EPTThe degree of ignorance displayed on those pages makes me kind of sad.
In other news, Donald Trump is threatening to run again.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57367960/trump-still-not-ruling-out-presidential-bid/
Republican nominations - Page 383
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
The degree of ignorance displayed on those pages makes me kind of sad. In other news, Donald Trump is threatening to run again. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57367960/trump-still-not-ruling-out-presidential-bid/ | ||
|
Rob28
Canada705 Posts
If you think taxes are bad in the states, you've obviously never been to Canada fellas, heh... That earlier remark about Canadians having more "economic mobility" really made me smirk. Honestly, this thread really deviated from Republican candidates lately. Obama's going to win anyway, so I understand the thread's derailment from the original topic. Also, regarding the post above: Trump's just an attention whore. I'd ignore him if I were you, America. | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On January 30 2012 03:45 Kaitlin wrote: 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. This is called the Laffer curve, and most economists believe the U.S. is nowhere near the point in the curve where higher taxation would lead to less revenue. | ||
|
SoLaR[i.C]
United States2969 Posts
| ||
|
Josealtron
United States219 Posts
| ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
Your argument is that one enters a social contract? I didn't sign any contract, did you? You're going to insult me and then use this argument? If you're so informed about various political philosophies you should already be able to answer this argument yourself. 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. There's very little in the previous pages - all you have done is repeated that taxes are theft without giving a serious explanation that is backed by logic. The only substantive statement I could find is this. But a government never spends as beneficially as an individual spending on his own behalf. By definition, a centrally planned system functions by drawing averages and making generalizations about what is "best" for vast quantities of people. It would seem that you think this idealistic. Or perhaps you believe others have greater claim to your money and livelihood than your self? And since we're talking about the tragedy of commons, Mises had a great point about what I mentioned earlier: "If land is not owned by anybody, although legal formalism may call it public property, it is used without any regard to the disadvantages resulting. Those who are in a position to appropriate to themselves the returns — lumber and game of the forests, fish of the water areas, and mineral deposits of the subsoil — do not bother about the later effects of their mode of exploitation. For them, erosion of the soil, depletion of the exhaustible resources and other impairments of the future utilization are external costs not entering into their calculation of input and output. They cut down trees without any regard for fresh shoots or reforestation. In hunting and fishing, they do not shrink from methods preventing the repopulation of the hunting and fishing grounds" The bolded part is exactly the problem. People will spend their money in their best interest and this can and would usually be to the detriment of others. You can argue that in the vast majority of areas, people will spend more beneficially for themselves than the government ever will and that overall this won't result in a negative outcome for most (or at least enough to matter), but if you extend this to the basic premise of government that Hobbes even laid out (security), it would completely defeat the point of government and we'd be back to the original problem. This is why government is necessary, and when government is necessary, you owe some kind of due to the government to let them give you the necessary services that they have been made to do - namely, law enforcement. This is why taxes are not theft. You cannot expect a government to perform a necessary service without gaining funds from the people it is servicing. | ||
|
EternaLLegacy
United States410 Posts
On January 30 2012 03:29 Whitewing wrote: 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. No there isn't. The 1870s through 1913 was the greatest period of economic growth in world history. People moved from rural agrarian communities to urban communities, enabling them to afford every single modern luxury. Sewage/water systems, electricity, automobiles, etc. All these things raised the standard of living for the poorest Americans and created the middle class as we know it. All of this also occurred with very little regulation, no income tax, and no welfare state. | ||
|
EternaLLegacy
United States410 Posts
On January 30 2012 03:30 Derez wrote: 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. Free markets are a discovery process towards equality. They work best off an unequal starting ground. The only equality required for them to work is an equal respect for property rights. You're just saying the the "empirical reality does not support your view" when places like Singapore and Hong Kong directly contradict yours. Please, refrain from spewing this garbage. | ||
|
SoLaR[i.C]
United States2969 Posts
