Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Hong Kong, Singapore, Australia, Switzerland. Nobody is dying of starvation there, it's just not an issue. As long as there is a at least a semi-free market, then people do not involuntarily starve. It's like saying "Libertarians don't support government fruit programs, so they think it's okay for people to get scurvy" well if there was any sort of free market, people would buy fruit- again, it's just not an issue.
Conversely we can look at the countries with the lowest economic freedom, and see if they are free from starvation:
The lowest: North Korea - we've all heard of the rampant starvation in NK, some estimate 10% of all people die of starvation.
September 22, 2013 at 11:56 am (This post was last modified: September 22, 2013 at 12:46 pm by Creed of Heresy.)
*Cracks knuckles; round 2, FIGHT!*
Seriously. Get ready for an essay.
WARNING. ALERT. DANGER. WHAT FOLLOWS IS NOT WHAT ANYONE WOULD CONSIDER LIGHT READING, BUT IF YOU WANT TO HEAR MY EXTREMELY LONG-WINDED EXPLANATION AS TO WHY HARDCORE LIBERTARIANISM AS THE CURRENT INDIVIDUALS IN THIS THREAD ARE ESPOUSING IT IS A PIPE DREAM AND SOMETHING BORDERING ON IMMORALITY [by my opinion anyway], READ ON!
Also, splitting it up into hide boxes. I was flying high on adderall when I wrote this shit...I might like this new prescription. If you really find this too tl;dr, there is a tl;dr segment at the bottom.
Seriously. Set aside an hour if you wanna go through this. You'll need it.
(September 22, 2013 at 12:49 am)Stue Denim Wrote: It's more than food+shelter (though you can argue that that's unintended still). I've been eligible for it in Aus (yah for being a student) whilst neither starving, being short of shelter, or even in a situation where I had to work, but still I was eligible for $9,000 Aus a year. Also how high is it? is it higher than a minimum wage job in all states? Can you still argue it's a last resort if it's going to give people more money than a min wage job (even higher cause there's no having to travel)?
Well you said the reason for it right there. you're a student. Being eligible for it is something where it's given so that as a student you can focus on your studies and education without having to deal with additional burdens of responsibility via a job. And if you so choose to work a job instead, does that disqualify you from any amount of the allowance? Even if it doesn't, I would view it as an incentive to get an education, important in this day and age of rising need of technical skills to contribute to the workforce and to succeed in life. After all, such programs really are not intended to make people just suckle at the teat of government social aid forever, they're programs to ensure the future workforce will contribute to the nation's workforce and economic potential. A government with successful citizens is a government that can have a better tax income [which you could view as paying it forward for the education, infrastructural, and defense services received during your upbringing and into your life as you continue to benefit from them]. Social contract, and hell, it's almost business-like. "We provide these services as a package deal, you pay for the services at a rate that is a partial percentage of what you make without having to pick and choose what services you do and do not want," and this is necessary for nations, and would be even if this was all one world government, because these services are available throughout the country. By being a part of that country, you are subject to all the benefits it will provide, because you can't really go "I don't wanna pay for roads," because how in the fuck are they gonna keep you off the damn roads? And how can you go "I don't wanna pay for military defense or law enforcement," because how are they going to say "PROTECT EVERYONE EXCEPT FOR THIS GUY, HE DOESN'T PAY!" or "What's that, you're being attacked by a murderer, someone who is breaking our law? Well, sorry dude, you didn't pay the service charge!"
Anyway, I don't think you were arguing against this anyway, I just wanted to reaffirm that.
(September 22, 2013 at 12:49 am)Stue Denim Wrote:
Quote: Wrong. They were instated by Franklin Fucking Delano Roosevelt with broad support of the Congress AND Senate AND the American people. Involuntarily my fucking ass, you half-baked retard.
That's the nature of democracy, the decision and consequences are involuntary for up to 50% of the population. That's before we even get into the rigged two party systems where you have to vote for the lesser of two evils and so on (although Koolay as an An-Cap might have an interesting argument I've seen regarding consent and democracy). Point is, it's involuntary for some, unless you think everybody consented to the Iraq war and the NSA nonsense.
This is very true. But, at the same time, we do have to realize, sometimes the reasons why people think they do not want something is because other people tell them they do not want something. We see this all the time in the modern world, thanks to a number of things, beginning with the mass media, going to sound-bytes to dumb it down for people too lazy to pay attention to that which will affect them so over-archingly...and culminating in that as well; the laziness and, worse, the inability to think things for ourselves. I don't think most of us here fit that profile, though...a lot of us are [generally] well-informed about society and politics...we think for ourselves [these are just broad majority generalizations, here] more than usual, we form opinions based more on facts from citable sources [which is why we see sources cited so very often to show we're not just bullshitting for the sake of making our claims sound better]. And a lot of the times you notice that misgivings about certain legislature and politics and so on tend to be because we are unaware of something, and when corrected, we fix that.
I can't even begin to tell you how many people think Obamacare is a terrible thing that must be done away with based on reasons that aren't even real reasons. They don't want it because they think it's going to do so much more and affect them so much worse than it really will, and they fail to notice the ways in which it'll benefit them.
To take a quick tangent [fuck this post is gonna be ridiculously huge...], I was discussing Obamacare with a friend who is poor as fuck. He barely makes ends meet, he doesn't make much, and as a result, he is exempt from the yearly fine or tax thing, but he was screaming about how he's not gonna be able to make ends meet anymore cuz of it. I started breaking down the stuff for him, he swore I was bullshitting, I started linking him to information on it...and, go figure, there's a reason he's railing against it; he's one of those sound-byte purchasers. So I had to quote it down and break it into little meaty chunks. But he finally got it, and gets what the program is trying to do. Yet he still thinks it's a bad idea, and he has no clue why now. He just "thinks it's not right."
Some people decide that they can't bear the idea of the government "intruding" on their lives, even if it means helping people who genuinely need it, when they need it, and nurturing society; if it means that government has a say in their lives, no matter how abstract that intrusion may be, they'll just dig their feet into the ground. Or, goodness forbid that we get taxed a bit more. "OUR HARD EARNED MONEY!!" they shriek...as they have to pay an extra $40 that they'd probably otherwise piss away on McDonald's over the course of six months anyways...in order to shoulder the burden, in such a ludicrously trivial fashion, of the costs of the wars they blindly bought into and allowed their politicians to vote for when they didn't scream loud enough at the government to drown out the voices of the lobbyists, or the costs of the education they once received, and their children or grandchildren are receiving, or the roads they drive on. UGH.
