here, a number of them are volunteer. That's right, the firemen are not only not union, they aren't paid except for mileage reimbursements. I had a coworker who was a volunteer firefighter for his local station, his day job was IT. He bought his own uniform and some of his equipment as well. Problem is, you are lumping and generalizing. Never a good tactic as it is always easy to call you out.
cj wrote:Ah, like my mother. She had her first stay in intensive care with heart trouble when she was 46 and finally died at age 76. She was in a lot a pain through the years and was unable to work full time.
Right because we don't have effective rehab programs. I think with modern medicine and technology, I don't think there are many people that are helpless. Why should just sending her a check and paying her medical bills be the answer?
Society seems to be content with an education system that fails. Then the socialists tells us we should pay even more money to the government because the schools and adult rehab programs fail to get people in productive jobs. If you fix the education/adult rehab system, you really don't need the government to do much else besides national defense and supervision over privatized services.
Effective rehab programs. Effective rehab. Effective. Rehab. You are a total jerk. YOU DO NOT HAVE A FUCKING CLUE ABOUT WHAT YOU ARE BLATHERING ABOUT. TRY VOLUNTEERING IN YOUR LOCAL LONG TERM NURSING FACILITY FOR A FEW YEARS AND THEN TELL ME ABOUT EFFECTIVE REHAB. WATCH YOUR LOVED ONE TRY TO BREATHE WITHOUT PAIN WHEN THE FUCKING OPIATES DON'T WORK ANYMORE.
Everyone wants something for nothing or wants a systems that has others pay for what they use.
No shit, Sherlock. You and every other Libertarian are at the front of the line.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
- Login to post comments
Offline Forbes ranks Denmark #1 for Business 2008 and 2009.
Highest tax burden in the world doesn't seem to be such a drawback after all.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
- Login to post comments
Not at all. Under your form of government, we just have monopolies that own you(labor unions, political parties, the IRS). You have no choice in tha matter because a man with a gun forces you to pay.
If you don't like the deal a corporation gives you, just don't do business with them. And why can't health care co-ops offer service? Why can't you start one instead of saying the corporations make too much profit?
Why don't you explain then how a corporation forces you into slavery? Did they put a gun to your head to force you to buy their products? Are they stopping you from starting a competing business?
The only problem with corporations is that we allow them to buy up limited natural resources and allow them to get away with fraud in some case. Why not just fix these problems instead of turning the government into on big giant monopolistic 'corporation'?
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
Your points resonate with me, Gadfly.
The form of government I'm talking about... well, I don't like government at all.
Eliminate the State and let people do what they feel is best for themselves.
As Gadfly has written, Corporations do not coerce the common citizen.
And if they do, they are the same as any other government, and should be abolished - this would be no problem whatsoever if every man, woman, and child were armed.
Unfortunately, much of our society discourages this, because we "aren't smart enough". Or we "don't understand what the people in Washington do".
If you still disagree with me and other Libertarians, I'd like you to take a look at some figures.
The first, is Gross State Product in US Dollars. To me, that translates to how much shit they make, and how much of it they sell. How much buying power that particular State has. It's interesting to note who is on the top of that list, and who is on the bottom. [[ http://www.statemaster.com/graph/eco_gdp-gross-state-product-current-dollars]]
The second figure I'd like you all to look at, is Gross State Product per capita. In other words, how much buying power there is, per capita in various States (which should be reflective of productivity - although, can reflect coercion).
[[http://www.statemaster.com/graph/eco_gdp_percap-product-current-dollars-per-capita]]
Now, is somebody going to say that the State is necessary? That a person should pay taxes by threat of imprisonment or violence, so that a government can control the nation? OH, but it's for the safety of us all, remember....
"But, how would the roads get repaired?!", they say.
Look, if road repair is really a huge deal, people will want them to be repaired. Truth is evident to all, and whoever is willing or able to pay a VOLUNTARY tax - will pay said tax.
And on the subject of roads - the State which reigns over the people of "New York", had the opportunity to use tax payer dollars to pave roads and highways which would NOT need constant repair. It would have been a great investment. However, as all governments do, the Empire State took our dollars and our hard work - and wasted it. The people who repair these roads wouldn't have work, they said! But nevermind the perpetual waste enabled by the drunken State.
The point is that governments do not exist for the benefit of the individual. Being that the individual is the starting point of the community as a whole, I think it's in everyone's best interest to keep government at bay.
And then there's the fact that the US Government is the world's biggest polluter...
yet me and you are to pay taxes to poor countries to combat "our" evil deeds against the planet LOL
1. No gun put me in my union, no gun put me into a political party (I belong to several). If the IRS agents were more willing to use their guns, corporations would pay their fair share.
2. Since corporations own the bulk of infrastructure in this country (food, water, hospitals, housing, money, etc) it is rather hard to go that far off the grid and actually function. You do realize it actually takes money to start a co-op right? One can't just get a bunch of people together and magically form a co-op. The same goes with trying to start a competing business - it takes money that you have to get from the banks (also corporate entities).
3. How would giving corporations free rein as your form of privatization would lead to solve the problem?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
I am, obviously, that was my point... im the sociopath, but you're being even more insane, then me...
yerr... im all for abortion, enforced birth-limits, and wholesale slaughter of inferior beings
(maybe i didnt drink ALL the kool-aid? )
What Would Kharn Do?