On January 30 2012 04:02 Stratos_speAr wrote: You're going to insult me and then use this argument? If you're so informed about various political philosophies you should already be able to answer this argument yourself. There's very little in the previous pages - all you have done is repeated that taxes are theft without giving a serious explanation that is backed by logic. The only substantive statement I could find is this. The bolded part is exactly the problem. People will spend their money in their best interest and this can and would usually be to the detriment of others. You can argue that in the vast majority of areas, people will spend more beneficially for themselves than the government ever will and that overall this won't result in a negative outcome for most (or at least enough to matter), but if you extend this to the basic premise of government that Hobbes even laid out (security), it would completely defeat the point of government and we'd be back to the original problem. This is why government is necessary, and when government is necessary, you owe some kind of due to the government to let them give you the necessary services that they have been made to do - namely, law enforcement. This is why taxes are not theft. You cannot expect a government to perform a necessary service without gaining funds from the people it is servicing. There's nothing to suggest that people would primarily act in a way that detriments others. That's rhetoric and quite a pessimistic view of mankind in my opinion. The idea of voluntary cooperation needn't be thrown to the wolves so quickly. And if I were to claim that I were a proponent of minarchism, then one could make a point that we somewhat agree on the points covered in your last paragraph. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
On January 30 2012 04:05 EternaLLegacy wrote: No there isn't. The 1870s through 1913 was the greatest period of economic growth in world history. People moved from rural agrarian communities to urban communities, enabling them to afford every single modern luxury. Sewage/water systems, electricity, automobiles, etc. All these things raised the standard of living for the poorest Americans and created the middle class as we know it. All of this also occurred with very little regulation, no income tax, and no welfare state. Africa would beg to differ. This was concurrent to the Scramble for Africa, and that the abundance of cheap resources imported from colonized areas provided much of the capital for the advancement of the Western World. African kingdoms were destroyed, and tribal boundaries were completely neglected and replaced by borders drawn up by Western powers. But all the looted resources was pretty good for citizens in the colonizing powers. | ||
|
Elegy
United States1629 Posts
On January 30 2012 04:05 EternaLLegacy wrote: No there isn't. The 1870s through 1913 was the greatest period of economic growth in world history. People moved from rural agrarian communities to urban communities, enabling them to afford every single modern luxury. Sewage/water systems, electricity, automobiles, etc. All these things raised the standard of living for the poorest Americans and created the middle class as we know it. All of this also occurred with very little regulation, no income tax, and no welfare state. Claiming that as a result of little regulation is an impressive exercise in ignorance. Precious deregulation under Reagan did well to decrease wealth imbalance, yes? Except...it didn't. | ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On January 30 2012 04:11 SoLaR[i.C] wrote: There's nothing to suggest that people would primarily act in a way that detriments others. That's rhetoric and quite a pessimistic view of mankind in my opinion. The idea of voluntary cooperation needn't be thrown to the wolves so quickly. And if I were to claim that I were a proponent of minarchism, then one could make a point that we somewhat agree on the points covered in your last paragraph. You've already said previously that in a practical sense you are a proponent of minarchism. If this is the case, then you should be able to acknowledge that taxes are not theft. It is controversial what the taxation policies are and how this money is spent, but the concept of taxes itself is not theft in any way. | ||
|
EternaLLegacy
United States410 Posts
On January 30 2012 04:21 Elegy wrote: Claiming that as a result of little regulation is an impressive exercise in ignorance. Precious deregulation under Reagan did well to decrease wealth imbalance, yes? Except...it didn't. What deregulation. Regulations have only increased since the 1970s. Reagan was a statist just like everyone else. | ||
|
SoLaR[i.C]
United States2969 Posts
On January 30 2012 04:21 Elegy wrote: Claiming that as a result of little regulation is an impressive exercise in ignorance. Precious deregulation under Reagan did well to decrease wealth imbalance, yes? Except...it didn't. It seems that you've been misinformed. Reagan was anything but a proponent of free markets. He was a statist, like yourself. Under Reagan as both governor and president: * the California state govt spending grew by 122% during his eight years * the number of CA governmental employees grew from 158,000 to 192,000 * three consecutive state tax hikes between 1970, 1971, 1972. Income, sales, corporate, bank, liquor, and cigarette taxes were all boosted dramatically. * created 73 new state government councils and commissions, with a total budget, in his last year alone, of $12 million. Included was his California Energy Commission fiasco. * Rothbard speaking on Reagan's famous presidential "tax cut" of 1981: It did not cut taxes at all. It's true that tax rates for higher-income brackets were cut; but for the average person, taxes rose, rather than declined. The reason is that, on the whole, the cut in income tax rates was more than offset by two forms of tax increase. One was "bracket creep," a term for inflation quietly but effectively raising one into higher tax brackets, so that you pay more and proportionately higher taxes even though the tax rate schedule has officially remained the same. The second source of higher taxes was Social Security taxation, which kept increasing, and which helped taxes go up overall. * taxes in reality were raised in each of the follow seven years and written off as: "raising of fees," "plugging loopholes," "tightening IRS security," and even "revenue enhancement." * increased the deficit from 74 billion to 155 billion * increased federal spending by 53% * added a 250,000 new civilian government employees * escalated the War on Drugs His international record as a "free-market" politician was no better: * imposed a 100% tariff on selected Japanese electronic products * forced Japan to accept restraints on auto exports * tightened considerably the quotas on imported sugar * required 18 countries, including Brazil, Spain, South Korea, Japan, Mexico, South Africa, Finland, Australia, and the European Community, to accept 'voluntary restraint agreements' that reduced their steel imports to the United States * imposed a 45% duty on Japanese motorcycles for the benefit of Harley Davidson, which admitted that superior Japanese management was the cause of its problems * pressed Japan to force its automakers to buy more American-made parts * demanded that Taiwan, West Germany, Japan, and Switzerland restrain their exports of machine tools * extended quotas on imported clothes pins and "beefed-up the Export-Import Bank, an institution dedicated to distorting the American economy at the expense of the American people in order to artificially promote exports of eight large corporations. More here. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9384 Posts
