|
On January 29 2012 19:06 LiquidSlick wrote:Or you could use the New York Times. They have a different claim, but it paints the same picture. Top 1% pay more than the bottom 95%. http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/30/top-1-paid-more-in-federal-income-taxes-than-bottom-95-in-07/And even if you use that table it shows that the top part of the middle quintile and up, the "rich" because they are upper end of middle to high, pay 95%. That also leads to the point the the "rich" need to stop being demonized. The definition, as we pointed out here, can change rather easily depending on who is running things.
Come on! The data in the article more likely shows that the "1%" has got such a disproportionally large income compared to the rest that they are now paying more than the "95%" in income tax. It is not really showing a problem with the 95% paying too little compared to the "1%" as seems to be implied by the loaded headline.
|
On January 29 2012 19:06 LiquidSlick wrote:Or you could use the New York Times. They have a different claim, but it paints the same picture. Top 1% pay more than the bottom 95%. http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/30/top-1-paid-more-in-federal-income-taxes-than-bottom-95-in-07/And even if you use that table it shows that the top part of the middle quintile and up, the "rich" because they are upper end of middle to high, pay 95%. That also leads to the point the the "rich" need to stop being demonized. The definition, as we pointed out here, can change rather easily depending on who is running things.
Taxes =\= income taxes.
|
On January 29 2012 15:58 EternaLLegacy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2012 15:50 zawk9 wrote:On January 29 2012 14:31 SoLaR[i.C] wrote:On January 29 2012 13:11 Whitewing wrote:On January 29 2012 12:33 bUbUsHeD wrote:On January 29 2012 12:08 paralleluniverse wrote:On January 29 2012 06:08 Hider wrote:On January 29 2012 05:53 liberal wrote:
The simple fact of the matter is the government isn't able to create jobs, only to transfer jobs, and isn't able to create wealth, only transfer wealth. The jobs that were "created" when they were transferred from somewhere else are always visible, which is why people have the mistaken belief that the government actually is capable of creating jobs. What people don't see are the jobs which have been destroyed to create those new jobs, destroyed in the present through taxation and relative inefficiency, and destroyed in the future through payments on our debt and market corrections of over-investment.
The recession in the US is simply the destruction of jobs which were transferred to the past, but people can't see it in that light. The government's fiscal policies have been designed to foster over-investment in the economy, by setting the interest rates artificially low, by maintaining permanent inflation, by setting the fractional-reserve ratio, by insuring against losses ie. government backed mortgages, by fostering the expansion of credit and increased lending, etc. etc.
The government's policies created the housing bubble in order to escape the recession in 2001. We are simply feeling the effects of those policies today. And no, clearly this artificial boom/bust cycle is NOT healthy for an economy. It continues to consolidate wealth, which is then used as a justification to... get this.... EXPAND the governments control of the economy. All roads lead to Rome. Well to be fair to the keynesians, I think most of them are aware (or at least i hope so), that the value of the jobs they are creating doesn't have the same value as the jobs created by the market. Their throught proces is most likely that government that governmen through its fiscal policies programs can increase aggregate demand which increases employment. But the main problem with this way of thinking is that it doesn't make sense to have think in terms of aggregate sizes, since some industries need to fire employed and others need to hire, and some even need to die. Fiscal policies only prolonged (while indebting) the crises. Keynesians also dont think the same way of the boom/bust cycles as the austrians does, as they actually think the boom's are healthy (which it isn't as you point out). But the boom is just a proces of malinvestments (haircut industry), which is due to the mismatch between savings and investments, which again is due to the Fractionel-reserve, interest rate policies as you point out. Jobs create by stimulus has more value than no jobs at all. And Keynesians don't view booms as healthy, they view it as one of the two extremes of the business cycle that should be smoothed by monetary policy or fiscal policy. Most economists believe that monetary policy should be used in the first instance, but monetary policy has hit a snag at the zero lower bound so fiscal policy is needed. No they don't. In order to create a government job it is necessary to destroy real productive capacity in the economy by stealing money from people who produce things that others are actually buying on the market (and thus want it more than whatever government is going to do with the money because otherwise to market would already have been providing it). It is a worse state of things by definition to have people producing things by government decree and wealth transfer instead of having them produce things others are voluntarily buying and thus expressing their preferences. If a job doesn't exist on a free market it's because it's marginal product is not higher than the labor cost and it drains resources from the economy instead of adding them. Forcing government jobs is just a resource drain on society as a whole. Taxes =/= stealing. The entire point of government is to solve the issue of Tragedy of the Commons. If you can think of a term more appropriate than "theft" for the forceful coercion of taking an individual's money and time, then be my guest. If taxation is theft then it is a very weird sort of theft. I’ve been robbed a couple of times, but I’ve never sat down afterwards with my copy of TurboTheft and calculated whether the thief had stolen too much from me and, if so, send off some forms to the thief so he will send me a refund check. The whole process bears a greater resemblance to paying dues for your Homeowners’ Association, or some such thing. The typical response is that if you accept the libertarian philosophical framework then it turns out taxation really is theft, regardless of how things might look on the surface. But that’s question begging. The whole issue is whether we should accept the libertarian philosophical framework or not. Pointing out that framework has lots of implausible implications is not much of an argument in its favor. Have you tried not paying your taxes? You will get letters at first, but men in uniforms with guns will eventually come and take you to jail. If you resist they'll put bullets in your skull. It's theft at gunpoint, even if you don't see the gun. They have to hide the gun because if people saw what it really was they'd never accept it. Would you let someone steal upwards 50% of your income? Hell no. The libertarian philosophical framework is the same stuff you learned in elementary school. Don't hit. Don't steal. The initiation of the use of force is wrong. Just because it has drastic implications when you actually adhere to it doesn't mean that they're implausible. In fact, I don't even know what "implausible" implications you're referring to.