As to point 1, I'm not sure what your point is.
As to point 2, you're probably correct in saying that Corporations own most of the valuables - food, water, hospitals, etc.
I do realize it takes money to build something these days. And if you got a bunch of people together, who were working people, and had ownership of land... you could, with the right knowledge and expertise. I don't see how paper is a necessary resource in producing buildings, machinery, etc. Our currency isn't reflective of production whatsoever, as it is backed by nothing but belief and faith in our government and Federal Reserve.
As to point 3, Corporations would be willing to trade resources with people, and are, for something of value. If you have nothing of value, what corporation or other private party would want to give you the resources you need? I am not for corporatism, just so you know lol
And I could only hope that Doomed Soul is joking, here... I tend to think that sociopaths are enabled by the State!
All these new posts, not a single thing I've not covered. I'll continue to wait for someone to say something new.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
I hope you'll pardon our naive discussion, then=)
Maybe you should just start copy/paste'ing Vastet?
The repetition might help... once per page, at least plz?
What Would Kharn Do?
I agree. Copy and paste!
Just make sure it pertains to the fundamentals of the so-claimed "restated" positions.
Im not, you'll eventually come to learn that, providing you stay here long enough... but enough about me!
And unless your talking about the ranks of american politicians... the State does not enable sociopaths
What Would Kharn Do?
Haha oh. Ok.
Well, yes, I'm sure many American politicians could be closet sociopaths... and I'm sure there are Canadian politicians who might be deemed sociopaths, as well.
But are you not a self-proclaimed sociopath, and one who favors big government?
Hardly coincidental, in my opinion.
Ya? How bout this as well
I'm also a sociopath who favors the survival and advancement of the human race above all else...
The very race, who i am so pre-disposed to ripping the intestines out of, and wearing them as a hat.
Just because i have a biologically driven bloodlust towards my own species, doesnt mean i cant work towards its betterment
(i really have to find out if thats a word... )
What Would Kharn Do?
Well, I will admit that much of the human race is screwed up.
But is it helpful in the long run for a whole species to be violent? I think the human brain has evolved past the amygdala for a reason. Anger and violence serve a limited role in the survival of species. Perhaps you could better humanity by weeding out others who might be "diseased" by stupidity and other things - but your own destruction would be needed, as well as inevitable, according to evolutionary theory and the development of our species.
I know that you were trained and employed by your State as a killer - do you feel that what you've learned for and done for your State, was in turn good for you? When I say good for you, I mean more of in the long run as opposed to temporarily.
It would indeed help to a certain extent... but the problem isnt the violence, or the inclination to such, its the brain, the purpose, and the willpower behind it.
Senseless violence maybe entertaining as all hell, but its still senseless if theres no point to it.
... its my lifes dream... that and Planetary Overlord
I have no problem with my own destruction, BUT i contest the rest, if anything, evolutionary theory and development have shown that beings such as me will always be prevalent. Unless we get some Sci-fi bio-engineer going on... but thats a whole other topic.
"Good for me"
I joined for selfish reasons, admittedly, i wanted to gain certain abilities, and learn certain sets of skills (all of which do not serve me in basic daily life)
I have a quite dominant biological imparative to be... uh, for lack of a better analogy... master of my environment, the big fish, if you will. I felt such training, and skills from my enlistment would do that.
i was able to get what i wanted from the army, while benefitting them, and my country (please, dont mistake that for patriotism on my behalf)
Now, did this do anything to curb my bloodlust? simply put, No
What Would Kharn Do?
Point 1 was based on EXC's claim that the only reason people joined unions, political parties and paid taxes was because those monopolies "put guns to people's heads".
As for your answer to point 3, the only resource that we have that would be of interest to the corporations are bodies and minds. What else can we trade when the corps already have the rest of the resources? Municipalities and states still own land (hence property taxes, eminent domain, etc.).
No, I had a feeling that you were more of a classical libertarian than EXC.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
I know. You like these entities because they hire professionals to put guns to people's heads for you.
And the one's paying more than their fair share shut down, lay off their workers. The owners go to another country or hide their wealth. Meanwhile we're stuck with more companies and people that take more than they give.
Not really. You just get maybe a 100 or more lefties like yourself to sign a legal contract to cover each others medical expenses and hire an administrator. Let anyone join with pre-existing conditions because you're so 'compassionate'. Fuck the insurance corporations. I think it is something a lawyer online could draw up for you for just a couple billable hours. Why do you think it would cost more than this?
You all don't do this because you know your propaganda is BS. You want wealth redistribution and you see health care as a convenient excuse to achieve this. Why? Because your all self serving bastards.
You completely misunderstand me. Since we're all self-serving bastards, everything is already privatized. There can be no such thing as a 'public' servant. It's just marketing BS that you've bought into. Why isn't a public service union, a political party, politician, etc... a private interest, do any of them care if they bankrupt the treasury? How is a police union any more of a public interest than a security company?
So I'm not for 'privatisation'. We already have it. What I'm for is not having monopolies when it comes to delivering and product or service. So a police union must compete against private contractors.
You raise holy hell when oil companies collude to keep out competitors and form monopolies, right? So why are you so in favor of the monopolies of service unions?
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
...and you seem to maintain your envy that you are not in the number of these "men with guns".