(September 22, 2013 at 12:49 am)Stue Denim Wrote:
Quote: Aaand we're back to the violence thing. Socialism != violence
Government: Give me your money for receiving an education, driving on our roads, needing our police to keep people from stealing your money by ACTUAL force-of-violence and not the contrivance shown below, likely needing our fire department not only to put out fires on your property but fires that might otherwise spread from other property to your own, the military that keeps other nations from sacking your shit and taking our strategic resources (though if corporate-minded interests want to get in some strategic resources in another nation themselves, the corporate-funded politicians will use some of this money to bomb another nation; then you can blame the government and not the guys instigating the government to do this!), medical care, social safety nets, retirement assurances, and a variety of other services necessary for this nation to not fall the fuck apart and take your ass with it.
Koolay: nah
Government: ok then, enjoy prison for theft of an unimaginable extent, and if you resist arrest, bam bam bam, he he he, just joking, the most you'll likely get is a tazer since no cop is going to be amped up about the dangers of arresting a tax dodger.
Creed: Well, the thieving shithead deserved it, if he didn't like those services, he was more than welcome to move to Antarctica.
How is it not?
There is a vast difference between voluntarily donating your time or money to somebody, and having it forcibly taken by bureaucrats.
Bolding was mine, and addressed the lower portion of this quote. Seriously, that was the biggest exaggeration of anything I've seen on this forum in quite some time. "Pay us our taxes or we'll arrest you and shoot you?" Arrest, yeah, sure...and you'll spend a year, tax-free, in a minimum-security resort. And shooting for resisting arrest for tax evasion? Something tells me the officers going to arrest someone for tax evasion aren't going to have itchy trigger fingers, and that in all likelihood even if they do feel the need to restrain you for resisting, they'll just taze you. I don't even know if this shit counts as a felony, I think it's like a misdemeanor. And, like I said...if you are a beneficiary of all the services, you're kind of obligated to pay it forward, even if you use tax avoidance to mitigate it, even to the point of mitigating it to becoming absolutely tax exempt, if you can manage it...perfectly legal.
Quote:The typical tax evader in the United States is a male under the age of 50 in the highest tax bracket and with a complicated tax return. The most common means of tax evasion is overstatement of charitable contributions, particularly church donations.
Yeah they're not gonna bring in any artillery. Also why am I not surprised about any of that quote...young to middle aged white man in the 1% income bracket, evading paying any taxes at all? Seriously, it's almost like the more money you get the more likely you are to be a vindictive, greedy prick or something...
I'll address the underlying message here though later on, near the bottom.
Also, in regards to the tax rates and your addressing of them [and attempt to do some number magic that fools nobody]; the reason for such high taxes is because they were established at those rates pretty much at the outset of banking institutions spreading across the nations with such taxes where the free market was otherwise allowed to run its course, because such money being made is often not something where someone hands you a giant sack of cash; also consider they were established in times of much less inflation, where less money was going around, so the spread of costs of goods and services was greatly reduced. Less money going around was basically the result of far less population density, and far less people on the top of the income foodchain, so those who WERE at the top of the income foodchain had little competition, given that virtually all of them were entrepreneurs. Given the tax rates for the lower classes were still pretty steep [at least by today's standards], this wasn't such a huge thing for the rich people getting taxed; that 20% they kept still afforded them estates, plantations, factories, expensive clothing [ludicrously ostentatious too, I must say], and given that this tax trend extended all the way into the 1950s without the rich not being unbelievably capable of burning cash by the piles without even missing it, while the income levels of the workers who enabled their success remained at absolute minimal levels [Robber Baron comes to mind...], and they were still buying stuff far outside the reach of anyone else? YEAH. YEAH, I still say those original tax rates were QUITE fair.
Why? Because the reason those entrepreneurs were enabled to succeed was largely because, in those days, the infrastructures that allowed them to transport goods and sell them easily, because in those times where nations were more on an even footing and such global powers didn't quite reach the levels they reach today [and when nukes were not a possible deterrence, certainly], these entrepreneurs were guaranteed safety from foreign attack by military forces...which is good, because something tells me an invading force would just take all the good business starter's money and resources and leave him with jack shit...if even they let him live. The cost of expansion was HUGE in the 19th century because it wasn't as well-developed as it is today; nowadays it spiderwebs off of primary routes. It's relatively easy to expand as needed, but before, there WAS no primary routes; they had to build them, and then build the smaller routes between them and connect them, having to go through otherwise-impassable mountains, they had to build bridges ALL the time all over the place [not just repair them like which is mostly what we do now; no no, we're talking full-on building, materials, labor, planning and all! All at a time where inflation was much lower and therefore money was more precious and yet had to be distributed properly for the work and resources! Oh my yes you're starting to see the point now aren't you little Penguin man, huh?], and don't forget the railroads [yes I'm basically going off of American history here, its economic rise and history of government is what I am more familiar with, and is honestly the best example anyway given it was and still is the freest capitalist nation in the world right now] that had to go across a HUGE EXPANSE OF LAND in a fashion that made sure it connected cities and resource gathering points...
Yeah, infrastructure cost a fucking ton and a half, and the ones who benefited from it the most were the entrepreneurs by having easy access into new areas and lands, being able to expand and establish in new places. What they could do as entrepreneurs meant that that 20% that they made would have been five times if not MORE than what they would have made if they were in a lower tax bracket...and they oftentimes had so much money that after spending tons of it on lavish surroundings and fancy parties and even philanthropic pursuits they STILL had shit-tons of cash enough to buy out competition, expand interests, and even lobby politicians to set up a provision or bill to further benefit them.
I know, I speak all in the past tense but get this, none of it's changed!
Early 20th century tax rates were steadily dropping all around, because the populations were growing. More taxpayers, therefore, meant the burden could be shared more equally; there were many more businessmen by this time as well, most markets now starting to have sufficient competition...or, so it would seem for a while, anyway.
The rich were still paying very high tax rates, but AGAIN, the ones benefiting the most from the levied taxes were the rich. Road networks were now being much more well-established. Travel times dropped, meaning faster delivery of products and services which meant you got paid more, you could bring in raw materials quicker, get em sent to the customer faster...money; faster. I'm speaking your language, I know it, so hang on. Cuz, I know I was done for the night and then I wrote some snide little remarks and I decided I had to tear you a new one, too.