Taxes are the dues you owe for the services that the government gives you. If you don't want to pay taxes, you don't get to use those services (such as publicly funded education, roads, protection by law enforcement, etc.). It's a pretty simple concept.
In a libertarian society you would be able to not only defend yourself and your property by means of lethal force, but you can also pursue legal action which if anything, would be more balanced in a libertarian society b/c lack of corporate agenda / effectiveness.. Above all, justice would be much more abundant in a libertarian society.. Very much unlike what we have now..
Libertarian ideals have always reminded me of Communism in some ways...
|
On January 29 2012 16:31 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2012 15:58 EternaLLegacy wrote:On January 29 2012 15:50 zawk9 wrote:On January 29 2012 14:31 SoLaR[i.C] wrote:On January 29 2012 13:11 Whitewing wrote:On January 29 2012 12:33 bUbUsHeD wrote:On January 29 2012 12:08 paralleluniverse wrote:On January 29 2012 06:08 Hider wrote:On January 29 2012 05:53 liberal wrote:
The simple fact of the matter is the government isn't able to create jobs, only to transfer jobs, and isn't able to create wealth, only transfer wealth. The jobs that were "created" when they were transferred from somewhere else are always visible, which is why people have the mistaken belief that the government actually is capable of creating jobs. What people don't see are the jobs which have been destroyed to create those new jobs, destroyed in the present through taxation and relative inefficiency, and destroyed in the future through payments on our debt and market corrections of over-investment.
The recession in the US is simply the destruction of jobs which were transferred to the past, but people can't see it in that light. The government's fiscal policies have been designed to foster over-investment in the economy, by setting the interest rates artificially low, by maintaining permanent inflation, by setting the fractional-reserve ratio, by insuring against losses ie. government backed mortgages, by fostering the expansion of credit and increased lending, etc. etc.
The government's policies created the housing bubble in order to escape the recession in 2001. We are simply feeling the effects of those policies today. And no, clearly this artificial boom/bust cycle is NOT healthy for an economy. It continues to consolidate wealth, which is then used as a justification to... get this.... EXPAND the governments control of the economy. All roads lead to Rome. Well to be fair to the keynesians, I think most of them are aware (or at least i hope so), that the value of the jobs they are creating doesn't have the same value as the jobs created by the market. Their throught proces is most likely that government that governmen through its fiscal policies programs can increase aggregate demand which increases employment. But the main problem with this way of thinking is that it doesn't make sense to have think in terms of aggregate sizes, since some industries need to fire employed and others need to hire, and some even need to die. Fiscal policies only prolonged (while indebting) the crises. Keynesians also dont think the same way of the boom/bust cycles as the austrians does, as they actually think the boom's are healthy (which it isn't as you point out). But the boom is just a proces of malinvestments (haircut industry), which is due to the mismatch between savings and investments, which again is due to the Fractionel-reserve, interest rate policies as you point out. Jobs create by stimulus has more value than no jobs at all. And Keynesians don't view booms as healthy, they view it as one of the two extremes of the business cycle that should be smoothed by monetary policy or fiscal policy. Most economists believe that monetary policy should be used in the first instance, but monetary policy has hit a snag at the zero lower bound so fiscal policy is needed. No they don't. In order to create a government job it is necessary to destroy real productive capacity in the economy by stealing money from people who produce things that others are actually buying on the market (and thus want it more than whatever government is going to do with the money because otherwise to market would already have been providing it). It is a worse state of things by definition to have people producing things by government decree and wealth transfer instead of having them produce things others are voluntarily buying and thus