You give labor unions too much power - if they had nearly the power you believe they had PATCO would have told Reagan to go screw himself when he fired them all. If the unions had any power, they'd be able to stop the companies that allow them in their workplaces from moving to cheap labor countries.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
As opposed to the communists on this board? I'm the one in favor of people earning your business or agreeing with your politics with evidence not intimidation. You on the other hand like to have surrogates use guns to force tax payment. Much like the religious police in the Islamic world, you must force your economic system on people.
I thought they did tell him that. It's just Reagan didn't allow them use violence to keep others from taking these jobs.
Well they'd have to have magical powers because money can be moved discretely. They don't just replace striking workers anymore because the unions will use violence to prevent this. They just move the capital out of the country and leave the factory behind.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
If only that were true...
1. You're the one in favor privatization without giving people the means to buy their own businesses - the corporations win.
2. As for PATCO, the violence was against them not by them (unless there were agents provacateur)
3. Indeed - Quit ascribing magic powers to the unions. Most of the time the corporations don't just shift the money - they shift the whole damn operation to where they can pay people $1/day. Let me guess, you think workers in America make too much money and we need to learn to compete with the Chinese, Vietnamese and Moldovans.
4. As for union violence, see point 2.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Astronauts should pay for the space program too, why do we all have to pay for a couple of them getting to the moon?
Ants should all work for themselves as well - if the queen ant wants the eggs taken care of, she should take care of all of them or pay for services, not burden the worker ants! They're her kids after all. She should pay for the food too.
Also every american that wants police and fire department to operate in his neighborhood should hire sufficient policemen/firemen himself, make sure they are insured, that they have pension funds etc. Why should someone from the next street care whether he has police and fire department services?
If I ever knew a person who could not use basic math to calculate the benefit of pooled wealth, you are it. Seriously. You are either inbred or just don't give a shit about anything.
You have no proof that overpopulation is the main issue. None. We are at 6 billion and have been for the past 10 years - not growing.
Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.
Who is stopping them from getting a loan or pooling their money together? I've already explained how you leftist can start your own healthcare co-op for a few hundred dollars. But you won't do it. Why?
Oh, Reagan sent agent into their homes to beat them up? All he did was say show up for work at these conditions or you're fired. They made their choice. You make a choice not to buy products that are too expensive. Or do we just let the debt continue to rise as we pay off the unions for intimidating us with voilent threats?
Well the foundation of having more wealth is capitalists that are able to make profits here. Why do you want to keep such low skill jobs here anyways?
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
All perfectly good points, but you can't expect someone from Mcarthy era to understand that private interest corporations are per default dictatorships, while social and democratic programs are at least an attempt at the opposite.
Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.
They tried and have been trying since 1900. Their blood has flooded drains of every major city in US and continues to do so one way or another. They tried to pool wealth and build public clinics and schools and got assassinated, persecuted and re-enslaved in the prison industrial system (look up Fred Hampton and the Black Panther Party). They tried to build wealth and have been ripped off time and time again, stacked with corporate, political, law enforcement and all other power interests against them - the American nightmare. If you say that that is just "tough luck in the free market" and that its ok that it happens to affect everyone except the obscenely rich, you are just anti-human.
Yes he did send agents - sit-ins and organised protest at the work place were dispursed using police violence, arrests and persecution of organisers. He also used partisan supreme court against union organizers and members by allowing corporate persecution, targeted firings, threats etc. You know, those people you say are "free to organize for their interests", they were not protected by the law, even though the laws were there that MANDATED their protection. But you still don't understand why o why don't they organize?
I wonder what it takes to be like you. Maybe a business owner trying to convince himself he is not working against public interest and is not hurting anyone. You must live in a cacoon of ignorance and indifference to root for neo-dictatorships that you call corporations.
The foundation of having wealth is people working. People will make wealth regardless of Warren Buffet, but Mr. Buffet will make absolutely nothing without workers.
And why keep the low skilled jobs? Because US still has low-skill workers? Because we need a society in which low-skilled people can climb the ladder in other ways than drug trade? Because reality has got nothing to do with the "science" of economy you were tought?
Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.
I think you're just making acusation without evidence. If you have evidence of these crimes, why not go to the justice department?
So basically you're saying that politicians and government are too corupt and incompetent to prevent these crimes. So you want these same people to run our health care system????? How will they stop fraud and abuse when we give them more money and power? We should reward their incompetence by letting them run more things???? Are you insane????
So if you tried to organize some socialist to start a health care co-op, someone from Blue Cross or Aetna would try to assasinate you? How exactly would they stop you?
Evidence??? And why aren't you presenting this evidence to the DOJ or a credible news source? Because otherwise you're just being a conspiracy crackpot.
I wonder what it takes to be like you. Everything is a conspiracy against you because no one is anxious to give you something for nothing.
The work must be to produce something of substantial value to a consumer. And workers can make nothing without investors to start and maintain a business.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
I strongly suggest you read (or re-read) Free to Choose, by Milton Friedman. Remember him? Pay particular attention to:
1. The history of the middle class. Before trade guilds, there was no middle class. Trade guilds became trade unions.
2. The current tax structure in the U.S. that supports the middle class. The mortgage interest you list on Schedule A specifically. Without this, a lot more people would be living in apartments. This may be good or bad depending on your personal preferences, but realistically, there is a lot of economic activity around home ownership.