On January 30 2012 04:31 Stratos_speAr wrote: You've already said previously that in a practical sense you are a proponent of minarchism. If this is the case, then you should be able to acknowledge that taxes are not theft. It is controversial what the taxation policies are and how this money is spent, but the concept of taxes itself is not theft in any way. How do you define theft in an universal way? You cant use current laws in that definition as they change over time. And even if your a proponent of minarchims, you could still acknowledge that you need some theft (= little government) to make governemnt protect the property rights. | ||
|
Mordanis
United States893 Posts
Is unequal distribution of wealth necessarily a negative thing? Most psychologists seem to agree that wealth and income play a statistically significant role in subjective well-being, but a very small role. In a way, if wealth doesn't correlate very strongly with happiness, why shouldn't 5 people control the wealth of the world as long as everyone else is free to choose what to work in and everything else? Obviously there needs to be some system that ensures that people don't starve because they cannot access any food, but we don't even have that throughout the whole world. Can anyone give a good argument against this besides something to the effect of "it isn't fair"? Again, I don't actually believe this (yet at least), but I do think that people are far too occupied with the distribution of wealth. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9384 Posts
On January 30 2012 04:09 EternaLLegacy wrote: Free markets are a discovery process towards equality. They work best off an unequal starting ground. The only equality required for them to work is an equal respect for property rights. You're just saying the the "empirical reality does not support your view" when places like Singapore and Hong Kong directly contradict yours. Please, refrain from spewing this garbage. Does free markets make people more equal measured in purchasing power? | ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On January 30 2012 04:46 Mordanis wrote: Just a quick thought that I just had but don't necessarily believe: Is unequal distribution of wealth necessarily a negative thing? Most psychologists seem to agree that wealth and income play a statistically significant role in subjective well-being, but a very small role. In a way, if wealth doesn't correlate very strongly with happiness, why shouldn't 5 people control the wealth of the world as long as everyone else is free to choose what to work in and everything else? Obviously there needs to be some system that ensures that people don't starve because they cannot access any food, but we don't even have that throughout the whole world. Can anyone give a good argument against this besides something to the effect of "it isn't fair"? Again, I don't actually believe this (yet at least), but I do think that people are far too occupied with the distribution of wealth. The problem isn't unequal distribution, it's 1) unequal opportunity for gain and 2) unnaceptable living conditions for our times. The argument about wealth distribution is an aside that has come up because the first conclusion is, "They have loads of money they don't need, so lets take it to help out those that are in horrible conditions in our country!" How do you define theft in an universal way? You cant use current laws in that definition as they change over time. And even if your a proponent of minarchims, you could still acknowledge that you need some theft (= little government) to make governemnt protect the property rights. I'm pretty sure that there's not a single definition of theft that includes "money taken for services rendered". | ||
|
aebriol
Norway2066 Posts
On January 30 2012 04:46 Mordanis wrote: Just a quick thought that I just had but don't necessarily believe: Is unequal distribution of wealth necessarily a negative thing? It is not. You need some inequality. But if your society was optimized, you made sure that as few as possible needed help from society to make do, and as many as possible contribute (because then you don't need so much from each person). Which is why things like public education and government funded infrastructure is important. But you need the wealth distributed unevenly as well, otherwise no one would have enough left over to make risky investments - and other reasons. | ||
|
Derez
Netherlands6068 Posts
On January 30 2012 04:09 EternaLLegacy wrote: Free markets are a discovery process towards equality. They work best off an unequal starting ground. The only equality required for them to work is an equal respect for property rights. You're just saying the the "empirical reality does not support your view" when places like Singapore and Hong Kong directly contradict yours. Please, refrain from spewing this garbage. Your response to concerns about differences in income and opportunity is listing two city states that are dependant on immigrant labor? Immigrants that are denied basic civil rights within the countries they are in, yet are essential in maintaining certain sectors of the economy? Bangladeshi immigrants do not get to attend singaporean education, or enjoy singaporean retirement funds, or healthcare, which are all obligatory and some are government provided/mandated. It's easier to pay for it when you don't have to care about 1/3rd of your working force, I'll give you that, but how exactly are they an example of succesful libertarianism or succesful non-welfare states (for singapore)? | ||
| ||