expressing their preferences. If a job doesn't exist on a free market it's because it's marginal product is not higher than the labor cost and it drains resources from the economy instead of adding them. Forcing government jobs is just a resource drain on society as a whole. Taxes =/= stealing. The entire point of government is to solve the issue of Tragedy of the Commons. If you can think of a term more appropriate than "theft" for the forceful coercion of taking an individual's money and time, then be my guest. If taxation is theft then it is a very weird sort of theft. I’ve been robbed a couple of times, but I’ve never sat down afterwards with my copy of TurboTheft and calculated whether the thief had stolen too much from me and, if so, send off some forms to the thief so he will send me a refund check. The whole process bears a greater resemblance to paying dues for your Homeowners’ Association, or some such thing. The typical response is that if you accept the libertarian philosophical framework then it turns out taxation really is theft, regardless of how things might look on the surface. But that’s question begging. The whole issue is whether we should accept the libertarian philosophical framework or not. Pointing out that framework has lots of implausible implications is not much of an argument in its favor. Have you tried not paying your taxes? You will get letters at first, but men in uniforms with guns will eventually come and take you to jail. If you resist they'll put bullets in your skull. It's theft at gunpoint, even if you don't see the gun. They have to hide the gun because if people saw what it really was they'd never accept it. Would you let someone steal upwards 50% of your income? Hell no. The libertarian philosophical framework is the same stuff you learned in elementary school. Don't hit. Don't steal. The initiation of the use of force is wrong. Just because it has drastic implications when you actually adhere to it doesn't mean that they're implausible. In fact, I don't even know what "implausible" implications you're referring to. If you resist, you go to prison (eventually). They don't shoot you. And they don't ever "steal" 50% of your income. For federal taxes: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=456State taxes: http://taxes.about.com/od/statetaxes/a/highest-state-income-tax-rates.htmEven if the rates ended up being added (which is not the right way to figure), at most, we're talking about 40.5% effective tax rate.
Have you tried resisting kidnapping by men in blue uniforms? They WILL shoot you. Government is force, nothing more.
And yes, but you're forgetting all the other taxes we pay:
-Local taxes
-Sales taxes
-Excise taxes
-Payroll taxes
etc.
There's a lot of them. If you make a pretty decent wage, which you do if you're in your 50s-60s and are a senior guy at a company, then you'll be paying close to 50% potentially. God forbid you actually own a business and struggle for 30 years before raking in a few million a year in your 50s. You might get upwards 60% stolen from you.
edit:
On January 29 2012 23:48 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2012 15:58 EternaLLegacy wrote:On January 29 2012 15:50 zawk9 wrote:On January 29 2012 14:31 SoLaR[i.C] wrote:On January 29 2012 13:11 Whitewing wrote:On January 29 2012 12:33 bUbUsHeD wrote:On January 29 2012 12:08 paralleluniverse wrote:On January 29 2012 06:08 Hider wrote:On January 29 2012 05:53 liberal wrote:
The simple fact of the matter is the government isn't able to create jobs, only to transfer jobs, and isn't able to create wealth, only transfer wealth. The jobs that were "created" when they were transferred from somewhere else are always visible, which is why people have the mistaken belief that the government actually is capable of creating jobs. What people don't see are the jobs which have been destroyed to create those new jobs, destroyed in the present through taxation and relative inefficiency, and destroyed in the future through payments on our debt and market corrections of over-investment.
The recession in the US is simply the destruction of jobs which were transferred to the past, but people can't see it in that light. The government's fiscal policies have been designed to foster over-investment in the economy, by setting the interest rates artificially low, by maintaining permanent inflation, by setting the fractional-reserve ratio, by insuring against losses ie. government backed mortgages, by fostering the expansion of credit and increased lending, etc. etc.