3. At the time Dr. Friedman wrote the book, Hong Kong was still under British rule. It was the purest free enterprise state in the world. There were a lot of very rich people. There were millions of extremely poor people. There were almost no middle class and those were usually ex-pats working for a big corp from another country. Dr. Friedman thought, had a hunch, that maybe the U.S. was large enough to overcome this inherent flaw of pure capitalism. (Roughly quoted, his words.)
I also refer you to Adam Smith.
"A monopoly granted either to an individual or to a trading company has the same effect as a secret in trade or manufactures. The monopolists, by keeping the market constantly understocked, by never fully supplying the effectual demand, sell their commodities much above the natural price, and raise their emoluments, whether they consist in wages or profit, greatly above their natural rate. The price of monopoly is upon every occasion the highest which can be got. The natural price, or the price of free competition, on the contrary, is the lowest which can be taken, not upon every occasion, indeed, but for any considerable time together. The one is upon every occasion the highest which can be squeezed out of the buyers, or which, it is supposed, they will consent to give: the other is the lowest which the sellers can commonly afford to take, and at the same time continue their business." The Wealth of Nations book 1
Please note the cost a monopoly brings to the consumer. This is what you get whenever businesses are allowed to consolidate and is one of the reasons for our current economic problems. You can not argue that given absolute freedom, corporations would willingly give people the lowest prices. On the contrary, given any leeway, corporations will consolidate and raise prices as high as they can to gain maximum profits. Hint, low prices equal low revenues. Always. Walmart artificially lowers prices when they first move into small towns and then raise those prices once they drive all the other businesses out. So, to maintain at least an illusion of a "invisible hand", we have to regulate corporations to keep them from becoming monopolies.
Another example:
"The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state. The expense of government to the individuals of a great nation is like the expense of management to the joint tenants of a great estate, who are all obliged to contribute in proportion to their respective interests in the estate. In the observation or neglect of this maxim consists what is called the equality or inequality of taxation." Ibid, book V
The reason we don't have everyone pay for their own fire protection is that if their house burns down, our own might go with it. Mrs. O'Leary's cow took out most of Chicago - even if it is only an urban legend, the fact remains that fire is no joke and you do NOT want your neighbor to set off a blaze that is uncontrolled because they can't pay the fire engine crew.
Same goes for public health. Typhus is no joke, nor is malaria, or dysentery, or cholera or any other nasty disease that is transmitted by humans. We pay to have clean water and our sewer treated. We pay less than it actually costs - the balance is made up in taxes. We would be idiots to say - "so what if the neighbor kids play in sewage it can't affect me!"
Roads - funny. Let's see - my neighborhood is unpaved. We are in the middle of the metro area, and this bit of heaven is like living in the country but only five minutes from the grocery store. Having lived 1/2 hour from the nearest grocery store in a rural area, I love where I live. But some of my neighbors wanted paved streets and sidewalks. Cost - about $60,000-75,000 for 50 linear feet of street for only my half of the street. The neighbor across the street would have to pay the same amount. No, the city does not pay. No, the taxpayers do not pay. THE HOMEOWNERS PAY. As a lien on your house or if you can, you may refinance your house - if you aren't underwater already. All the people who don't live in the neighborhood but drive down the street I would pay for don't have to pay. Nada. Not a penny. Road taxes go to arterial roads, not residential. We voted it down and my road is still unpaved. Can you imagine if people paved only in front of their own house? What a patchwork - the strip in front of my house would remain unpaved. And the people across from me would not pave. But down the next block? From the meetings I went to, it would be a crazy quilt!! There are 11 bridges crossing the Willamette River here in Portland, heavily used by commuters. Another two cross the Columbia - people commute across them, too. A couple need to be replaced - guess what the big fight is about? Who pays. No one is arguing to let them fall in the river and do without.
Public schools. Another Libertarian bone. I have three sons, all grown now. I went to public school and so did they. Let's focus on my sons. When my oldest started school, it was estimated it cost about $2,000 per year to educate him. By the time my youngest graduated, it was about $5,000 per year. We lived in small towns which generally have lower costs and fewer amenities than big cities. So taking an average, 3 kids * 13 years per kid * $3500 per year = $136,500 to educate my family. Roughly. I am paying less than $2000 per year in property taxes. I may pay off my debt to the community in about 70 years. I have a few more years to go. The alternative? The person who dispenses your medicine in the nursing home will probably be a public school graduate. Or home schooled. Think about it.
There are a lot of things my tax money goes for that I am not happy about. But I live here and I like knowing that the firemen will show up if my house catches fire, the paramedics will show if we have a car accident, that the water is clean and can be drunk straight from the tap. I am willing to pay my share of taxes. A gun to my head is not necessary.
My question for you is - are you one of those people who gripe about taxes, but hold your hand out for free handouts like Conservation Reserve Program payments? That's where you get paid for being a farmer and NOT farming your land. Did you hear about the old rancher in Idaho? He didn't have to pay taxes by gum, it is a free country. He stood off the FBI and the ATF with guns he had on his property originally bought for coyotes and such. The FBI caught him when he showed up in person to collect his CRP check.
-- I am so much happier since I stopped trying to believe.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
You read classics and a few modern retards (the name Milton Friedman should provoke projectile vomiting) the way they are meant to be read, which disqualifies you from the modern "science" of economy. Libertarians are in the business of robbing or allowing others to rob the collective blind, whether they know it or not.