With rising populations meant rising need for food, and farming was a difficult and not very easy job, but it was necessary. Tax incentives and breaks have to be given to them so they are profitable and so they stay in business and so people, including the rich, stay fed. More food...more people...goes on like this. More people means more customers. More customers means more money flowing from the pockets of the lower tax brackets into the hands of hands of the richest who, again, are FAR FAR less numerous than those in the lower tax brackets. What the middle class man makes after his 40% average tax rate, the man with the 80% tax rate still makes at least 20 times more of AFTER TAX than the middle classman makes BEFORE taxes. Not to mention people rising through the ranks in between the 40 and 80 percent are allowed tax exemptions, credits, incentives, so that while on their rise, even though their tax rates may seem like they're rising disproportionately, they're staying well within reason. As the wealth disparity gap also shows us, the people entering the higher tax brackets, despite having larger taxes being levied on them, were still pulling much more money than the average middle classman, and were still well within range to continue to grow and profit.
Which they did thanks to the services provided with their tax-dollars. City infrastructures were built with industry and commerce in mind, with residential districts surrounding them; the businessman sets up the factory, the job openings are available, the laborers move into the area around it to work, and more business gets attracted by these hubs of commerce; laborers with money to spend means people can move in and sell them things. People need to work at these stores, right? more people move into the area to work these jobs; this is an economy at work, the story of commerce and enterprise. A beautiful thing, isn't it? Production, value, goods, services, labor, community, and at the center of this glorious little fiscal whirlwind are the men at top; where the laborers earn their money from one source, the man at the desk earns his money from a hundred sources! ...Wait, that doesn't seem fair, does it...? Hm, oh well, whatever. The rich man is rich, he has his decadent parties in his mansion that sits atop a ton of land that could otherwise be used to house a dozen "lesser" folk. But, eh, he bought the land dirt cheap; first come first served, and who cares what the future generations might need or want; it'll just suck to be them coming to the party late! Maybe he'll gripe about having to pay a property tax, and heck, one might even be sympathetic to him...he DID buy the place after all, right? But then, one must then realize that the world around that property will change, population densities increase, and to make up for less land availability in the economic centers and the trickier planning it will require to situate everyone, it's fair he pays a yearly tax on the size of the space of his land, since that economic center is having its infrastructure [I love this word, it puts libertarians out like a hammer to the head] constantly spread out and developed...not just roads mind you, but power lines, telegraph lines, nowadays phone lines, plumbing, garbage collection [you COULD say it's part of infrastructure in a sense], all of these things are necessary for these economies to thrive. And in order to do that, well...we need space. He's hogging up a lot of space. So we need a bit of money to compensate for the increase in difficulty and the other directions of civic planning that must take place.
He partakes in the many luxuries available in greater quantities and with easier access. Fine wines, perfumes, clothing, decorations, artwork, food, delicacies in general, all made easier to get to him because of all those roads, all those seaports and airports.
The economic centers are growing, growing, growing. The rich get richer as more and more people are born, more consumers, more expansion, and while sure the rate of pay may not really be climbing all that much for the laborers, many companies still recognize their laborers' good work...they still have a personal touch. Kind of. Now management is being relegated out, divisions, subsidiaries...corporations are not a rarity now, they're almost the norm. The men at top are banking fat pay and while a lot of it is being taxed, it's all going towards services enabling those successes, protecting them, and hell, there's even plenty of ways for certain taxes and amounts to be removed and/or lowered under certain circumstances, to make things even and fair, and well, we all got no beef with that! The micro-economies are growing. People have jobs, the jobs aren't half-bad paying, because at this point in the economic game, better paid workers means wage competition, and wage competition, it turns out, is great for these economies; get this, more people with more money to spend tend to buy more stuff! It's great, isn't it?? After all, there's not so many people that losing a few hundred customers here and there is tolerable, and in fact customers are still quite appreciated. Many small businesses are popping up, catering to customers, working their own jobs, doing their own things.
But oh no! Things are a little too good! Even with such heavy taxes being levied, rich people still have so much money that businessmen, investors, bankers, all of them, are all investing heavily, onwards and upwards; it's the Roaring 20s! Better educations through taxes have been enabling more intelligent folk to innovate; the wave of science and innovation has begun to really pick up steam and these educated individuals are creating products that are making life even easier for everyone else. What would have been seen as luxury commodities 30 years ago are available for everyone, because thanks to that education system being financed by taxpayer dollars by taxpayers who once used it themselves to help them in getting where they are now, the ideas of mass production, and the machinery that will make it faster, easier, and cheaper to accomplish too, are being put into motion. The Industrial Revolution! It's brought some great things! Well, there were some particularly nasty incidents...this is before the actual time where workers were appreciated...because, see, the workers wouldn't end up being so respected until the late 30s. At THIS point, factory workers, the primary workforce, are actually paid pretty lousy wages in unsafe conditions...and unfortunately, not every venture is successful, and sometimes people move to an area when all the jobs have been filled up, not really knowing this because the internet doesn't exist...
And...well, there's some business with some cheeky factory workers who are tired of coming home every day, tired and barely able to squeak by with their shitty pay. They all refuse to stop working all at once unless they receive better pay. Sooo the rich guys go ahead and, with their extremely huge amounts of money, they buy off a bunch of cops and hire a bunch of thugs to go and beat the everliving shit out of the workers, intimidating them, threatening them, sending them to the hospital, because they have money to purchase entire platoons of police offers and hired thugs, and enough money to buy caviar and port vintage wine that costs thousands of dollars per sip....but not enough to pay the people breaking their backs to enable them a wage decent enough that they might at least have a few nice things of their own. They aren't asking for much...just fifty cents more an hour. Enough to buy a new bed, or stove, or new clothes a little more often than once a year or some better food, or more food. The simple stuff...stuff you take for granted. You don't care; they work for YOU! You are the master! You have the money! Pitiful little shits should be happy you give them such pittances! You might even think it's those damned taxes! They're so high! You can't afford to pay such outrageous rates AND build a wine cellar next week AND pay those dirt-slumming peons something enough that they actually have some nice little tiny things to their name! Well, OK, you can, BUT YOU NEED THAT MONEY FOR THE STOCK MARKET! Just like everyone else like you with absurd amounts of cash [despite those painfully high tax rates...these poor rich people...it's just dreadful really how even after their taxes they make multitudes more money than those in the brackets beneath them. They should be allowed to keep their share! And they are! After all just remember all those services enabling them...], you wanna buy into other companies as well, maybe even do this to the point you can buy other companies out It's going up and up and...
up...
and...
up...
Hmm...
Awfully high up here. Think it'll be a problem? Nah. You're rich, the bankers are rich, everyone around you is rich, you all have tons of money, who knows better than you about money? Nobody, that's who! Everything'll be fine; no need for moderation...it's fine... And as for those pesky strikers, well, the national guard comes and even though you've been paying for so much of the stuff to finance them with...wweeeelllll, technically, for every rich person out there there's like 1,000 of those lower income types and their tax dollars kind of add up so you can't really say they're yours, really. And the government has had enough of your violent assaults on your workers, which is REALLY good for the majority of constituents that this isn't a private institution or anything because, heh, yeah, you were doing a good job settling this dispute, right? Well, the Guard levels their rifles at your thugs and bought-off cops, even though you protest that you pay more tax dollars than the rest of these slobs as if that ENTITLES you to using the Guard as you see fit...which it does not. The thugs clear out, the factories aren't doing anything, and you can't use violence to...