The government's policies created the housing bubble in order to escape the recession in 2001. We are simply feeling the effects of those policies today. And no, clearly this artificial boom/bust cycle is NOT healthy for an economy. It continues to consolidate wealth, which is then used as a justification to... get this.... EXPAND the governments control of the economy. All roads lead to Rome. Well to be fair to the keynesians, I think most of them are aware (or at least i hope so), that the value of the jobs they are creating doesn't have the same value as the jobs created by the market. Their throught proces is most likely that government that governmen through its fiscal policies programs can increase aggregate demand which increases employment. But the main problem with this way of thinking is that it doesn't make sense to have think in terms of aggregate sizes, since some industries need to fire employed and others need to hire, and some even need to die. Fiscal policies only prolonged (while indebting) the crises. Keynesians also dont think the same way of the boom/bust cycles as the austrians does, as they actually think the boom's are healthy (which it isn't as you point out). But the boom is just a proces of malinvestments (haircut industry), which is due to the mismatch between savings and investments, which again is due to the Fractionel-reserve, interest rate policies as you point out. Jobs create by stimulus has more value than no jobs at all. And Keynesians don't view booms as healthy, they view it as one of the two extremes of the business cycle that should be smoothed by monetary policy or fiscal policy. Most economists believe that monetary policy should be used in the first instance, but monetary policy has hit a snag at the zero lower bound so fiscal policy is needed. No they don't. In order to create a government job it is necessary to destroy real productive capacity in the economy by stealing money from people who produce things that others are actually buying on the market (and thus want it more than whatever government is going to do with the money because otherwise to market would already have been providing it). It is a worse state of things by definition to have people producing things by government decree and wealth transfer instead of having them produce things others are voluntarily buying and thus expressing their preferences. If a job doesn't exist on a free market it's because it's marginal product is not higher than the labor cost and it drains resources from the economy instead of adding them. Forcing government jobs is just a resource drain on society as a whole. Taxes =/= stealing. The entire point of government is to solve the issue of Tragedy of the Commons. If you can think of a term more appropriate than "theft" for the forceful coercion of taking an individual's money and time, then be my guest. If taxation is theft then it is a very weird sort of theft. I’ve been robbed a couple of times, but I’ve never sat down afterwards with my copy of TurboTheft and calculated whether the thief had stolen too much from me and, if so, send off some forms to the thief so he will send me a refund check. The whole process bears a greater resemblance to paying dues for your Homeowners’ Association, or some such thing. The typical response is that if you accept the libertarian philosophical framework then it turns out taxation really is theft, regardless of how things might look on the surface. But that’s question begging. The whole issue is whether we should accept the libertarian philosophical framework or not. Pointing out that framework has lots of implausible implications is not much of an argument in its favor. Have you tried not paying your taxes? You will get letters at first, but men in uniforms with guns will eventually come and take you to jail. If you resist they'll put bullets in your skull. It's theft at gunpoint, even if you don't see the gun. They have to hide the gun because if people saw what it really was they'd never accept it. Would you let someone steal upwards 50% of your income? Hell no. The libertarian philosophical framework is the same stuff you learned in elementary school. Don't hit. Don't steal. The initiation of the use of force is wrong. Just because it has drastic implications when you actually adhere to it doesn't mean that they're implausible. In fact, I don't even know what "implausible" implications you're referring to. Taxes are the dues you owe for the services that the government gives you. If you don't want to pay taxes, you don't get to use those services (such as publicly funded education, roads, protection by law enforcement, etc.). It's a pretty simple concept.
No. An electric bill is a due you owe for the services the electric company gives you. If you don't pay, you don't get to use those services.
Taxes are money stolen from you regardless of whether you want to pay or not, for services that you may or may not want to fund. It'd be like the cable company hooking up your cable and charging you $300 a month because they also ordered you every package they have.
Would I be outraged and frustrated if all the government did with my tax money was fund schools, roads, and law enforcement? Not nearly as much. I'm pissed off about the other 90%+ of spending on the welfare/warfare state, corporatism, and bureaucracy. These things would never exist if taxes were voluntary. Hell, they aren't even services for me. They're just taking my money and blowing it up.
|
On January 29 2012 23:48 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2012 15:58 EternaLLegacy wrote:
In a libertarian society you would be able to not only defend yourself and your property by means of lethal force, but you can also pursue legal action which if anything, would be more balanced in a libertarian society b/c lack of corporate agenda / effectiveness.. Above all, justice would be much more abundant in a libertarian society.. Very much unlike what we have now.. Libertarian ideals have always reminded me of Communism in some ways...
That's not libertarianism, that's anarchism...
LIbertarianism isn't the advocation of NO government. It's the advocation of a limited government while still maintaining basic services such as police protection, courts of law, etc etc.
|
On January 30 2012 02:21 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2012 23:48 Stratos_speAr wrote:On January 29 2012 15:58 EternaLLegacy wrote:
In a libertarian society you would be able to not only defend yourself and your property by means of lethal force, but you can also pursue legal action which if anything, would be more balanced in a libertarian society b/c lack of corporate agenda / effectiveness.. Above all, justice would be much more abundant in a libertarian society.. Very much unlike what we have now.. Libertarian ideals have always reminded me of Communism in some ways... That's not libertarianism, that's anarchism... LIbertarianism isn't the advocation of NO government. It's the advocation of a limited government while still maintaining basic services such as police protection, courts of law, etc etc.
No, libertarianism is a "big tent" philosophy. You are describing what is called "minarchism" which is the idea that government should only exist to perform the minimal amount of services, like a referee. That would be national defense, courts, and police, and some minarchists argue for more.