Again, very sorry, but the school people like EXC abide by does not dabble in common sense. Common nonsense is a necessity, if the collective is to be robbed blind, which is the point of the modern "science" of economics.
The rest of your post is likewise more of the same - common sense and utilization of pooled wealth, which directly oppose corporate interest. The libertarian school can't have any of that.
Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.
Read A People's History Of The United States by Howard Zinn, look up his references for evidence.
NO! We have to assert power over politicians and rip them out of the hands of the corporate interest. Politicians are corrupt per default and we must expect this when we make them do the people's bidding - we have to fight and will continuously have to fight them as we go bottom-up. Politicians must become afraid of the population - there is no other way. They must be no more than a tool for the representative democracy, employed to legislate and not to constitute neo-dictatorship through corporate interest.
I wish you had the bare minimum of understanding of economic history of US.
Read: The War at Home: The Corporate Offensive from Ronald Reagan to George W. Bush by Jack Rasmus
You mean the same DOJ that never convicted the police officers that shot Fred Hampton in his bed? You are truly blind. If we assert justice, it will be over a long struggle and many of our dead, as it has been for centuries.
Actually, I am a well accomplished businessman myself, which is one of the conditions that allow me to see the system as it is. I get a lot for absolutely nothing because I am in the position to make that happen - the corporate way. This is why I have time to discuss this shit with you during work hours - people do work for me.
I don't do conspiracy theories. People that mention them in discussions have ran out of arguments long ago and are just being childish and ignorant.
Not true at all. People automatically organize and start producing, produce leadership, trade, etc. What u think, that investors came out of divine providence and not as a bi-product of organized human activity? You got everything backwards.
There certainly is a need for optimizing, but not at all for investors the way we have them today. Today's sytem of investment is anti-optimizing, since it focuses on the interest of the few and against the interest of the many, always resulting in over-production, scewed consumerism, famine, economic disasters, etc.
Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.
I'm tempted. But to have a paste to cover all the right wing idiocy that pops up in these threads would require a much higher character limit than I have. At least it's usually all strawmen, not requiring much effort.
BTW, are you sure you want to be overlord? Not much hands on fun that way. I'd recommend shadow overlord. All the perks, none of the risk, and the freedom to walk around doing whatever you like until someone assassinates your puppet and you have to replace it.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
How bout a "For Dumbies" version?
While true, i only intend to be in power long enough to set the world straight...
After that, i really dont care what the fuck happens to humanity, if they fall to peices and destroy themselves... then i guess it was never meant to be...
What Would Kharn Do?
I guess that is my problem, and perhaps yours as well. My great-grandfather started a business that is currently run by my uncle and assorted cousins. I grew up helping with the books and riding shotgun with my grandmother on some of her trips. Common sense is the only way to survive in business. Maybe that is why so many fail.
Never forget: Where there is a buyer, there is a seller. But the corollary is even more true: If you have no buyers, there are no sellers.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
Yeah, nah, I'm not dying to scream a no true scotsman fallacy in reply to your post. Soviet Socialism was indeed a political and economic model adapted from socialist principles, by socialists. So it was socialism.
Your complaints do not appear to be with the socialist method of economic functioning itself, however, but with the management, in one specific case, of the soviet state that you lived in. And in the 1980's, moreover, - a period when the USSR fell into sharp decline and not due to failure of the socialist model but rather mostly due to Reagan convincing Gorbachev to change the economic plan to incorporate free market trading for the "sake of peace" sic .
Your qualm appears to be specifically with the priorities and policies of those managing the resources of your socialist state, as any citizen is wont to have in any state guided by any politic and since the Soviet model of communism was pretty severely lacking in democratic virtue, the problem was probably exacerbated for each individual in feeling powerless to change it.
However, powerlessness of the individual is not a peculiarity of socialist states, not by a long long long long long shot, it's a pervasive risk that comes stock standard with any and all collective human endeavour. To make a long story short, democracy is the only and best answer that we humans have ever come up with to solve it.
Finally, I know we have written literally reams on this forum between us all on this debate, but I'm sure it won't take you much back reading to discover that there is virtually no-one here advancing anything like the notion of establishing a full socialist/communist state, that is a straw man argument being made against those who dare speak in support of social health and welfare programs as a tax burden. Just FYI.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
Where's your evidence for that assertion EXC?
It only needs the wealth which is 'supposed' to be flowing through the economy anyway to be diverted out of wasteful stashes. You can dress it up with the alarmist rhetoric and call it "massive wealth redistribution" if you like, but really it's just keeping the bastards honest who claim to be "contributing the most" to the solvency of the economy, but generally aren't pulling their weight at all.
Get a grip EXC.
Who's talking about imposing worldwide socialism, other than you that is, huh?
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
our current economic policy (in fact the policy we've had for a while) really hurts the middle class
the inflation tax is extremely regressive and is part of the reason why we have so many billionaires today
if you are really for the middle class you MUST take a vested interest in monetary policy and the economic havoc the federal reserve (and the govt) causes in our economy (ie- the housing bubble)
The fact that we have people that protesting higher taxes that go to people that pay little or no tax. Even if you are right that they should be happy to pay high taxes to live in a nanny state, the mere fact that you have a high percentage of the people that don't want to live this way proves it can't be implemented and sustained on an entire society. If a lot of people feel they are working hard and getting little in return, won't they rebel.
