(September 18, 2013 at 7:22 am)DeistPaladin Wrote: I'm an MBA (Master of Business Administration) and have successfully run a business for the last 20 years, successful even in this lackluster economy of the last dozen years, so I think I have as much authority to speak on economic matters as Koolaid with his dubious resume.
Some might point out that the study of business is peripheral to the study of economics, which is true as we deal with reality and practical application instead of the highly abstract universe of hypotheticals that economists live in. They were the butt of our jokes in business school.
I might add that I have also been a right winger without being a sociopath and a left winger without being an intellectual exploiter. I was even a libertarian for a while, as I made the shift from right to left, and then I grew up. I have since realized that taxation is not theft, as Koolaid and others like to melodramatically whine. It reflects the dues we pay to live in a civilized society and enjoy its benefits. If you don't want to pay the piper, go live in the wild and I wish you luck.
Now there is some controversy about how the dues of living in a civilized society might be fairly assessed and what the money should be spent on. That's why we live in a representative system so these decisions are made by the consent of the governed. Unfortunately, these decisions can't be made by unanimous consent. Personally, I don't like how my tax dollars paid for W's private war of aggression in Iraq and would rather my dumb ass fellow Americans who voted for him in 2004 exclusively shoulder that burden but our system doesn't work that way. Deal with it. It's the price of civilization.
Now there was a time when we did create the Libertarian's dream world, when private enterprise did as it pleased and the markets went unregulated. It was called the Gilded Age. We're rapidly moving back to that time now. We learned then as we should have learned during the last 30 years that concentrating wealth at the very top does not create prosperity for all and markets do not self-regulate. Corporations are soulless machines that generate wealth and maximize share-holder value. That's all they do. They will not care about worker safety or the environment or any other costs they can shirk. That's where regulation comes in.
Life is a balance. Our own government is based on three branches that check and balance each other. So too, our economy and a well-regulated system of capitalism should be balanced between business management, labor unions and government regulation.
I'm not running down business and private enterprise, being a member of that body myself. However, the backbone of the American economy and frankly what distinguishes any country's economy from a 3rd world nation is a vibrant middle class. We are losing that here in America and I fear if nothing is done to reign in corporate power, our future will resemble other 3rd world countries where a very few live in gated communities while the masses struggle to survive in squalor.
Are you for real? You want to turn this joke of a thread into a serious discussion? Fine.
I have two problems with your economic worldview - the first being your view of taxation. Your view - which is a common one in democratic countries - is a follows: "Taxes are payment for services rendered by the government in the upkeep and maintenance of civilization and existence of a representative government means we get a say in how they are spent". However, in principle, taxes mean something very different. In principle, they are the mandatory financial burden placed by the state without there necessarily being due consideration. And this distinction between how they are regarded in practical sense and what they are in principle - or rather, legal sense - is an important one (especially if you are debating a nut like Koolay).
Suppose tomorrow George Bush perpetrates a coup against the current government with the military and achieves his life-long dream of suspending all civil liberties and making your country a "Christian Nation". Suspend you disbelief for the moment and assume this happens and - as a result - a lot of advantages of living in a civilized society get taken away. Do you think you can make a legal argument that your taxes should be reduced accordingly?
Or, take another example. Suppose a recluse buys a parcel of undeveloped land in your country - away from any established civilization - chooses to grow anything required for his necessities and has no intentions whatsoever to interact with society - whether it is about protection of his rights or any trading - i.e. basically, he is ready to sign an affidavit declaring that he has intention of ever claiming any "advantages" of living in a civilized country - do you think he'd be exempt from paying taxes?
In both cases, if the principle behind taxation is applied - the answer would be "no". If your practical view of taxation is applied, the answer would be "yes". Unfortunately, if you want to make a legal argument, then it is the principle that would apply. I very mush long for the day when your view of taxation becomes factual both in principle and in practice - but that's not here yet and ignoring the current principle behind taxation is wrong.
The advantage of changing the principle would be as follows: Right now, taxes are an enforced contribution. Since it is, ultimately, regarded as a contribution, people try to have a say in how they are spent. With the view that they are the price paid for advantages of civilization, beyond the necessary provision of those advantages, the money can be spent on anything else such as large scale social development.
Secondly, your view of Libertarianism seems limited to the American understanding of it. The way I see it, Libertarianism doesn't dictate an unregulated market as it does a free-market. And I believe a degree of regulation is necessary to keep the market free. The essential feature of free-market would be that it is free of theft, fraud and coercion. While the first one is simple enough - at what point a free exchange of goods becomes fraudulent or coercive is harder to determine. For example, there is always a power disparity between employer and employee and such disparity can result in covert coercion in form of unfair contracts. Similarly, corporations can suppress or misrepresent relevant facts about their dealings, but that would be regarded as fraudulent. Basically, what we call "unfair trade practices" are referred to as such precisely because they contain elements of fraud and coercion. Government intervention is necessary to eliminate these factors and keep the market truly free - and that is why I regard regulation as a requirement within the Libertarian economy.
Further, your view that "Libertarianism means no regulation and in real life some regulation is required" does not say anything about the limits of regulation itself. I think that while the presence of fraud or coercion can and should be determined dynamically and on a case by case basis - the limit of government's legal intervention should be eliminating those factors. Beyond that the government may enter the market only as a private corporation.