Libertarianism also consists of anarcho-capitalism, which is the advocation of competing systems of governance without the monopolization of force. An-caps believe in a strict application of the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP). Minarchists believe that following the NAP is a good guideline but cannot be followed to its full logical conclusion, which is the abolishment of the State, for one reason or another.
It is important to realize that libertarianism is simply the "big tent" philosophy that when faced with a choice between more freedom and less, the more freedom choice is preferable.
|
On January 30 2012 02:30 EternaLLegacy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2012 02:21 BluePanther wrote:On January 29 2012 23:48 Stratos_speAr wrote:On January 29 2012 15:58 EternaLLegacy wrote:
In a libertarian society you would be able to not only defend yourself and your property by means of lethal force, but you can also pursue legal action which if anything, would be more balanced in a libertarian society b/c lack of corporate agenda / effectiveness.. Above all, justice would be much more abundant in a libertarian society.. Very much unlike what we have now.. Libertarian ideals have always reminded me of Communism in some ways... That's not libertarianism, that's anarchism... LIbertarianism isn't the advocation of NO government. It's the advocation of a limited government while still maintaining basic services such as police protection, courts of law, etc etc. No, libertarianism is a "big tent" philosophy. You are describing what is called "minarchism" which is the idea that government should only exist to perform the minimal amount of services, like a referee. That would be national defense, courts, and police, and some minarchists argue for more. Libertarianism also consists of anarcho-capitalism, which is the advocation of competing systems of governance without the monopolization of force. An-caps believe in a strict application of the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP). Minarchists believe that following the NAP is a good guideline but cannot be followed to its full logical conclusion, which is the abolishment of the State, for one reason or another. It is important to realize that libertarianism is simply the "big tent" philosophy that when faced with a choice between more freedom and less, the more freedom choice is preferable.
Of course this only involves negative freedom and not positive freedom. If you're born in dirt, enjoy yourself with a life in the dirt. At least you're free 
|
On January 30 2012 02:32 HellRoxYa wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2012 02:30 EternaLLegacy wrote:On January 30 2012 02:21 BluePanther wrote:On January 29 2012 23:48 Stratos_speAr wrote:On January 29 2012 15:58 EternaLLegacy wrote:
In a libertarian society you would be able to not only defend yourself and your property by means of lethal force, but you can also pursue legal action which if anything, would be more balanced in a libertarian society b/c lack of corporate agenda / effectiveness.. Above all, justice would be much more abundant in a libertarian society.. Very much unlike what we have now.. Libertarian ideals have always reminded me of Communism in some ways... That's not libertarianism, that's anarchism... LIbertarianism isn't the advocation of NO government. It's the advocation of a limited government while still maintaining basic services such as police protection, courts of law, etc etc. No, libertarianism is a "big tent" philosophy. You are describing what is called "minarchism" which is the idea that government should only exist to perform the minimal amount of services, like a referee. That would be national defense, courts, and police, and some minarchists argue for more. Libertarianism also consists of anarcho-capitalism, which is the advocation of competing systems of governance without the monopolization of force. An-caps believe in a strict application of the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP). Minarchists believe that following the NAP is a good guideline but cannot be followed to its full logical conclusion, which is the abolishment of the State, for one reason or another. It is important to realize that libertarianism is simply the "big tent" philosophy that when faced with a choice between more freedom and less, the more freedom choice is preferable. Of course this only involves negative freedom and not positive freedom. If you're born in dirt, enjoy yourself with a life in the dirt. At least you're free
Many people were born in dirt in this country. Capitalism and freedom is the best way to help the poor.
|
On January 30 2012 02:37 EternaLLegacy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2012 02:32 HellRoxYa wrote:On January 30 2012 02:30 EternaLLegacy wrote:On January 30 2012 02:21 BluePanther wrote:On January 29 2012 23:48 Stratos_speAr wrote:On January 29 2012 15:58 EternaLLegacy wrote:
In a libertarian society you would be able to not only defend yourself and your property by means of lethal force, but you can also pursue legal action which if anything, would be more balanced in a libertarian society b/c lack of corporate agenda / effectiveness.. Above all, justice would be much more abundant in a libertarian society.. Very much unlike what we have now.. Libertarian ideals have always reminded me of Communism in some ways... That's not libertarianism, that's anarchism... LIbertarianism isn't the advocation of NO government. It's the advocation of a limited government while still maintaining basic services such as police protection, courts of law, etc etc. No, libertarianism is a "big tent" philosophy. You are describing what is called "minarchism" which is the idea that government should only exist to perform the minimal amount of services, like a referee. That would be national defense, courts, and police, and some minarchists argue for more. Libertarianism also consists of anarcho-capitalism, which is the advocation of competing systems of governance without the monopolization of force. An-caps believe in a strict application of the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP). Minarchists believe that following the NAP is a good guideline but cannot be followed to its full logical conclusion, which is the abolishment of the State, for one reason or another. It is important to realize that libertarianism is simply the "big tent" philosophy that when faced with a choice between more freedom and less, the more freedom choice is preferable. Of course this only involves negative freedom and not positive freedom. If you're born in dirt, enjoy yourself with a life in the dirt. At least you're free Many people were born in dirt in this country. Capitalism and freedom is the best way to help the poor.