Where on any income tax form is there distinction for generating income through "honest" means vs. dishonest means? Where is there a distinction for income generated through innovation vs. wasteful use of natural resources? Where is there a distinction in welfare benefits between people that want to work their way out of poverty vs. people that just want to overpopulate the earth and give the bill to the rest of society?
If you want some form of socialism, tell us exactly the criteria for taxation and receiving or not receiving welfare benefits.
I believe that is what the communists here want to do. Aren't people just going to move their capital and job skills to countries that don't tax the shit out of them? So how can socialism ever find enough people to tax without a worldwide imposition or an iron curtain al la the USSR?
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
What do you mean by "tax the shit out of them"? Do you have an amount that you will pay in taxes without belly aching? Are you willing to fund national defense? How much are you willing to fund? Do you want a flat rate or a progressive tax? Doing a fast search on Wikipedia, I found:
North Korea - "The North Korean economy is completely nationalized, which means that food rations, housing, healthcare, and education is offered from the state for free.[76] The payment of taxes has been abolished since April 1, 1974."
Kuwait - "Kuwait is a tax-free country, as the government gets most of it's revenue from the oil industry which is controlled by the government."
But nothing leaped out of the admittedly brief search for "free enterprise", "capitalism" and "tax free" all in the same article when referring to an entire country, not just the duty free stores. North Korea is not a place I would hold up as an example of free enterprise, and Kuwait is practicing economic socialism as the state owns the means of production. I don't know of any such place where there are no taxes and it is capitalist, do you? What is this country like? I am honestly curious.
And perhaps, we need to have a syntax check. Which definition of communism are you using? Again, citing Wikipedia:
"In modern usage, communism is often used to refer to Bolshevism or Marxism-Leninism and the policies of the various communist states which had government ownership of all the means of production and centrally planned economies."
I don't think any one here has advocated any state like this definition describes.
I also don't think the argument that people will move their capital and job skills to other places - countries, cities, planets - is a valid argument. Most people are lazy and wouldn't move unless seriously in danger in their current home. See Katrina, New Orleans for an example of how bad it has to be before people will move. Also, lowering taxes to attract business is just another race to the bottom. Taxes fund roads, bridges, schools, and infrastructure that businesses need to do business. And this stuff costs money. Are you going to deliberately fund an interstate highway that you may travel on once in your life? But if we all fund it, then we all have it to use.
When you paint yourself into a corner, it is a good idea to NOT throw out generalizations that you do not really mean. Just a little advice.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
The trouble with Libertarianism today, which you might agree with me on Jorm, is that it's becoming a safe haven for lazy minded republican offspring who know they want change but don't care to be on the complete opposite side of the spectrum as their parents. It's a title that too many are using as the umbrella term for any not-so-republican rightwing movement. That means that idiots like the tea baggers try to put themselves in the same boat with you while they don't realise that your party has had some great points over the years that would make a real political and financial philosophy for conservatives, rather than just continuing the art of using gullible christians as human shields to protect old money. The unfortunate side effect is that some liberals will now see you as being in the crazy camp.
Most liberals when given the ideas of libertarianism clearly can see a few points but none of them end up bearing enough priority to overcome the other important needs of the country. For example, many libertarians have a conflicting view of small government while maintaining our big military. That only works if we allow for blackwater companies to grow in their movement to fully capitalize warfare. Can you see where Lex Luther is hiding in that plan? Mercenary companies going to war, eventually against each other? It would really put a new spin on the gunrunning trade that's for sure. Free market, no vote, let money and bullets speak for themselves. With this in mind you shouldn't be very surprised when someone connects Somalia to libertarianism.
Then there's issues like universal healthcare. Not only is the idea most important to liberals, it's been proven in many other countries to be financially lucrative as a means of lowering not only taxes but also removing excessive private healthcare costs. Countries with universal healthcare also still allow for private healthcare to take hold and make a profit still. There is also simply no better compromise for those who disagree on this subject in America still than for a public option to take place. If you don't want public healthcare, you won't have to pay for it. With that in mind, if you could show me that libertarian leaders are in favor of the public option, then a good respect for the libertarian party would be in order as far as I'm concerned. I wouldn't be one, but I would lay off personally and suggest that other liberals attack just the stupids.
It's debates like these that make me wish we had an Efficiency Party that could do simple math and strategies in their heads and prove to both extreme sides that they can both have their cake and eat it too. It's good that we have farmers and farming companies who are working for profit. To remove the problem of welfare it would be better for the government to grow some crops of it's own to make sure that something (without considering the quality much) can be sold at an affordable cost to low income families. If the profiting farmers want a piece of that action they should sell something cheap, and for all of those times that the government crops aren't selling their products, surprise! The military personnel would be happy to save government spending by making use of it. My point is, there are many win-win situations to consider, yet no one is talking about them. WTF is wrong with people and their politics?
Countries like Denmark that are supposed to be socialist models tax the shit out of people. So for example a software engineer gets a 60% income tax, a 25% VAT, plus his company gets 30% profit taxes. Now software industry uses very little in natural resources and government services. So these workers and business go elsewhere. While people and business that require high levels of government services and pay little in taxes will stay. It's highly irrational to have little correlation between benefits and payments.