...Use violence? Wait, but that wasn't a last resort...a BETTER resort would have been the intellectual one; to pay better wages! Huh, this free-market-finds-a-way thing is really sounding hollow right now...and, having to share the National Guard? AND the roads too, now that you think about it? Granted, your trucks and vehicles and train cars and all are occupying more space than any other one lower tax bracket person is, since all those things belong to you, but...sharing? This sounds rather...socialist... But, wait, you probably paid more into the NG than those striking workers did. They should've listened to YOU! But...this whole disconnect between taxpayer and tax dollars spent means that you don't actually get to demand control over whatever you want just cuz you pay more into it. It's very socialist, that. You didn't get your way. The many triumphed over the few in their demands for decent living wages you can easily spare anyway, and from this moment onwards the idea that your money CAN'T buy you EVERYTHING you want will make sure you and others like you bitch and piss and scream about it for the next century, to the point they'll buy politicians left right and center who will cut the taxes on you while bringing 'em up on the rest. Well, you'll win one day in some regards, but you'll always end up being laughed at by those underneath you when you throw a temper tantrum and whine about how the government isn't fair and it's a big ol' meany-pants.
Let's not forget that this socialism-styled solution prevented the violence that was being carried out by the libertarian-styled solution. Just in case any more idiots try to spit in Creed's face and convince him it's raining...*coughcoughKoolghcough*
Anyway. Unions are born from this mess, another socialist thing, which ironically prevents this kind of thing from happening again (ironically because it's definitely socialistic and not libertarian at all), which given the savage beatings and deaths and assaults done at the behest of the rich fucks in charge? Well, it's not surprising that suddenly many are aware that money = power and unless people band together, the ones with money will just treat them like they're barely more than slaves who get pittances. A peace-ensuring socialist solution...huh...
ANYWAY. I've gotten sidetracked too much. Let's pull it back. All those rich people spending for the good times? [by the way, for the next century, "rich people spending for the good times" will become a thing that'll result in a bunch more recessions including one that results in gas lines, among other things, massive amounts of credit debt for the government and the entire nation as a new means of keeping the peons in line since the current brand of capitalism is losing its hold on peoples' lives, another recession after that that is pulled away from by a very left-leaning near-socialist president named Clinton, another recession that leads into a near Great Depression v2.0, and a big ol' bank bailout...heheheh...] Well, none of them considered moderation; they always needed more more more. Competition had stalled out; lots of existing companies were being bought out by others, and unfortunately there was no middle class at this point. Not yet. The unions hadn't been around long enough to ensure that the labor class finally was respected and relied upon for everything. But when the middle class would rise with the aid of those darn socialist unions who would band the workers together to demand better standards for living, well...turns out those damn socialists with their economy-hating tyrannical ways...well...they kind of created the ultimate force of consumption/producers; come to find out that when poor people have more money for working their jobs, they spend plenty of it on goods and stuff...they're not like the rich. They don't have everything, and they don't have the money to play the endless mad hatter chase known as the "stock market" to any real extent, but...they make very reliable consumers, AND they do their jobs with dedication! Quite a useful lot! Thanks, socialism! :3
But anyway. Stock market crashes. Lot of people lose a ton of money. Plenty of the richest, the ones who were the quickest to sell, held onto at least some of their fortunes if not all of them. But, well, for every rich person now out on the streets, there were tens, if not hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people out of work and unable to find any work elsewhere because all the jobs are gone. This will until that progressive democrat Franklin Delano Fucking Roosevelt himself institutes his New Deal that implements a ton of socialist reforms and programs to fix the damage left by the unregulated, virtually unshackled free market's utter, abysmal fucking FAILURE.
Now, as to how the stock market crashed, well, that's easy; the rich, despite those awful, awful taxes, had enough money to buy out other companies, thus reducing competition, and to buy ludicrously opulent luxury items, while also playing fast and loose with their money, investing in tons of shit and lending out loans to just about anyone who asked for one, and with no government oversight [a theme that will recur in a little less than a century from this point, under the exact same damn circumstances, almost as if having tons of money and not appreciating what kind of responsibility it entails is fucking disastrous for everyone else!]. Educated workers were sort of common, but with most of the money being spent instead on that infrastructure and development stuff to fuel the businesses instead of the people in general, well...technical skills weren't really a thing in high supply. Typically if you had technical skills you were middle class, but the middle class wasn't really all that big, as you can imagine. It didn't help that up to that point, the most populous group were the labor class and the labor class were the dirt poorest.
Socialist unions had not yet managed to negotiate their ways around corporate bureaucracy [which is just as bad as government bureaucracy in how obstinate and difficult to work with it is, though it tends to be less direct and more underhanded and conniving in how it fucks you] into ensuring hard-working laborers had competitive wages, allowing for the lower class to rise to the ranks of the middle class, making the middle class the most populous. I've already spoken of them above. But, while they were lower class, they didn't have lots of spending money. Over-investment, competition-thinning, some people with way too much money regardless of the amount they were taxed ensuring competition was always readily crushed before it could get anywhere, either by market dominance or by the more insidious method of getting into government by donating extensively to an elected official, and being given a non-elected position by said official and then using that position to basically cheat your way either around competition, or through it.
The free market finds a way!
Well, anyway, the richer folk become of greater and greater influence after WWII. The middle class is on the rise, their income is greater, wealth disparity is actually fairly alright right now, and better yet, the middle class is actually quite sizable. Certain members of government are either supremely dimwitted or they are "contributed" off; they actually believe the claims by the rich, of the rich, for the rich that lowering taxes on the these "champions of industry," the "job creators," the richest amongst us who not more than 40 years ago had caused the entire country to be brought to its economic knees, would actually improve the situation even more if we cut their taxes! It made sense; if they had more spending money [because they weren't already absurdly wealthy, remember! Only 8+ vintage cars per business mogul!], they'd spend more on creating jobs (that they didn't need) and paying their workers even more (Lol. Remember what I said about the Industrial Revolution, now! These weren't socialists banding together in large numbers to protest better wages, these were rich people promising to pay more to their workers if they got tax breaks...with no guarantees given...or even asked for. It's so nice when you have enough money to grease the wheels, huh?). So we cut the taxes. I mean, after all, we had the Red Menace to fear. Dirty commies! Well, they weren't really commies except in name. They were sort of like socialists, except that there was still a class system wherein the Party wielded absolute power and there wasn't really any voting or decision making given to the people and they were paid all the same dirt wages and kept in line with force and intimidation...Stalin was particularly fond of mass executions and wiping people out by the thousands. But yeah. A few people with privilege and power, pretty much beholden to nobody but their own head honcho, bullying and intimidating those under them and making them all work full tilt for next to nothing in grueling conditions with little if any hope of advancement...sounds a bit familiar...where've I heard this kind of thing being put into practice before...