Holy shit, insight dripping out your assssssss.
It's been proven many many times throughout history, that Capitalism > ***.
|
No. An electric bill is a due you owe for the services the electric company gives you. If you don't pay, you don't get to use those services.
Taxes are money stolen from you regardless of whether you want to pay or not, for services that you may or may not want to fund. It'd be like the cable company hooking up your cable and charging you $300 a month because they also ordered you every package they have.
Would I be outraged and frustrated if all the government did with my tax money was fund schools, roads, and law enforcement? Not nearly as much. I'm pissed off about the other 90%+ of spending on the welfare/warfare state, corporatism, and bureaucracy. These things would never exist if taxes were voluntary. Hell, they aren't even services for me. They're just taking my money and blowing it up.
Yes, there are some taxes and some spending decisions that are questionable, but at the end of the day the basic idea of taxes is that you owe them for the services and protection that is given to you by the government. By entering into a social contract, you are giving up certain things in exchange for the protection of certain rights/privileges, which are protected by the law and law enforcement. Part of what you give up is the money that pays for these things, because (as you might have guessed) they simply don't pay for themselves. It's a selfish, spoiled, entitled attitude that says that taxes are theft and yet expects the government to protect you physically, ensure your basic rights are protected, and maybe give you infrastructure like roads and education. You can disagree with how the government spends your taxes, but taxes as an concept are not theft. If you don't like the terms of your social contract, you are free to leave the society that you dislike so much.
That's not libertarianism, that's anarchism...
LIbertarianism isn't the advocation of NO government. It's the advocation of a limited government while still maintaining basic services such as police protection, courts of law, etc etc.
I don't see how this is relevant to my point. My point was actually that it seems that Libertarians are quite idealistic and naive, much like the Communist ideal is.
Many people were born in dirt in this country. Capitalism and freedom is the best way to help the poor.
Yes, and the U.S. is such a great example of this...
|
Is "insight dripping out your assssssss" a good or a bad thing?
|
On January 30 2012 02:59 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +
No. An electric bill is a due you owe for the services the electric company gives you. If you don't pay, you don't get to use those services.
Taxes are money stolen from you regardless of whether you want to pay or not, for services that you may or may not want to fund. It'd be like the cable company hooking up your cable and charging you $300 a month because they also ordered you every package they have.
Would I be outraged and frustrated if all the government did with my tax money was fund schools, roads, and law enforcement? Not nearly as much. I'm pissed off about the other 90%+ of spending on the welfare/warfare state, corporatism, and bureaucracy. These things would never exist if taxes were voluntary. Hell, they aren't even services for me. They're just taking my money and blowing it up.
Yes, there are some taxes and some spending decisions that are questionable, but at the end of the day the basic idea of taxes is that you owe them for the services and protection that is given to you by the government. By entering into a social contract, you are giving up certain things in exchange for the protection of certain rights/privileges, which are protected by the law and law enforcement. Part of what you give up is the money that pays for these things, because (as you might have guessed) they simply don't pay for themselves. It's a selfish, spoiled, entitled attitude that says that taxes are theft and yet expects the government to protect you physically, ensure your basic rights are protected, and maybe give you infrastructure like roads and education. You can disagree with how the government spends your taxes, but taxes as an concept are not theft. If you don't like the terms of your social contract, you are free to leave the society that you dislike so much. Show nested quote +That's not libertarianism, that's anarchism...
LIbertarianism isn't the advocation of NO government. It's the advocation of a limited government while still maintaining basic services such as police protection, courts of law, etc etc. I don't see how this is relevant to my point. My point was actually that it seems that Libertarians are quite idealistic and naive, much like the Communist ideal is. Show nested quote +
Many people were born in dirt in this country. Capitalism and freedom is the best way to help the poor.
Yes, and the U.S. is such a great example of this...
Your argument is that one enters a social contract? I didn't sign any contract, did you?
But honestly, the previous pages are full of people discussing Hobbesian social contract, minarchism, the tragedy of commons, and the role of private property in the definition of theft and taxes. The arguments you are giving are levels below what we've been discussing and it would do you well to read them.
|
United States7483 Posts
On January 30 2012 02:37 EternaLLegacy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2012 02:32 HellRoxYa wrote:On January 30 2012 02:30 EternaLLegacy wrote:On January 30 2012 02:21 BluePanther wrote:On January 29 2012 23:48 Stratos_speAr wrote:On January 29 2012 15:58 EternaLLegacy wrote:
In a libertarian society you would be able to not only defend yourself and your property by means of lethal force, but you can also pursue legal action which if anything, would be more balanced in a libertarian society b/c lack of corporate agenda / effectiveness.. Above all, justice would be much more abundant in a libertarian society.. Very much unlike what we have now.. Libertarian ideals have always reminded me of Communism in some ways... That's not libertarianism, that's anarchism... LIbertarianism isn't the advocation of NO government. It's the advocation of a limited government while still maintaining basic services such as police protection, courts of law, etc etc. No, libertarianism is a "big tent" philosophy. You are describing what is called "minarchism" which is the idea that government should only exist to perform the minimal amount of services, like a referee. That would be national defense, courts, and police, and some minarchists argue for more. Libertarianism also consists of anarcho-capitalism, which is the advocation of competing systems of governance without the monopolization of force. An-caps believe in a strict application of the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP). Minarchists believe that following the NAP is a good guideline but cannot be followed to its full logical conclusion, which is the abolishment of the State, for one reason or another. It is important to realize that libertarianism is simply the "big tent" philosophy that when faced with a choice between more freedom and less, the more freedom choice is preferable. Of course this only involves negative freedom and not positive freedom. If you're born in dirt, enjoy yourself with a life in the dirt. At least you're free Many people were born in dirt in this country. Capitalism and freedom is the best way to help the poor.
What? Your evidence?
|
On January 30 2012 03:11 SoLaR[i.C] wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2012 02:59 Stratos_speAr wrote:
No. An electric bill is a due you owe for the services the electric company gives you. If you don't pay, you don't get to use those services.
Taxes are money stolen from you regardless of whether you want to pay or not, for services that you may or may not want to fund. It'd be like the cable company hooking up your cable and charging you $300 a month because they also ordered you every package they have.
Would I be outraged and frustrated if all the government did with my tax money was fund schools, roads, and law enforcement? Not nearly as much. I'm pissed off about the other 90%+ of spending on the welfare/warfare state, corporatism, and bureaucracy. These things would never exist if taxes were voluntary. Hell, they aren't even services for me. They're just taking my money and blowing it up.
Yes, there are some taxes and some spending decisions that are questionable, but at the end of the day the basic idea of taxes is that you owe them for the services and protection that is given to you by the government. By entering into a social contract, you are giving up certain things in exchange for the protection of certain rights/privileges, which are protected by the law and law enforcement. Part of what you give up is the money that pays for these things, because (as you might have guessed) they simply don't pay for themselves. It's a selfish, spoiled, entitled attitude that says that taxes are theft and yet expects the government to protect you physically, ensure your basic rights are protected, and maybe give you infrastructure like roads and education. You can disagree with how the government spends your taxes, but taxes as an concept are not theft. If you don't like the terms of your social contract, you are free to leave the society that you dislike so much. That's not libertarianism, that's anarchism...
LIbertarianism isn't the advocation of NO government. It's the advocation of a limited government while still maintaining basic services such as police protection, courts of law, etc etc. I don't see how this is relevant to my point. My point was actually that it seems that Libertarians are quite idealistic and naive, much like the Communist ideal is.
Many people were born in dirt in this country. Capitalism and freedom is the best way to help the poor.
Yes, and the U.S. is such a great example of this... Your argument is that one enters a social contract? I didn't sign any contract, did you? But honestly, the previous pages are full of people discussing Hobbesian social contract, minarchism, the tragedy of commons, and the role of private property in the definition of theft and taxes. The arguments you are giving are levels below what we've been discussing and it would do you well to read them.
Your argument is "the government does not do what I want it to do with my taxes, therefore I'm pissed". How exactly is that "levels above" what Stratos_speAr wrote?
|
On January 30 2012 03:16 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2012 02:37 EternaLLegacy wrote:On January 30 2012 02:32 HellRoxYa wrote:On January 30 2012 02:30 EternaLLegacy wrote:On January 30 2012 02:21 BluePanther wrote:On January 29 2012 23:48 Stratos_speAr wrote:On January 29 2012 15:58 EternaLLegacy wrote:
In a libertarian society you would be able to not only defend yourself and your property by means of lethal force, but you can also pursue legal action which if anything, would be more balanced in a libertarian society b/c lack of corporate agenda / effectiveness.. Above all, justice would be much more abundant in a libertarian society.. Very much unlike what we have now.. Libertarian ideals have always reminded me of Communism in some ways... That's not libertarianism, that's anarchism... LIbertarianism isn't the advocation of NO government. It's the advocation of a limited government while still maintaining basic services such as police protection, courts of law, etc etc. No, libertarianism is a "big tent" philosophy. You are describing what is called "minarchism" which is the idea that government should only exist to perform the minimal amount of services, like a referee. That would be national defense, courts, and police, and some minarchists argue for more. Libertarianism also consists of anarcho-capitalism, which is the advocation of competing systems of governance without the monopolization of force. An-caps believe in a strict application of the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP). Minarchists believe that following the NAP is a good guideline but cannot be followed to its full logical conclusion, which is the abolishment of the State, for one reason or another. It is important to realize that libertarianism is simply the "big tent" philosophy that when faced with a choice between more freedom and less, the more freedom choice is preferable. Of course this only involves negative freedom and not positive freedom. If you're born in dirt, enjoy yourself with a life in the dirt. At least you're free Many people were born in dirt in this country. Capitalism and freedom is the best way to help the poor. What? Your evidence?
Here's some evidence refuting his point:
Harder for Americans to rise from lower rungs
A choice quote:
But many researchers have reached a conclusion that turns conventional wisdom on its head: Americans enjoy less economic mobility than their peers in Canada and much of Western Europe.
The newspaper boy to millionaire storyline happens everywhere, its just that being born in the US makes you much more likely to die as rich as you were born then if you were born in 'socialist' scandinivia.
|
That newspaper article doesn't refute his claim at all.
You continue to equate our current government with the libertarian view of capitalism. This couldn't be further from the truth.
|
United States7483 Posts
On January 30 2012 03:26 SoLaR[i.C] wrote:
That newspaper article doesn't refute his claim at all.
You continue to equate our current government with the libertarian view of capitalism. This couldn't be further from the truth.
There is a lot of evidence however, that the libertarian view of capitalism simply reinforces and increases imbalances. The less regulation you have, the richer the rich get, and the poorer the poor get.
|
On January 30 2012 03:26 SoLaR[i.C] wrote:
That newspaper article doesn't refute it at all.
You continue to equate our current government with the libertarian view of capitalism. This couldn't be further from the truth.
I'm sorry, I was assuming basic knowledge. Let me spell it out for you: The more intervening states succeed in establishing equality of opportunity in a better way then the more 'free market' states. Free markets do not, nor will they ever, work in situations where there is an unequal playing field, as in the current US. If you want to free markets to be fair, you need to establish an equal playing field first.
You continue to cling to the idea that if we just free and open up more markets, this relationship will suddenly not hold true anymore. The empirical reality does not support your view. That makes your libertarian worldview entirely theoretical and mythical, because you can always claim that 'full libertarianism' has not been achieved yet (Similar claims used to be made by communists on the way to socialism.). The question libertarians should answer is how we get to this 'libertarian society' from where we are currently, without completely screwing over disadvantages groups.
'Abolish social security', 'abolish medicare/medicate' are such nice slogans, but the reality is that abolishing them will have severe consequences for certain groups within the american society.
|
The private sector is fully capable of providing any of your listed services. Are social security and medicare really your examples of well-run social programs? I hope not.
Plus, dependency isn't a reason to keep a broken system. I am not my brother's keeper, nor should I have to feel guilty about not explicitly providing for the care of others. Abolishing any number of wildly inefficient governmental programs/entities instantaneously frees up capital that can be allocated elsewhere.
|
On January 30 2012 02:59 Stratos_speAr wrote:
Yes, there are some taxes and some spending decisions that are questionable, but at the end of the day the basic idea of taxes is that you owe them for the services and protection that is given to you by the government. By entering into a social contract, you are giving up certain things in exchange for the protection of certain rights/privileges, which are protected by the law and law enforcement. Part of what you give up is the money that pays for these things, because (as you might have guessed) they simply don't pay for themselves. It's a selfish, spoiled, entitled attitude that says that taxes are theft and yet expects the government to protect you physically, ensure your basic rights are protected, and maybe give you infrastructure like roads and education. You can disagree with how the government spends your taxes, but taxes as an concept are not theft. If you don't like the terms of your social contract, you are free to leave the society that you dislike so much.
Unfortunately, it's the rich (paying nearly all of the income taxes in the U.S., that can make this decision and no longer contribute. They can live anywhere they want and no longer pay U.S. income taxes. Ex-patriots. Tax the rich, and the money leaves. I'm not arguing that taxes are 'stealing', but just pointing out the next logical step of raising taxes. This goes on with businesses as well, on the state level. States have to compete for businesses and if a State (like California) makes it too difficult for them to succeed, they will locate elsewhere with lower taxes and less regulation. Thus reducing the tax base of the anti-business (California) State.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