The concept of taxation seems highly irrational in the first place. I'm OK with the government charging user fees al la postage, road tolls, mining rights, land tax. There is no reason all government revenue can't be generated via user fees. Fire and police departments can in many cases be privatized and people required to buy insurance for these if they pose a risk to others, just as we do with auto insurance. This would encourage efficient use of natural resources and not penalize hard work and innovation through high taxation.
If people are too poor to pay the user fees for the government services and resources they require, they need to be force into rehab/education programs that restricts their liberties until they are able to pay for what they use.
So I'm willing to have the user fees match the costs. I don't get the support for taxes, it's basically the government acting like a mafia and shaking people down to get something for nothing. Then they payoff their cronies and the people that voted for them. A reward for nothing.
Or you could view it as 100% taxation since any wealth your work produces is taken by the government for general distribution.
So it's economy is supported by countries that need to import oil. Since there are few countries in the world that can do this, this is not a good example. The don't produce or export anything else, there is no innovation. They will be in poverty if a good oil alternative is ever developed.
The socialists here complain about how rich capitalists move their wealth to offshrore tax shelters and move factory jobs to Mexico, etc... It's a global economy now, money will flow like water to were it is safe and can grow. The only way to stop this is a global big brother that invades everyone's privacy and harshly punishes that that avoid taxes.
But they all got government money to stay and the poor people of N.O. didn't have any other option.
There is no reason not to make these services users fees. Schools need to be an exception because children and the poor don't have any money to pay.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
Universal Healthcare is win-win, as you pointed out already, and happily, everyone is talking about that lately.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
Why exempt schools, EXC?
There's all kinds of necessary stuff that the poor can't afford to pay for - you seem to have no problem with having service fees for them.
What makes schools different?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
LULZ
You really buy that U.S. Republican propaganda, don't you EXC?
You'll like this article.
http://www.dailysquib.co.uk/?c=119&a=1871
Abbsolutely. So then you'll agree the economic and functional infrastructure providing capitalists with readily exploitable and return business consumer markets, come rain or shine, should be properly correlated to their tax burden.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
That's not what I meant by 'keeping them honest'. It's easy enough to generate a large income by "honest" means and live off the various freebies and perks that come with your status, and, then, if you quibble about the size of your tax burden as though burden was even a meaningful word to you, well, that's dishonest and that's the kind of dishonesty I am talking about.
Also it's easy to forget that those "honest means" that you keep throwing out like some kind of gospel, come at a price to society - ALWAYS - it doesn't need to be micromanaged all honest people can agree a healthy functioning democratic society is a cost we all should gladly bear, and we should pay extra according with the degree to which we exploit it for personal gain.
I've explained this to you EXC. Discriminating in welfare isn't worth the bureaucratic expense it takes to accomplish, setting a basic level of human welfare benefits the whole society. The community is healthier, smarter more compliant and harmonious with each other and best of all for capitalists every single head in the community is some degree of cashed up consumer to exploit. Win-Win.
I DID. Don't you remember?
It was a few pages back now but I told you, my ideal model for taxation is contractual obligation between any entity exploiting a community and the community it exploits. And the criteria for receiving welfare benefits is that you don't have access to them already and need them.
LOL.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
That is all very interesting, are you a software engineer in Denmark?
Um, you might want to rethink fire and police. Contemplate Mrs. O'Leary's cow. Or, if you would rather a more modern scenerio - We have had winds of close to 100 miles an hour along the Columbia River in Oregon this last week. A little less wind in town, but very breezy. Lots of trees in the area - you know, I don't think that my neighbor's house could burn down without setting most of town on fire as well under these conditions.
Auto insurance is not a real great example - there are way more people without auto insurance than I'm comfortable with. It is a risk - you can run without insurance hoping to not get in an accident or get stopped by the police - I know people who deliberately take that risk. The ones most likely to be without insurance are the poorest drivers. You get hit by one of those, and you can sue, but good luck at getting any return.
Ah, like my mother. She had her first stay in intensive care with heart trouble when she was 46 and finally died at age 76. She was in a lot a pain through the years and was unable to work full time. She spent the last year of her life in a nursing home. Please don't bother to tell me I should have paid for it - I was bringing home net about $3000 a month, able to support my family, but not able to shell out $4000 a month for nursing home care. My brother makes less than I do. My sister had triple bypass surgery about a year and a half before Mom died. She is also unable to support herself. She has a two inch gap in her breast bone where it didn't heal completely, so she can't type all day and she can't drive - both of which were her previous sources of revenue. Hell, some days she can't get up out of bed without help. Let's see, what shall we make her do for a living? Or shall we toss her out on the street?
I am not going to defend the current lobbying system. I happen to agree it is pretty egregious. However, when they tried to do something about it, a little clause about free speech got in the way of making any real progress. Supreme court ruling where most of the justices are Republican picks.
My point was that no sane person would willingly move there.
That was my point. Kuwait has an unsustainable system and being tax free may not help them when the rubber hits the road.
They move their wealth to offshore tax shelters because they can. They have no regard for supporting the community infrastructure where they do business. Most of them could pay the taxes and never notice the difference in their lifestyle or stock prices.
They move jobs to Mexico, Asia, East India, etc because the labor costs are less expensive. And no, I do not want to work for $5 a day and you wouldn't like it if that is all your neighbors made as well. You may think Puerto Vallarta is beautiful, but only if you stick to the big hotels. And the "retired" ex-pats who live in Mexico, live in enclaves - not next door to the Mexican citizens.