...Eh. It'll come to me. Interestingly, though, when Stalin went away and they got rid of a lot of the more...mm...whatever-the-term-is aspects of the USSR, they actually started doing really good, outpacing even the glorious capitalists in a lot of respects somehow...weirdest thing ever. Of course then they went into absolute stagnation economically and culturally, they dumped a ton of resources into a pointless occupation of Afghanistan (Hm!), and generally just fell apart as a socialist state. Hm...
Interesting...
Seems as if completely abolishing the idea of enterprise and the free market is just as bad as if you give it free, unchecked reign.
Imagine that.
Point I've been trying to put some context to make you understand what my deal is with taxes on the rich and why I state that they are too damn low: Tax rates on the rich go down, they start rising on the middle class because I guess the middle class is supposed to support the tax burden now even though the rich are now richer than they've ever been in history AND there's more of them than there ever was before...Reagan kinda pulled the economy up a bit after it hit the shitter thanks to our dick-waving contest with Russia involving the Vietnam Life-Time-And-Moneywaster, but his policies, which did little more than provide quick relief, have continued to haunt us to this day with his bullshit trickle-down economics resulting in the wealth disparity suddenly getting even worse, yet the rich pay fewer and fewer taxes and get more and more tax breaks all the fucking time...
And then we deregulated the banks again...let the free market do its thing unhindered...and the free market found a way straight into the mud for the second time like a drunken 500-lb. retard and would have landed and sent a tidal wave of mud over all of us if we hadn't all caught it and struggled to hold up its dead weight. Rather than apologize and try to help out though the bloated shit reached into our pockets, stole all of our wallets, and then once we got him to sit down and he began to sober up, he had the balls to demand that since he's only one guy he shouldn't pay nearly so much for the drinks, even though he alone drinks about 50 more drinks than any one of us do.
Even though Fat the Cat owns a few hundred or so big-rigs that travel all across the highway and we only drive our sedan or SUV or sports car, even though he still relies on the military to keep his vested interests safe both at home and internationally [don't you fucking pretend like they don't], even though he owns enormous tracts of land, even though he ruined huge swathes of the middle class and continues to do so by outsourcing all middle income jobs overseas, steadily destroying himself and the rest of us by removing the most important consumer base int he world so his stock portfolio goes up a quarter of a point next week at the expensive of hundreds if not thousands of jobs...even though he relies on the US education system to provide him with workers he will probably ask to work for him for free for a year because his balls are just that big, even though he likely went to said education system, even though he relies on our sewer systems and waste management systems, even though he probably has tax shelters in the Bahamas, even though he still relies on the police force and the fire department to keep him from criminals and fire hazards, even though he relies on federal government to prosecute anyone who commits industrial espionage against him, and the court system for all his grievances against someone whose fan character is somehow infringing on his IP, or to handle grievances addressed to him rather than having them levied against him by an angry mob, even though he relies on the US Patent Office to protect his patents, and US copyright laws and their enforcement to ensure nobody steals his trademarks and ideas and all this other shit...
...Even despite this...even after only a handful of years since the last time we dropped taxes on him because he SWORE he was gonna create jobs this time...
He still has the balls to ask for more tax breaks.
LAST HIDE TAG IS HERE. Congrats on making it this far.
Last hide tag, if you just wanna read the thing about "me" being violent and what my deal is with libertarianism and taxation, well, here. I recommend just reading this anyway. The rest is a very long essay making the point that the libertarian idea behind absolute free market just will not work and HAS not worked even when it was all but free to do its own thing, and that even when taxes were way high on the rich, they still managed to have more than enough money to fuck around, do whatever, expand their businesses and enterprises, and inevitably, unconsciously crash the global economy once, and nearly did the same twice if it had not been for government intervention.
Now to address the points on charity and all that, namely the parts implying I would resort to violence. See, given how long I've been on this forum, and what I've gone on about involving things I hate and why I hate them, I'm honestly surprised that you took what I was saying as if it is something I would actually do. Even in such a situation, and believe me, I've been in such situations in my life, I would not initiate violence against someone. But others? I can't speak for others. And given that violent crime often is performed for the act of stealing money for various reasons, most oftentimes it's for rent or bill money, sometimes for food money, oftentimes for drug money, and it can get really ugly, it's a reality that will exist.
See...that latter description I gave was something I saw happen to a man while I lived in Detroit (a city completely buttfucked by the free market, by the way. Go ahead tell the residents, especially the ones that lived there since the 60s, that the free market finds a way...just, make sure you've got heavily-armed bodyguards when you do). The victim in question was a guy who lived out on 10 Mile Road, according to what I heard later, had a wife, no kids. Outside the city's 8 Mile "Culture line," so basically, upper-middle guy, probably worked for GMC or something, I would imagine. GMC's corporate offices are still there...even if it long since shipped the factories that once provided the city's backbone off to Mexico, leaving the entire eight mile radius of the inner city a fucking urban wasteland... But, yeah. Guy had gotten out of a gas station. He didn't fit in with the rest of the urban landscape, so he stood out to me. He was heading to his car, and this other guy walked up to him, started asking him for a few dollars. GMC dude blew him off, the beggar persisted. Then he gestured inside the store, I heard him ask GMC guy to just buy him a sandwich. The GMC guy just pulled away and got in his car. He didn't look mad, or irritable, he just looked like he didn't care. The other guy flipped. Ran around and caught the door as the GMC guy tried to pull it closed, Dragged him out and started beating the shit out of the guy, just screaming. Not screaming anything in particular, just a howl of frustration and rage, the other guy was screaming as well, but more in pain.
I grabbed my phone, called the cops. The guy just stopped after a minute and stared at the GMC guy on the ground who was bleeding and wasn't moving. The guy who attacked him just stepped back, screamed again and just booked it. Cops caught him a few blocks down the road. The GMC guy lived but he was pretty much paralyzed from the hips down, had several other broken bones. Remanded to a wheel-chair for life, I imagine. After I was asked to give my testimony, I was told I might have to show in court, which I did. Well, during the thing, the attacker alleged he was asking GMC guy to buy him a sandwich from the gas station. Come to find out he had been laid off along with about 120 other people from a factor that put together heavy machinery about two months prior. Abrupt thing, no warning given. Outsourced, operations moved, dunno where. Probably Mexico. All the jobs left to Mexico. Always.
He had a daughter. He didn't have a wife, she ran off after the birth. He was on unemployment, only making a half of what he had been making before, could only pay rent, couldn't pay heat or buy food, his daughter was starving, he was starving even more cuz he'd been giving her what they had left. He'd been waiting for his food stamp application to get back for the last month or so. It's Detroit. Pretty much the entire city's on foodstamps. Said he asked the guy to buy him a sandwich and when the just brushed him off, he lost it and attacked, didn't know what came over him. Said he grabbed the guy's wallet at some point but went too far, realized what he just did, freaked, and ran, and there you have it.
There's a point to that story...
I do apologize for confusing one form of libertarianism with another and utilizing socialism in replacement of voluntary charity...but you have to realize, the reason why I do so is because I am, by instinct, of the opinion that we're a sufficiently advanced enough species, and there are plenty of us QUITE well off enough and have quite enough resources that they can pay up what they owe for using the services that we do, in fact to far greater extents than we do. How often do we all wonder what the real purpose of the various conflicts America gets into military is? And how many of us get the impression that our military is basically being used as a pioneering force to secure areas for private interests?
I mean...I'm just saying, that whole thing with Halliburton in Iraq? Primary objectives for attacking forces being to secure oil refiners and fields and NOT securing urban areas rapidly, not securing weapon depots, not moving to round up and interrogate enemy combatants? Blackwater security contractors immediately following in, disproportionate amounts of focus being given to getting oil fields and refineries functional and working to fucking military personnel? US military escorts for Halliburton oil trucks?? I mean fuck, the list just goes on and on in that crap. And, also, strangely...not a single PEEP from any domestic mining concerns for Afghanistan despite a hugely wealthy amount of deposits, especially of lithium...and yet...nothing? Even though the lithium is in the north, where it's steady? Why is next to nobody even trying in the most secure area in the nation, with the biggest mineral profusion, except for the Chinese who are making moves only for the minor oil fields in the north? Weirdest thing ever, and has me wondering what the deal is, there. Is there something going on where Afghanistan's government is striking a deal with US private mining concerns? Has it already? Are they already there and just keeping it quiet for some reason? Or...maybe just nobody's really keen on opening up in Afghanistan right now. Latter's most likely but still, ever since the Iraq war...I question what the real purpose of our soldiers are nowadays.
And FINALLY. FIIIINALLY. Libertarianism itself, since that's the horse I beat to death like ten paragraphs ago but want to take a fianl whack at. See...if we lived in a truly libertarian world, I have to wonder if everyone would really give charity voluntarily, and possibly for extended periods of time, without expecting anything in return, for people who needed help. And at that point...what IS the big deal with social programs to take care of them in a shared-burden way? Because you can't always expect that people who are sick and dying will have some kind of private coverage or assurance. Life has a funny way of being a completely merciless sadist and it can tend to tear you the fuck up and leave you with nothing, and the only way you can get out of that or even just survive it is with help from others. Believe me. Been there, done that, still kind of trying to get through it, in fact.
Yeah, I get it, libertarianism is about being completely free and not having a government system saying you MUST pay money for the poor and sick, you MUST pay for these roads even if you don't use them, you must you must you must. I can see how that can be grating for an individual, but here's the thing, it's banking on the idea that somehow you're going to convince people who've been left to rot by the machinations of the free market, who've been fucked over by people well above their own station, people who've had friends or family members who have had to use these safety nets to endure something horrible that private industry could not or would not take care of, if it did not outright cause it in the first place, people who have been dragged through the dirt from the economy's workings that they can't comprehend, let along affect, people who have worked one job at a certain amount of pay, gained years upon years of experience and become very good at what they do, and then they get laid off or the company closes down and they've had to go on unemployment while they struggle to find work...ending up in jobs that all too disgustingly often pay them less money, for more work, despite their level of experience, and so many other stories like this that are all too damn real...
You're gonna convince them that we shouldn't force taxes on people to pay for the programs that kept them afloat, and that we should trust the free market, when the market's screwed them over in ways that can end up ruining their lives, sometimes even permanently? You're going to convince them that the rich are really suffering so much, that they're job creators and interested in the bottom line which will include more workers...even when we all read the stories and hear from our friends who tell of jobs outsourcing all the damn time, of corporations constantly underpaying and downsizing, businesses closing down all over the place while the executives, who don't do SHIT, pocket fat final bonus checks, money that in one week they made more than any of the people who bust their balls working for these same jackholes?
Good luck with that...
TL;DR LOCATION!
You (I use "you" in a sense to direct it at the general audience of libertarians, not necessary Stue) want a world where we are free of taxes and obligations, especially on the rich...perhaps because of an economic stance. Or maybe a mere idealistic one. I look at recent history and see no correlation between lowering taxes on the 1% and any improvement whatsoever in any form or way on the economy or society. I just see rich people fucking over anyone they can get away with fucking over in the pursuit of the precious bottom line, and those people include friends of mine. I see outsourcing and cutbacks and salary cuts. I see the rich getting richer, and everyone beneath them getting fucked. Economically or idealistically...neither of these make any sense to me.
You want a world where we don't need to pay for any kind of service we don't want, that we should be able to freely pick and choose our services at the quality levels we want. Services and subscriptions for everything. Or maybe you want a world where only the very, very basic services provided. Well...I see a world where children get harsh sentences in juvenile court by judges being slipped money by private jailing companies that subject the youths to treatments far harsher and more disturbing and cold than their "crimes" warrant, with sentences that also last far longer than they should for said crimes, given maximums for first offenses from kids who are otherwise model students. I see instances of privatized tax collection agencies for governments who are sourced to make the process more "streamlined," less "bureaucratic." I see them actually sending their nations into revolution because they wield this kind of power even if they were overwatched because they found the loopholes and used them to their fullest. Privatized cops; how much easier to buy off! Privatized social security; fine print, refusals of payment for any reason that the provider deems worth not paying for, and along with medicaid privatization, this basically just goes into allowance for "pre-existing condition" rejection during application processes to begin with, again based on whatever, because this is a FOR PROFIT venture as opposed to a social safety net now.
And if we state that basic services can/should exist, then which ones? Are we even sure that libertarians could come together and decide clearly on that? Because, given that there ARE different forms of libertarianism, there's going to be some wanting everything privatized; EVERYTHING. Then there's gonna be some who DON'T want everything privatized and who want to put taxes on things to pay for these services, but then we come to the quandary again of who shoulders what burden and how is it considered? Do we just do the "easy solution for complicated problem" and say "Eh, flat-tax it!"? Food stamps: Companies all get to pick and choose what food you can and cannot buy...all the ones that are affiliates, sponsors...or just outright providers of the card itself. Does not appeal to me, does not make any sense to me. There's a reason social programs are done by the government; because they are not designed to be for-profit, nor should they be, because when we look at things like insurance coverage, we start seeing all sorts of fun little problems right there already! Bullshit with claims, pre-existing condition-based rejections, higher rates for pre-existing conditions, and oh also these may be subject to credit checks, too! Does. Not. Compute.
You want a world where a man can "live by the sweat of his brow," where "Rapture can be your city, too." I see a world where the ones doing the sweating are getting nickel-and-dimed, where employment discrimination can happen openly and plainly, thus making it more difficult for certain groups to find employment based on little more than something that would have nothing to do with their work performance or ethics; little more than preconceptions. I see, additionally, a world where atheists can't find work anywhere while being open to anyone they work with about their non-belief, lest it carry back to their bosses who probably do not like atheists based on preconceptions. We're one of the most hated groups in the US here, did you know? More so than even the muslims. Yes, because our fellows posted up a few billboards scorning the religious for their billboards doing the same to us in their own condescending ways, we are more hated than the ones whose fellow brothers and sisters in faith gun down our soldiers, kill civilians and servicemembers with IEDs, and fly planes into our buildings. No anti-discrimination laws...since, well, that's interfering into private industry! Unless you draw a line here because of a personal, vested interest...and as if you really hope to be a majority in your own party there to begin with...
Again...you see a world where a man with billions in his bank account that he isn't even using, a man who pretty much has everyone except the world, and you say he doesn't deserve to be taxed. He earned it, after all. ...Via people who work for him, who put in the raw effort, people who can be dismissed after decades working there for no reason, turning their lives upside down since they've built their lives around their careers. You trust such rich individuals, people who are often backstabbing and vindictive and unbelievably greedy and careless towards anyone "beneath" them...to not just cut people if it means getting a bit more out of the bottom line, if they can force the others to work more and longer for no extra pay? We've seen this happen before. It happens now. All the time. You see him and you think he has no need to pay such absurd taxes. 80% of $10,000,000,000? Why, that leaves him with only $2,000,000,000! He'll miss all that money! Meanwhile, I see homeless people coming into the soup kitchen I volunteer at. Some are sick and can't get treatment. During the winter, when the shelter fills up and there's not enough room, the rest have to sleep around the Capitol Square. Sometimes they don't wake up, because Wisconsin winters are pretty fucking cold sometimes. I think back to my days in Detroit, D.C., Akron. I remember families curled up against each other in condemned buildings. I remember women becoming whores because it was the only way they could afford to live...sometimes being raped, beaten by pimps...killed by "clients," with nobody knowing they were gone for days at a time, if ever...being found only by accident.
I hear you arguing that even at 50%, it's just too much; they've worked so hard, sitting at desks, flying in private jets, sipping scotch, banging supermodels, attention conferences, meeting people and sitting in comfortable, well-furnished rooms to discuss business deals.
I hear words. And they have no meaning. They fill me with nothing but apathy. You see...when I think of rich people, hundred millionaires, especially billionaires, being taxed anything less than 75% of their income...not accounting for tax breaks and all the other loopholes their extremely well-paid accountants undoubtedly find and exploit? I think of nothing.
Because, you see, when it comes to the rich being overtaxed, my store-room of Fucks is empty, and winter is coming. Because as far as I am concerned, their empire? It is them standing upon a vast pyramid of humans holding them up, and no matter if they actually do more work in a day than this CEO guy does? They will never make more than the CEO's pocket change over the course of their lives. And around them lays bodies and the sick, the many, many individuals who cannot take care of themselves for a great many reasons.
You look at the completely free market and see a glowing sunrise of endless possibilities crawling over a horizon made of factories, skyscrapers, houses, and shopping malls.
I look at the completely free market and see a blood-red sunset, with the ruins of the rust belt at my back.
(September 22, 2013 at 9:31 am)Koolay Wrote: Frankly, I think that is a load of shit. Starvation does not even exist in any relatively free market.
Look at the list of economically free countries, with the lowest socialism:
Look at this wikipedia article essentially stating that the Heritage Foundation is basically pointing so far to the right that the speedometer just broke. Not what I would call an unbiased source, and honestly, hard for me to take seriously. The very fact that it's part of the Kochsuckers already has me entirely dismissing their "ratings" system. Because, you know, Koch Industries isn't the 2nd biggest privately-held company or anything. It's not like they would be unbiased when it came to any economic policies not tailored to polishing their corporate knobs. I mean, why would they? What would they stand to gain by making economic policies shift more in line with businesses that rely on their products [see also: All. All business rely on their products]? I mean, only their bottom line, THEIR bottom line, you know, themselves, their profit, the only thing they have any allegiance to? I'm sure following someone who is only in it for themselves is a great idea! Let's all march in lockstep and scream "SEIG KOCH!!" at the top of our lungs while we're at it, huh?
Quote:Hong Kong, Singapore, Australia, Switzerland. Nobody is dying of starvation there, it's just not an issue. As long as there is a at least a semi-free market, then people do not involuntarily starve. It's like saying "Libertarians don't support government fruit programs, so they think it's okay for people to get scurvy" well if there was any sort of free market, people would buy fruit- again, it's just not an issue.
Funny you should mention Australia, given its healthcare industry is largely public-funded...but uh...no starvation in Australia, hmm? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_..._Australia
No starvation in Hong Kong, hmm? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Hong_Kong
Funny thing, data on those who are impoverished is strangely not available, but there are several articles on the web talking about Hong Kong assembling committees to address it...
Switzerland! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_Switzerland Oh look, 3.3% of the entire population is depending on state welfare assistance! Something tells me there's probably some fucking starvation going on there... Starvation does not not exist anywhere. It happens. People end up destitute, starving, and can die of the elements even in the developed world. The free market is not a magic cure-all for that and I've love, just LOVE to see where you pulled this wild leap of faith from. "They're doing great in terms of economic freedom, so therefore that's proof nobody's starving!"
The impoverished exist EVERYWHERE. No nation is completely free of poverty, even glorious Hong Kong seems to be rather scared of admitting it might have a serious problem with poverty if it's not releasing any official numbers. Don't wanna ruin that glorious claim to fame, now, do we? If their poverty level was completely negligent, they would just put whatever minute percentage it is. They're not. IE, they're hiding something.
Quote:Conversely we can look at the countries with the lowest economic freedom, and see if they are free from starvation:
The lowest: North Korea - we've all heard of the rampant starvation in NK, some estimate 10% of all people die of starvation.
Congratulations, it's almost like if you UTTERLY CRUSH THE ENTIRE IDEA OF A MARKETPLACE YOU HAVE NO ECONOMY.
We're quite aware of the fact that at LEAST some freedom of the market itself is absolutely necessary for economic growth. Nobody here has said otherwise.
What we are against is the free market completely unrestrained and left to rampage. We saw what happened with the Great Depression. We saw what happened with the financial crash in 2008! Deregulation of the financial market nearly brought us to a second Great Depression and this time the entire WORLD could've been fucked over if not for government intervention. The free market, given so much freedom, has made sure very few hold enough sway with their money that just a few of them fucking up could mean the entire damn economy collapses.
And, you know, it's cute that you guys think that the economy is being "restricted" somehow. Do tell me in what ways the US economy is being restricted? What regulations are really truly abusing the poor, battered free market from growing to its truest potential and how might we address them, hmm?
(September 22, 2013 at 11:56 am)Creed of Heresy Wrote: *Cracks knuckles; round 2, FIGHT!*
Seriously. Get ready for an essay.
[...]
Also, splitting it up into hide boxes. I was flying high on adderall when I wrote this shit...I might like this new prescription. If you really find this too tl;dr, there is a tl;dr segment at the bottom.
Seriously. Set aside an hour if you wanna go through this. You'll need it.
[tl;dr]
Are you F'in kidding me?! The tl;dr version is already tl;dr!
I'm surprised you can post so much text in a single post...
I'm out!
Give me 40 milligrams of adderall and point me in the direction of the more purestrain form of libertarians and bam. Instant short novel!
I think I just won the award for this year's longest single post.
If not the award for longest post ever written on this forum.
I also think I might've rambled on a bit...before you say "no shit," I mean like...I think I reiterated a few times too many. I was trying to give my point context but I think I gave it TOO MUCH context.
Eh. Let it be a gauntlet for others to run through. XD
(September 21, 2013 at 8:32 pm)Moros Synackaon Wrote: Wonderfully on-topic Chad
Just pointing out a double-standard.
As a moderate libertarian, I recognize that government intervention in the marketplace, as a general rule, distorts the market in favor of those already in power by encouraging collusion between political insiders and large economic players.
While it is easy to point out the struggles and hardships that afflict the lower classes, it is not so easy to recognize how regulatory burdens and taxes produce an overall increase in the cost of goods and services. These buried costs disproportionately burden those that can least afford it.
(September 21, 2013 at 4:25 pm)pocaracas Wrote: For the millionth time... Correlation does not imply causation!
You mean like brain states to mental properties?
How could I have missed this?!!
What is this thing you call "brain states" and "mental properties"?
(September 22, 2013 at 2:30 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:
(September 21, 2013 at 8:32 pm)Moros Synackaon Wrote: Wonderfully on-topic Chad
Just pointing out a double-standard.
As a moderate libertarian, I recognize that government intervention in the marketplace, as a general rule, distorts the market in favor of those already in power by encouraging collusion between political insiders and large economic players.
While it is easy to point out the struggles and hardships that afflict the lower classes, it is not so easy to recognize how regulatory burdens and taxes produce an overall increase in the cost of goods and services. These buried costs disproportionately burden those that can least afford it.
Double standard?... lol... How about we do it in a new thread?
When confronted with a person for whom every single form of goverment is supposedly socialism.
There is absolutly no way in which you can reach an agreement on how social problems within a society are best solved, since that individual will constantly scream "Anarchy!"
September 22, 2013 at 3:51 pm (This post was last modified: September 22, 2013 at 3:54 pm by Koolay.)
(September 22, 2013 at 11:56 am)Creed of Heresy Wrote: We're quite aware of the fact that at LEAST some freedom of the market itself is absolutely necessary for economic growth. Nobody here has said otherwise.
If market freedom gives us economic growth, why not ditch parasitical violence so we can have maximum economic growth? You see this is what I do not get, how can you recognise that fascism is morally wrong and grossly inefficient, but be okay with half fascism?
It is not logically consistent, either using violence to achieve your means is right or wrong, you can't just make up circumstances you want. Like, I can't say that "Rape is wrong, except under circumstance x, y, z" it would be insane. Either rape is wrong or it is not.
The non aggression principle, has to be applied to everyone. Genuinely, I do not understand how you do not see this.
(September 22, 2013 at 11:56 am)Creed of Heresy Wrote: What we are against is the free market completely unrestrained and left to rampage.
So people voluntarily trading goods and services with each other is a 'rampage' but, a small group of people holding the monopoly on violence forcing everyone to submit money to them is not?
(September 22, 2013 at 11:56 am)Creed of Heresy Wrote: And, you know, it's cute that you guys think that the economy is being "restricted" somehow. Do tell me in what ways the US economy is being restricted? What regulations are really truly abusing the poor, battered free market from growing to its truest potential and how might we address them, hmm?
Well listen, if you can not understand that 2+2=4, then you are getting something fundamentally wrong about math. If you can not realise that principles, especially moral principles need to be universalised, then me discussing the details is ignoring the problem.
Me skipping universally preferable behaviour, and explaining economic behaviour would be like teaching someone math, finding out that they think 2+2=5, then going to algebra. It's just glazing over the misunderstanding, ultimately it would be a waste of both of our time. So, I wont discuss economics with you, only philosophy. If your end conclusion is just going to be use violence to achieve ends, then there is no point in me trying to convince you to accept otherwise. If you point guns at me, I am just going to submit. I won't pretend someone who wants to initiate violence has any interest in a rational discussion.
All I can say is tht you haven't shown that you have a clue how economics works. unfettered capitalism would be a disaster for this country and always have been. What unfettered capitalism leads to is a state run by corporations. Sort of what republicans support interestingly enough.
1% and everyone else either as slaves or very very poor. Course the 1%'ers would have to sell outside this country because no one would be able to afford their products in the USA.
September 22, 2013 at 4:42 pm (This post was last modified: September 22, 2013 at 4:43 pm by Autumnlicious.)
Koolay: In other words - "I won't talk to you even though I started this topic"
If you didn't want to hear other opinions than your own, you shouldn't have posted on a public forum.
Frankly I am amazed at what creed typed out - the length alone is kudos worthy.
I read the first three hides and the end - pretty consistent albeit very long.
To sum up, if you're arguing for the wealthy to remain so rich as to never use it while others starve to death, you're a fucking cocksucker and should be called out on your platform of "let the poor starve",