The Ninth Ward is now largely unpopulated, and likely to remain so.
There is a big debate locally about replacing the I-5 bridge over the Columbia River between Washington and Oregon. A LOT of people commute back and forth. Everyone agrees that it needs to be different - somehow. But any changes will cost a lot of money. Makes sense to me to put a toll on it - but I am really, really, in the minority. Then again, I don't commute over the bridge daily.
I lived in Tucson when they put in a ballot measure. Any county or city project over a certain dollar amount (I forget the exact figure) had to go to the voters. It was all road projects. And you know, the people who almost never traveled on a particular road had no desire to upgrade that road. And the people who lived on the road could not afford to just split it among themselves.
My neighborhood is unpaved. To pave it, the homeowners have to agree to form a district and pay for it themselves. My section, for 50 linear feet in front of my house and only 1/2 of width of the road, would cost $50,000 - $75,000. I would have to refinance my house (big laugh here) or carry a tax lien for 20 years. Dude, I can't afford it. You really don't have a clue about the cost of road projects.
There is an argument for fewer paved or improved roads. The theory being that if the roads are unpaved, no one will want to move there. And so traffic will be reduced. But you know, I have noticed that - like most everything else - it is fine not to pave OVER THERE, but MY ROAD had BETTER be paved. People are funny that way.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
No, the software engineers there are trying to escape:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/05/business/worldbusiness/05iht-labor.4.8603880.html
But if your business required the use of a lot of roads, fire protection, healthcare for your workers, etc..., you would be happy to stay in Denmark and have others pick up the tab. So it's pretty irrational and unsustainable to not have pay as you go economics. People and capital will move to where it's a better deal.
This situation is similar to auto insurance. Owning a car or a piece of property poses a risk to others. So I don't have a problem with the government mandating you get insurance to cover it. Or mandating your car is safe or your property is fire safe and the fire will be put out so as not to be a burden to others. I live in California. So of course the government must make sure people are not a fire hazard to others.
What I object to is the government deciding the form of fire protection I must have. With technology, people can install high tech sprinklers with advanced sensors. The people that use this technology should be pay less for fire protection. But we collect taxes to pay the fire department not or your risk but with income and sales taxes. So there is little incentive to innovate. We're stuck paying for an expensive fire department with expensive pensions. That's one reason we're broke.
Fire departments are essentially protected monopolies. They have a guaranteed source of revenue, they don't have to become efficient and go out in the free market and compete. The leftists bitch about oil and insurance companies working in collusion and being a monopoly, but if you put public servant or union in your title, then they are OK will being a monopoly that bankrupts the public.
Right because we don't have effective rehab programs. I think with modern medicine and technology, I don't think there are many people that are helpless. Why should just sending her a check and paying her medical bills be the answer?
Society seems to be content with an education system that fails. Then the socialists tells us we should pay even more money to the government because the schools and adult rehab programs fail to get people in productive jobs. If you fix the education/adult rehab system, you really don't need the government to do much else besides national defense and supervision over privatized services.
I think there needs to be a political party based on rationality. It would be nice if atheists could lead this movement, but most atheists are socialists that want a systems of high taxes and welfare entitlements that rewards failure and punishes sucess.
Everyone wants something for nothing or wants a systems that has others pay for what they use.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
Dream on. What has anyone ever done that was not for personal gain? We're all self-serving bastards. That's why you socialist don't start your own colony, you want something for nothing and then try to tell me how happy I should be to live in such a society.
So we let Muhammed and his 4 wifes with 20 kids already have even more benefits to indoctrinate more kids with Islam? We let the Octomom get more sperm into her uterus? We let the Duggard family have more babies to please Yahweh? We give em what ever they need and never cut them off? I should be so happy to live in this society.
You talk about responsiblity, but it's only for people that work hard. Zero responsibility for everyone else. So it's just be as irresponsible as you wish, someone else is picking up the tab. Sorry I'm not going to your little dinner party.
The community can't be healthy unless people are required to pull their own weight. It's not healthy because you're pissing a lot people off with high taxes. You're creating a situation that encourages overpopultation.
What is your definition of "exploit"? Bottom line is what is the criteria for taxation? What is the tax form going to have on it? What is the criteria to recive welfare benefits? You haven't told us, you just have this vague leftist propaganda. What is the bottom line?
What are the men with the guns going to take and give to others? Why can't you just explain this, instead of saying you did when you did not.
Good cop out for someone without an answer.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
Me. Yesterday. And the reason a socialist colony doesn't exist is because greedheads like you would come in, benefit from it and then wreck it for the rest.
By the way, you'd love it here in Indiana. We have a governor here who managed to get a toll road privatized and made sure that the state still did the maintenance and got none of the tolls. Guy after your own heart.
No, we fix the current system to close those loopholes. We also close the corporate welfare system that allows companies who make outlandish profits to still get government help.
So your solution is to be against the rich pulling their own weight? Do irony much?
Ah, the mythical men with guns - that magic army under control of the liberals who rob all the hardworking trust-fund children and give money to the people who are trying to scrape meals together. It's a shame that you can't see the men with guns that exist and are controlled by the guys you support.
Or she gave it the answer it deserved.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin