NationStates Jolt Archive

The government is spending WAY to much!Our government is knee-deep in debt and yet they still insist on welfare "think of the children!"they say.But they dontthink about that sizable chunk(social security) they take from the average person,claiming they will give it back.Yeah they take 15%(7.5%from you,7.5%from your employer)for your retirement and give back 2%.The government acts like we cant take care of ourselves.And then theres welfare,polititions say its for the poor,as if no one else donated to the poor.It is a huge part of government spending when private charities are far more effective!So they take from us and give to the poor.How charming,except it teaches people to rely on the government.I say the government has no right to do any of this(and if you're wondering,yes I am a libertarian)

maybe they should save on the military and wars instead of on welfare.

Yes, it is an established objective fact, provable from the first principles of the Universe, that it is not the proper role of government to provide for those who cannot provide for themselves.

I am not their slave; I should not be compelled to support them.

The government is spending WAY to much!Our government is knee-deep in debt and yet they still insist on welfare "think of the children!"they say.But they dontthink about that sizable chunk(social security) they take from the average person,claiming they will give it back.Yeah they take 15%(7.5%from you,7.5%from your employer)for your retirement and give back 2%.No. The government makes 2% on investing what it takes from social security. People get back way more from social security than they put in. This is why there's so much talk about there being a dwindling number of workers to support each retiree.

Yes, it is an established objective fact, provable from the first principles of the Universe, that it is not the proper role of government to provide for those who cannot provide for themselves.


nice to see you're getting your fiber....

Aye, for your taxes, you get a mere road network, massive standing army which is kept in fairly decent barracks, with decent kit, and trains nearly as much as the UK forces, hospitals, railways, the whole infrastructure of every town, drains, emergency relief, education and then pensions.

Libertarians - you are wankers, with no kind of perspective. Give up.

Aye, for your taxes, you get a mere road network,
Which is not the government's job.

massive standing army which is kept in fairly decent barracks, with decent kit,
Which is properly funded through other means.

and trains nearly as much as the UK forces, hospitals, railways, the whole infrastructure of every town, drains, emergency relief, education and then pensions.
Also not the proper role of government.

Libertarians - you are wankers, with no kind of perspective. Give up.

No, we just realize that the end does not justify the means, and that objective moral principle and individual liberty infinitely trump all other concerns.

WTF is with you and drive by threads?

Which is not the government's job.


Which is properly funded through other means.


Also not the proper role of government.
Erm, yes it is.
No, we just realize that the end does not justify the means, and that objective moral principle and individual liberty infinitely trump all other concerns.
It's a universal truth that you're a bunch of twats. Using your own Super Logic, this cannot be defeated.

Libertarians - you are wankers, with no kind of perspective. Give up.

shhh they think there really cool

Which is not the government's job.

actually it is since it increases the profit from government investments (towns and such)


Which is properly funded through other means.

which I guess means feudal lords no?

Also not the proper role of government.

again its an investment and very practical in the case of things like fire departments, education, welfare and such and such

why people ignore history is beyond me sometimes

No, we just realize that the end does not justify the means, and that objective moral principle and individual liberty infinitely trump all other concerns.

so do tell, why are you not anarcho-capitalist?

actually it is since it increases the profit from government investments (towns and such)
That's not something the government should concern itself with.

which I guess means feudal lords no?
Nope, try seizure of the assets of convicted criminals.

again its an investment and very practical in the case of things like fire departments, education, welfare and such and such
None of those are the proper role of government.

why people ignore history is beyond me sometimes
I'm not; I just have the proper set of priorities.

That's not something the government should concern itself with.

well its what drives expansion, practicality over capitalism

Nope, try seizure of the assets of convicted criminals.

yes taking from the poor to fund a hugely over budget military system that makes sense when you look at the maths :rolleyes:

there is also the fact that taking a persons every possession kind of leaves them with no other choice than re-offending, then again I'm reading discipline and punish so I'd believe you if you said that was your plan

None of those are the proper role of government.

do tell what of police? what of them taking your money by force?

I'm not; I just have the proper set of priorities.

there is a point where ideology must give way to sanity

The bad thing about welfare is that it encourages the poor to stay poor by taking away their welfare money once they start earning some real money. The poor should be encouraged to earn money and taken off welfare only when they can really support themselves.

Not one damn American has the right to complain about welfare spending when we are currently waging the most pointless, destructive war in our history, and we spend 10 times more on our military than China who has 10 times our population.

You want a solution to our national defecit? Tax religion. Tax every damn church, mosque, synagogue, temple, and scientologist golf club as a business. You'd be drooling over how much money that would rake in.

The bad thing about welfare is that it encourages the poor to stay poor

got any proof for that?

maybe they should save on the military and wars instead of on welfare.

It certainly could save on both.

No. The government makes 2% on investing what it takes from social security. People get back way more from social security than they put in.

Wow, government is almost covering the inflation that they are hitting the people with.

A funny thing, though, I thought government hadn't yet seized a monopoly on investment, and had actually left people somewhat free to invest on their own.

Aye, for your taxes, you get a mere road network, massive standing army which is kept in fairly decent barracks, with decent kit, and trains nearly as much as the UK forces, hospitals, railways, the whole infrastructure of every town, drains, emergency relief, education and then pensions.

Libertarians - you are wankers, with no kind of perspective. Give up.

I can understand your reluctance to accept the privatization of some government works. The modern corporatism/political capitalism, of the modern warfare-welfare state has so distorted the values and actions of the members of society, that perspective is often extremely difficult to achieve.

With that said, I do not understand how you can count the the thugs and murderers that make up our military and police who are not held accountable for their actions as a plus for the state.

why people ignore history is beyond me sometimes

Which history am I ignoring? The history I am aware of is filled with states continuously using violence and falsehoods to render people subservient to it.

Perhaps you can show me where government was founded by people investing in it.

well its what drives expansion, practicality over capitalism
What?

yes taking from the poor to fund a hugely over budget military system that makes sense when you look at the maths :rolleyes:
No one's taking anything from the poor that was already theirs.

There's a big difference between taking something from someone and not giving it to him.

there is also the fact that taking a persons every possession kind of leaves them with no other choice than re-offending, then again I'm reading discipline and punish so I'd believe you if you said that was your plan
All bona fide crimes are properly punished by lifetime imprisonment.

Ideally it'd be torture followed by death, but mistakes sometime happen.

And that individual's property would be held in escrow until he is either executed or dies on his own, so that if he is later exonerated he will get it back.

do tell what of police? what of them taking your money by force?

What?

there is a point where ideology must give way to sanity

There is no insanity in liberty.

Libertarians - you are wankers, with no kind of perspective. Give up.

It's a universal truth that you're a bunch of twats. Using your own Super Logic, this cannot be defeated.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=416023

Flame: Expressing anger at someone in uncouth ways with OOC (out-of-character) comments (i.e. swearing, being obnoxious, threatening etc). It does to watch what you post IC (in-character) as well unless the other posters know you're not serious. You do not need to curse to be a flamer. Erudite slams while maintaining a veneer of politeness can also be considered flaming. Flaming in the forums should be reported in the Moderation forum, in the game itself, through Getting Help Page.

Flamebait: Posts that are made with the aim of angering someone indirectly. Not outright flame, but still liable to bring angry replies. Flame baiting is a far more subtle and covert action; it is an underhanded tactic that is designed to provoke a response from another player. It's in the same context of trolling but with flamebaiting it's just the one person.


You need to give it up, partner.

What?

there are cases where government outperforms privatization transportation is a biggie

No one's taking anything from the poor that was already theirs.

There's a big difference between taking something from someone and not giving it to him.

this makes absolutely no sense to me, we are talking about funding the military from repossessions from criminals no?

All bona fide crimes are properly punished by lifetime imprisonment.

extreme punishment has been tried, it doesn't help in the slightest

Ideally it'd be torture followed by death, but mistakes sometime happen.

let me guess these would be public?

And that individual's property would be held in escrow until he is either executed or dies on his own, so that if he is later exonerated he will get it back.

why not just give the possessions over to the criminals family seeing as how they might appreciate it

What?

how do you feel about your taxes going to the police, which is who enforces the taxes

surely being forced to pay for a police force is anti-liberty?

There is no insanity in liberty.

so you don't believe in prison and arrest?

got any proof for that?No, just anecdotes.

The history I am aware of is filled with states continuously using violence and falsehoods to render people subservient to it.

that stopped being the case in the civilized world about the time of the magna carter no?

Perhaps you can show me where government was founded by people investing in it.

post WWII Britain would be something I'd point to

that stopped being the case in the civilized world about the time of the magna carter no?

post WWII Britain would be something I'd point to

HA!

No, just anecdotes.

and you form a political opinion on this?

HA!

can't we just go and poke fun of Linus and Lucy I detest getting into economics over dinner

there are cases where government outperforms privatization transportation is a biggie
How the hell is that a relevant metric?

That certainly doesn't make it morally right.

And moral principle is all that matters.

this makes absolutely no sense to me, we are talking about funding the military from repossessions from criminals no?
Yes.

extreme punishment has been tried, it doesn't help in the slightest
Doesn't help with what?

You're assuming I think the purpose of punishment is to serve as a deterrent, or reformatory. I don't.

The purpose of punishment is punishment for its own sake, to make sure the criminal gets what he deserves. No other consideration is relevant.

let me guess these would be public?
Perhaps, perhaps not.

why not just give the possessions over to the criminals family seeing as how they might appreciate it
To the extent that restitution is necessary, it will be. The rest, they have no claim to.

how do you feel about your taxes going to the police, which is who enforces the taxes
All taxation is illegitimate; I don't care where it goes to.

surely being forced to pay for a police force is anti-liberty?
What part of "government will be funded by the seized assets of convicted criminals" do you not understand?

so you don't believe in prison and arrest?
Those who commit crimes against others have renounced their own humanity, so they no longer possess rights. They are not entitled to liberty.

I'm only interested in liberty for human beings.

The government is spending WAY to much!Our government is knee-deep in debt and yet they still insist on welfare "think of the children!"they say.But they dontthink about that sizable chunk(social security) they take from the average person,claiming they will give it back.Yeah they take 15%(7.5%from you,7.5%from your employer)for your retirement and give back 2%.The government acts like we cant take care of ourselves.And then theres welfare,polititions say its for the poor,as if no one else donated to the poor.It is a huge part of government spending when private charities are far more effective!So they take from us and give to the poor.How charming,except it teaches people to rely on the government.I say the government has no right to do any of this(and if you're wondering,yes I am a libertarian)
Maybe if they didn't blow large sums of money instigating wars in stable countries they'd have enough to help the poor or do something constructive.

And moral principle is all that matters.

no realpolitik is extremely important in politics, I admit sadly we don't live in candy land :(


Yes.

and am I right in suspecting that you think that is economically feasible?

The purpose of punishment is punishment for its own sake, to make sure the criminal gets what he deserves. No other consideration is relevant.

then whats the point in doing it if all your doing is causing pain for no apparent reason?

Perhaps, perhaps not.

I'll give you the answer: no it leads to mobs and weakens the psychological deterrence of punishment (not that you would care)

To the extent that restitution is necessary, it will be. The rest, they have no claim to.

so the money your making catching criminals (using the police) will go to fund the military?

wouldn't it be better to have that money going to the police or would that be too mercenary for your of so huge moral considerations?


All taxation is illegitimate; I don't care where it goes to.

as such you are not a libertarian (though the concept is a tad vague I will give you) and so instead of being a conservative in hiding your in fact an anarchist waiting to admit it!

What part of "government will be funded by the seized assets of convicted criminals" do you not understand?

so now you go further and have the wh9ole of the government funded by crime, tell me where does a government end and a group of thugs begin?

Those who commit crimes against others have renounced their own humanity, so they no longer possess rights. They are not entitled to liberty.

biology and psychology disagree

how many non-humans do you think exist in the world? maybe everyone?

I'm only interested in liberty for human beings.

so what you want is a class of two people:

1) who slaves away constantly imprisoned and having there property taken by a money hungry government

2) an elite group of people who (officially) commit no crimes and live in a sort of la la land away from the masses of essentially slaves for the state

They should raise the taxes and spend the money to educate us about the objective rules of the universe and the proper role of the government since most of us seem unfamiliar with it.

I can understand your reluctance to accept the privatization of some government works.
Yes, because as the UK showed fantastically, privatisation leads to more government expense when people mess up, otherwise people completely lose services they used to take for granted, which is an absolutely intenible situation, as I'm sure you'll agree.
The modern corporatism/political capitalism, of the modern warfare-welfare state has so distorted the values and actions of the members of society, that perspective is often extremely difficult to achieve.
Every state, ever, has been a warfare-welfare state. Those are the two basics which a state needs to survive. It needs to keep them fed so they can work, and it needs to keep them at a constant level of fear, where they have to rely on the state for protection from real or imagined threats, otherwise nobody would pay taxes, and things start falling apart in general pretty sharpish.
With that said, I do not understand how you can count the the thugs and murderers that make up our military and police who are not held accountable for their actions as a plus for the state.
Because the alternative, Blackwater et al. are angels, and cheaper per-head than the proper army?

No. Just not the case.

And if you don't have people 'needing' an army, then basically what you get is anarchy, which leads to an absolute breakdown in trade with foreign powers, and large companies pretty quickly becoming useless, because there's no unified state which one needs for large-scale trade.

The industrial revolution only really took off with nation-building, and if we went back essentially to fiefdoms, then things would regress and you get a much more agricultural society, much like in Africa.

Wow, government is almost covering the inflation that they are hitting the people with.It doesn't help that they periodically raid the social security trust fund, but that isn't a problem with the idea of social security.

A funny thing, though, I thought government hadn't yet seized a monopoly on investment, and had actually left people somewhat free to invest on their own.People are free to invest on their own. Of course, since investments have risks, the risk would take the security out of social security.

WARNING LIBERTARIAN PROPAGANDA

Methinks you all need to rethink the role of government.

America is better than your country and this is why (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZpDjxIPpFc).

WARNING LIBERTARIAN PROPAGANDA

Methinks you all need to rethink the role of government.

America is better than your country and this is why (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZpDjxIPpFc).
Erm, not entirely a one sided thing. Some bits of the US = wahey, others are more "meh, Europe is so much better" in some respects.

maybe they should save on the military and wars instead of on welfare.

How about they cut both welfare AND warfare?

The government is spending WAY to much!Our government is knee-deep in debt and yet they still insist on welfare "think of the children!"they say.But they dontthink about that sizable chunk(social security) they take from the average person,claiming they will give it back.Yeah they take 15%(7.5%from you,7.5%from your employer)for your retirement and give back 2%.The government acts like we cant take care of ourselves.And then theres welfare,polititions say its for the poor,as if no one else donated to the poor.It is a huge part of government spending when private charities are far more effective!So they take from us and give to the poor.How charming,except it teaches people to rely on the government.I say the government has no right to do any of this(and if you're wondering,yes I am a libertarian)

*snip puppet wires*

Erm, not entirely a one sided thing. Some bits of the US = wahey, others are more "meh, Europe is so much better" in some respects.

Did you see the video? Smart entrepreneurs from Europe are moving to America because their government will not let them start a business. The more freedom people have, the higher the standard of living is. Welfare is unfair to rich people and absolutely oppressive to poor people.

Did you see the video? Smart entrepreneurs from Europe are moving to America because their government will not let them start a business. The more freedom people have, the higher the standard of living is. Welfare is unfair to rich people and absolutely oppressive to poor people.

I'm not going to watch the video because it's too long.

Please summarise what european governments are doing to stop people starting businesses.

Did you see the video? Smart entrepreneurs from Europe are moving to America because their government will not let them start a business. The more freedom people have, the higher the standard of living is. Welfare is unfair to rich people and absolutely oppressive to poor people.

Oh no, our parents are going to be able to feed us! Dear God, the oppression!

It doesn't help that they periodically raid the social security trust fund, but that isn't a problem with the idea of social security.

It is certainly a bigger problem with social security than without.

People are free to invest on their own. Of course, since investments have risks, the risk would take the security out of social security.

So does government.

Did you see the video?
About 5 minutes of it, to be honest.
Smart entrepreneurs from Europe are moving to America because their government will not let them start a business.
A government won't stop you starting a business in Europe. They can't. Your bank might turn you down, but that's all.

People go to America because credit is easier to get (as we see by this current travesty that is the Credit Crunch) and it projects an image of being a great place to start a business, through its media.

People that are family friends which I personally know have had a mixed bag, unsurprisingly. Some have found that the US was great because of the ease of getting money for people with ideas, and some others found that it was a bit hard to find a market for goods generally intended for the European market, and that with the Euro, it made things too expensive to really export, so they came back here.
The more freedom people have, the higher the standard of living is.
Not really true. Fascist Italy had a standard of living as high as most of Europe in the 1920s, and up until about 1937, when Mussolini became imitation Hitler, and stopped trying so hard with economic policy.

Wasn't a particularly free society, but the quality of life was alright.
Welfare is unfair to rich people and absolutely oppressive to poor people.
Its oppressiveness really depends on how it's handled, as with all things. Sometimes it's done well, sometimes it isn't. I think we've quite a good system here in the UK, and although some complain, we do a pretty decent job of keeping the most vulnerable afloat.

What part of "government will be funded by the seized assets of convicted criminals" do you not understand?


Isn't telling people that they can't steal a violation of their liberty? The government is getting involved where they have no right to and it's up to the individual to defend themselves or seek retribution? It'd seem to fit in with your logic, what's the difference between regulating economic activity (bad) and regulating physical interactions (okay)?

Did you see the video? Smart entrepreneurs from Europe are moving to America because their government will not let them start a business. The more freedom people have, the higher the standard of living is. Welfare is unfair to rich people and absolutely oppressive to poor people.

Have you yet to say anything that isn't patently absurd?

Yes, because as the UK showed fantastically, privatisation leads to more government expense when people mess up, otherwise people completely lose services they used to take for granted, which is an absolutely intenible situation, as I'm sure you'll agree.

Source?

Every state, ever, has been a warfare-welfare state. Those are the two basics which a state needs to survive. It needs to keep them fed so they can work, and it needs to keep them at a constant level of fear, where they have to rely on the state for protection from real or imagined threats, otherwise nobody would pay taxes, and things start falling apart in general pretty sharpish.

At least you understand that.

Because the alternative, Blackwater et al. are angels, and cheaper per-head than the proper army?

Blackwater cannot be separated from the government.

And if you don't have people 'needing' an army, then basically what you get is anarchy, which leads to an absolute breakdown in trade with foreign powers, and large companies pretty quickly becoming useless, because there's no unified state which one needs for large-scale trade.

The industrial revolution only really took off with nation-building, and if we went back essentially to fiefdoms, then things would regress and you get a much more agricultural society, much like in Africa.

Even if this is true (source? explanation?), who cares?

It certainly could save on both.


It can, and it should. The welfare state is naught but a band-aid, its apparent necessity a symptom of the true underlying disease.

But, the problem is that most of those who rail against the welfare state (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism) do so for reasons different than mine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism) (and, I think, yours), in that they want simply to tear off the bandage but let the actual wound continue to fester. That is not a solution to the problem.

And at any rate, the amount of wealth being "stolen" from the people to fund the welfare state is a drop in the ocean compared to that which is being "stolen" from the people to fund the military-industrial hegemony. As such, one would expect the later to attain a certain level of precedence.

Of course, moral considerations augment the precedence. If my resources are going to be "stolen," I prefer they be "stolen" in order to provide food, medicine, or other goods to people that need them. But with the military-industrial hegemony, not only am I the victim of "theft," but then my resources are being used to kill people I have never met and have no issue with.

"government will be funded by the seized assets of convicted criminals"


Sounds like an excellent opportunity for government to invent all kinds of nonsense "crimes" in order to augment its income.

Have you yet to say anything that isn't patently absurd?

Ah ha! My old nemesis, The_pantless_hero. I see we meet again. You may have gotten away this time, but you'll never be able to steal all the gold in the world! mwuhahaha!

Source?
Costs of British Rail vs. costs of helping out firms like Jarvis who keep messing up? Such things are pretty easy to find, and I'm far too lazy to do so for you.
At least you understand that.
Well yes, I'm not stupid by any means.
Blackwater cannot be separated from the government.
It's a private military firm, and hence are mercenaries by any other name. The only reason that it's "cannot be seperated" is because Bush is a big fan.

Not like they wouldn't fight for the highest bidder, in a situation without a national government, that's whoever is the person with the most money lying around, and the will to keep people in check, or to conquer their foes, and hence start their own version of a government
Even if this is true (source? explanation?), who cares?
Erm my source and explanation is the last 150 or so years of history, who cares should be you, as it completely pisses all over your argument.

How about they cut both welfare AND warfare?

meh, I don't really mind welfare, it's better than letting people starve.
Isn't it also true that if everybody had a job inflation would rise?

meh, I don't really mind welfare, it's better than letting people starve.
Agreed.
Isn't it also true that if everybody had a job inflation would rise?
Not if the cost of living also went up, which it would.

Not if the cost of living also went up, which it would.

Isn't that inflation [/economics noob]

About 5 minutes of it, to be honest.

A government won't stop you starting a business in Europe. They can't. Your bank might turn you down, but that's all.

People go to America because credit is easier to get (as we see by this current travesty that is the Credit Crunch) and it projects an image of being a great place to start a business, through its media.

People that are family friends which I personally know have had a mixed bag, unsurprisingly. Some have found that the US was great because of the ease of getting money for people with ideas, and some others found that it was a bit hard to find a market for goods generally intended for the European market, and that with the Euro, it made things too expensive to really export, so they came back here.

Not really true. Fascist Italy had a standard of living as high as most of Europe in the 1920s, and up until about 1937, when Mussolini became imitation Hitler, and stopped trying so hard with economic policy.

Wasn't a particularly free society, but the quality of life was alright.

Its oppressiveness really depends on how it's handled, as with all things. Sometimes it's done well, sometimes it isn't. I think we've quite a good system here in the UK, and although some complain, we do a pretty decent job of keeping the most vulnerable afloat.

Lets compare Socialism to the free market.

When you take peoples' money, you take away their ability to experiment with that money. People don't take risks and they don't start new businesses. Is that so hard to comprehend? In free societies, where people keep their money, there is more wealth and a higher standard of living. America is the most capitalistic society on earth. It is also the wealthiest society on earth. In the past 20 years, Hong Kong has developed a higher standard of living than Great Britain, because there is more economic freedom. Please tell me if I am in error, but this all seems to be well established fact.

You really should watch the movie. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZpDjxIPpFc)

Isn't that inflation [/economics noob]
Erm, sort of. You only really get large-scale inflation when the cost of living is far lower than wages, at which point you're essentially printing waste money.

If the cost of living is much higher than the wages people are being paid, then that cost comes down, and you get deflation, basically a currency being worth more for the same number.

meh, I don't really mind welfare, it's better than letting people starve.

Is it beyond the power of people to take care of each other? The idea that we need the government to take our money to keep people from starving is just insulting. I would not let anyone starve unless they were a homeless fuckup like the guy in front of my apartment who sits around and drinks vodka all day.

Is it beyond the power of people to take care of each other? The idea that we need the government to take our money to keep people from starving is just insulting. I would not let anyone starve unless they were a homeless fuckup like the guy in front of my apartment who sits around and drinks vodka all day.

How many people die each day due to nothing more difficult and inexpensive to fix than a lack of clean drinking water?

I think that should answer your question.

Is it beyond the power of people to take care of each other?


People would not feel the welfare state necessary if people actually did take care of each other. Not that I defend the welfare state; rather, I attack the ultra-individualist and Darwinian norms at the heart of contemporary capitalism, norms which produce a society full of people unwilling to care for each other voluntarily, thereby producing the feeling in others that force is necessary in order to make them care. The way I see it, I lose two ways: 1) a sociopathic society (capitalism), and 2) a sociopathic state in response (the welfare state).

I would love to abolish the welfare state. But it isn't going to happen until the capitalist norms which fuel its existence are abolished first.


The idea that we need the government to take our money to keep people from starving is just insulting.


An economic system that produces and tolerates starvation in the first place, making the welfare state necessary, is what's insulting to human dignity.


I would not let anyone starve...


The problem is that you are one person. Until the norms of society are changed in such a fashion as I describe above, voluntary collective action will be impossible. Until those norms are changed, people will find appeals to your personal morality entirely unsatisfactory and irrelevant.

Is it beyond the power of people to take care of each other? The idea that we need the government to take our money to keep people from starving is just insulting. I would not let anyone starve unless they were a homeless fuckup like the guy in front of my apartment who sits around and drinks vodka all day.

I didn't mean that literally.
But on the other hand, obviously it is beyond the power of people to take care of each other. Just look at the amount of people that die each day of starvation.

In free societies, where people keep their money, there is more wealth and a higher standard of living.

By most measures, America doesn't have the highest standard of living - the Scandinavian countries, Ireland and Canada do. These countries are also characterised by a high degree of welfare.

America is the most capitalistic society on earth. It is also the wealthiest society on earth. In the past 20 years, Hong Kong has developed a higher standard of living than Great Britain, because there is more economic freedom. Please tell me if I am in error, but this all seems to be well established fact.

The Human Development Index rates Hong Kong below the UK. I'd also like to point out that it is a bad idea to compare a vrtually entirely urban small country with a much larger and economically diverse country such as the UK.

Costs of British Rail vs. costs of helping out firms like Jarvis who keep messing up? Such things are pretty easy to find, and I'm far too lazy to do so for you.

I am sorry but the privatization of British Rail does not represent anything like the private provision of services that I would want.

EDIT: http://www.bradspangler.com/blog/archives/93

Since privatization is often, if not always, corrupted in being carried out by the State — the genuinely moral approach would seemingly be for privatization to be carried out by the productive class themselves, rather than the State. In short, that we ought to seek privatization through non-governmental means.

Erm my source and explanation is the last 150 or so years of history, who cares should be you, as it completely pisses all over your argument.

No it isn't and no it doesn't.

Lets compare Socialism to the free market.
The two aren't mutually exclusive, you know.
When you take peoples' money, you take away their ability to experiment with that money.
And instead the government gets to experiment with that money, and since they hire people who are talented in their various fields, this money is wisely re-invested.

Obviously, this stops the background layer of ridiculous adventurism, which as you'll doubtlessly tell me is sooo unfaaair, but there you go.
People don't take risks and they don't start new businesses.
That's entirely up to banks. Actually self-made businesspeople are rare in the extreme.

If banks are willing to shell out lots of money on risky investments, then you get more businesses, and you get more high-risk banking. This can all go really amazingly wrong, at which point things are pretty horrible for a while.
In free societies, where people keep their money, there is more wealth and a higher standard of living.
Most of Africa has a laissez-fair policy. Africa is also, as I'm sure you will note, a complete shithole.

Most of Western Europe is pretty socialist. Western Europe is also, as I'm sure you will not, not a shithole at all.
America is the most capitalistic society on earth.
No, it isn't.
It is also the wealthiest society on earth.
No it isn't.
In the past 20 years, Hong Kong has developed a higher standard of living than Great Britain
It's four places lower than the UK in the HDIs. Obviously it doesn't have a higher standard of living, or it'd be higher up the charts.

They earnt a massive $1 more on average than Great Britain in 2006, but only 2/3 of people could get full schooling, compared to 93.1% in GB. They lived an incredibly useful 2ish years longer in Hong Kong.
because there is more economic freedom.
Not really. Before 1997, the UK pumped a lot of money into it, in a similar way to what the USSR did to Cuba, really for ideological reasons. With all of this money, it set up a pretty awesome transport network and gave money out to a lot of businesses, before essentially being a laissez-faire economy.

After 1997, it's basically continued to be rich, which is, erm, not very surprising.
You really should watch the movie. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZpDjxIPpFc)
Aye, because 7 years ago's bullshit is accurate and relevant today?

I am sorry but the privatization of British Rail does not represent anything like the private provision of services that I would want.
Yes, that's because you don't have any kind of argument whatsoever and are now bullshitting off the top of your head, in a vain attempt to try and stop me pressing the issue.
No it isn't
Yes, yes it is, you're obviously as ignorant as you are ideologised.
and no it doesn't.
Yes, it really does.

How many people die each day due to nothing more difficult and inexpensive to fix than a lack of clean drinking water?

I think that should answer your question.

No it does not. If you let people buy and sell water, then people will start building damns and creating reservoirs along with proper treatment facilities. Free markets create wealth. People die of bad water because in most countries, you are not allowed to start your own water business. If you think that the government can do a better job of supplying water to every person better than millions of entrepreneurs can, you are wrong. The government cannot react to changes in supply like a million small traders can, and the government can make advancements in technology like a thousand small businesses can by taking risks.

No it does not. If you let people buy and sell water, then people will start building damns and creating reservoirs along with proper treatment facilities. Free markets create wealth. People die of bad water because in most countries, you are not allowed to start your own water business. If you think that the government can do a better job of supplying water to every person better than millions of entrepreneurs can, you are wrong. The government cannot react to changes in supply like a million small traders can, and the government can make advancements in technology like a thousand small businesses can by taking risks.

And why would said entrepreneurs sell the water to the poorest people in need of it most? It's much more profitable to sell it to mugs who can afford to pay £1 for 500ml of filtered tap water.

As for technological advancement, who has more money to spend on R and D? Or were there hundreds of successful small scale space programs runs in the capitalist US by entrepreneurs that were simply over looked by the liberal media?

It is certainly a bigger problem with social security than without. Sure, because there wouldn't be a social security trust fund without social security. However, governments misappropriating money for one thing and using it for another thing is hardly anything new.

So does government.Not particularly. There isn't any reason to believe that social security will go anywhere unless the government does. The likelihood of the government dissolving is significantly less than a corporation, so one is more likely to have security with the government taking care of social security than through investment.

No it does not. If you let people buy and sell water, then people will start building damns and creating reservoirs along with proper treatment facilities.
Aye, in piss poor countries where people can't afford purification tablets, they'll be building dams and making proper treatment facilities, yeah?

Fucksakes, get some sense.
Free markets create wealth
No, free markets create a very wealthy class, so long as there is a background level of industry to start with.

Free markets where you have no capital to begin with lead to nothing in particular happening of any note.

All that a free market does is redistributes wealth to a very select few, and in a society where you have no wealth, then the very select few have a very small amount more than anyone else, and everyone else has basically nothing.

Fantastic, eh?
People die of bad water because in most countries, you are not allowed to start your own water business.
I'd have thought it was due to water-bourne illnesses, and too many people, with too little of that resource around, really.
If you think that the government can do a better job of supplying water to every person better than millions of entrepreneurs can, you are wrong.
Aye, fantastic, let's have people charging as high a price as they like for water, so that the poorest can't get any, whilst at the same time, too much is taken, so that farmers' fields lie in drought.

Su-bloody-perb.
The government cannot react to changes in supply like a million small traders can
On the other hand, a government makes sure that supply remains fairly constant, which in terms of water, which is your particularly foolish example, is a fantastic thing to have a constant supply of.
and the government can make advancements in technology like a thousand small businesses can by taking risks.
A thousand small businesses don't have the necessary money to do any particularly important or groundbreaking technological advancement, especially in the 3rd world.

A government might, and is generally wise enough to bother to hire real scientists for such things.

No it does not. If you let people buy and sell water, then people will start building damns and creating reservoirs along with proper treatment facilities. Free markets create wealth. People die of bad water because in most countries, you are not allowed to start your own water business. If you think that the government can do a better job of supplying water to every person better than millions of entrepreneurs can, you are wrong. The government cannot react to changes in supply like a million small traders can, and the government can make advancements in technology like a thousand small businesses can by taking risks.

Water supply is privatized in many third world countries. In most of the places where people die of thirst they can get water from small wells, and they don't rely on a government supplying them with water. Most of the times when people don't have enough water it's because of war or climate, not because the government failed in supplying them. Actually, most of the shitholes in the world have a very weak and corrupt government. You'll also see that when water is privatized the supply mostly comes in the hands of a large multinational (which is logical when you consider the fact that a million independent enterpreneurs can't really have enough money to make large supply lines.) which is often worse than the government (because the government often gives at least a minimum of services.). They liberalized electricity here too, and it's pretty shitty, prices didn't go down and services didn't improve.
The welfare state is the best we have, giving everything in the hands of private enterprise only works in fairy land.

got any proof for that?

Actually there is. AFDC, aka welfare up tp 1996, had a 100% marginal tax rate on benefits if the welfare mother got a job. In other words for every dollar earned in the labor market a dollar in benefits was taken away. TANF, what we have now, is not quite as bad, I think.

No. The government makes 2% on investing what it takes from social security. People get back way more from social security than they put in. This is why there's so much talk about there being a dwindling number of workers to support each retiree.

Do you really understand what you've said? I think you're trying to say that an individual gets back everything he contributes and more...But that's not true. You'll figure that out after the SSA sends you your first statement that shows what you've contributed and what you'll earn at various ages. You'll make a good Democrat, though.

The totals don't match.

You have identified the main problem with SSI, however. That is that many more people are collecting SSI than ever before and they compound the problem by living longer. In order to fund them at the current levels, taxes need to be raised. In order to keep taxes at the current levels, benefits must be reduced.

Do you really understand what you've said? I think you're trying to say that an individual gets back everything he contributes and more...Yes, the majority of people do, especially since people are living longer than before.

Yes, the majority of people do, especially since people are living longer than before.
I doubt the truth of that. Government pensions aren't that high compared to welfare payments. Nothing wrong with that, I'm just pretty sure that it's not the case.

The two aren't mutually exclusive, you know.

And instead the government gets to experiment with that money, and since they hire people who are talented in their various fields, this money is wisely re-invested.

Obviously, this stops the background layer of ridiculous adventurism, which as you'll doubtlessly tell me is sooo unfaaair, but there you go.

That's entirely up to banks. Actually self-made businesspeople are rare in the extreme.

If banks are willing to shell out lots of money on risky investments, then you get more businesses, and you get more high-risk banking. This can all go really amazingly wrong, at which point things are pretty horrible for a while.

Most of Africa has a laissez-fair policy. Africa is also, as I'm sure you will note, a complete shithole.

Most of Western Europe is pretty socialist. Western Europe is also, as I'm sure you will not, not a shithole at all.

No, it isn't.

No it isn't.

It's four places lower than the UK in the HDIs. Obviously it doesn't have a higher standard of living, or it'd be higher up the charts.

They earnt a massive $1 more on average than Great Britain in 2006, but only 2/3 of people could get full schooling, compared to 93.1% in GB. They lived an incredibly useful 2ish years longer in Hong Kong.

Not really. Before 1997, the UK pumped a lot of money into it, in a similar way to what the USSR did to Cuba, really for ideological reasons. With all of this money, it set up a pretty awesome transport network and gave money out to a lot of businesses, before essentially being a laissez-faire economy.

After 1997, it's basically continued to be rich, which is, erm, not very surprising.

Aye, because 7 years ago's bullshit is accurate and relevant today?

Socialism is directly opposed to a free market. It is the allocation and consumption of resources that would not happen under a free economy. You cannot have a completely free market with social policies. The two ideas cancel each other out. Like fire and ice.

Africa is a laizze faire free market huh? That is the most ignorant thing I have heard in weeks. The government in most African countries take money and things from there people at will. Free market huh? Though you have to remember that much of Africa is ruled by rebel armies and gangs. Without the ability to enforce contracts, people can not trade with each other and the only economic model that is possible is for the government or the gangs to just take what they want.

If you do not believe that America is the wealthiest nation on earth, then you have your head up your ass. Tell me, who is doing better than America?

If you do not believe that America is the wealthiest nation on earth, then you have your head up your ass. Tell me, who is doing better than America?

Scandinavia?

meh, I don't really mind welfare, it's better than letting people starve.

I do, because it's none of the state's business to steal the role of previously established voluntary institutions.

Isn't it also true that if everybody had a job inflation would rise?

1.) I think the implications of that idea are that it is "good" if people are deprived of productive employment. Considering that evils such as disease, hunger, poverty etc. can only be cured through production of goods and services (if there is nothing made, there is nothing to give), this is a terrible idea.

2.) Inflation is properly defined as an expansion of the credit supply; price level increase is merely a side effect of this expansion. As getting a job has nothing to do with expansion of the credit supply (the state produces more dollars, not I), then it can be concluded that employment does not cause inflation. In fact, if more goods are produced, then ceteris paribus the price must be lowered and the price level in fact decreases.

I do, because it's none of the state's business to steal the role of previously established voluntary institutions.

They didn't steal that role, everybody still is free to donate to charity.

1.) I think the implications of that idea are that it is "good" if people are deprived of productive employment. Considering that evils such as disease, hunger, poverty etc. can only be cured through production of goods and services (if there is nothing made, there is nothing to give), this is a terrible idea.

2.) Inflation is properly defined as an expansion of the credit supply; price level increase is merely a side effect of this expansion. As getting a job has nothing to do with expansion of the credit supply (the state produces more dollars, not I), then it can be concluded that employment does not cause inflation. In fact, if more goods are produced, then ceteris paribus the price must be lowered and the price level in fact decreases.

I wasn't arguing that unemployment is good, I was just asking if it was true that 100% employment is impossible (an argument I heard here before I think.)(also, I don't know a lot of economics, so it could be that they said something else)

Socialism is directly opposed to a free market. It is the allocation and consumption of resources that would not happen under a free economy. You cannot have a completely free market with social policies. The two ideas cancel each other out. Like fire and ice.
No, socialism isn't directly opposed to a free market. You can have a perfectly free market, just with taxes. Laissez-faire and free market are two different things.

Laissez-faire and socialism are diametrically opposed. This is true. A free market and socialism aren't. That's how the whole of the EU works, after all. It's a free trade agreement, where governments chip in money to help raise the quality of life in the poorer countries and also pay for disaster relief.
Africa is a laizze faire free market huh? That is the most ignorant thing I have heard in weeks. The government in most African countries take money and things from there people at will. Free market huh? Though you have to remember that much of Africa is ruled by rebel armies and gangs. Without the ability to enforce contracts, people can not trade with each other and the only economic model that is possible is for the government or the gangs to just take what they want.
No, this is just the ugly side of laissez-faire that you're ignoring. Those with the most money, and hence those who can afford the most weapons and hence can tell people what to do, are in control.
If you do not believe that America is the wealthiest nation on earth, then you have your head up your ass. Tell me, who is doing better than America?
Luxembourg, by about $30,000 per head. There you go.

I doubt the truth of that. Government pensions aren't that high compared to welfare payments. Nothing wrong with that, I'm just pretty sure that it's not the case.Think of it going over the course of 15, 20 or 30 years.

You really should watch the movie. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZpDjxIPpFc)

okay you have mentioned this movie enough:

1) in the first minuet or so I noticed the bullshit building in my eyes, America is not the happiest country on Earth!!!1 The answer is hunter gatherers and society's where there is a big communal spirit (the tribe that British channel 4 seems to be humping is ranked highest iirc)

so as you can see the answer is a sense of community, imitating are natural surroundings as much as possible makes for happy people

2) Americans don't live longer or are "better" (God I hope that doesn't mean healthy)

3) America doesn't have more cars etc per person than anywhere else I think its trying to apply a nation of 300 million persons worth of cars to tiny independent metropolises and such

4) clap-trap on medical care

5) Americas economic might is the less than Britain, France and Germany iirc again its doing it by simply looking at numbers instead of per person (then again this was the 90's)

should I continue?

SNIP

I have to ask:

you know how extremes usually are a bad idea as its putting ideology before what works yes?

is the same true for libertarianism?

and what of the bad points of libertarianism I usually put this too people who I find slightly fanatical but there goes

give us the bad points of libertarianism, if you can't find anything then you clearly haven't looked hard enough

People die of bad water because in most countries, you are not allowed to start your own water business. If you think that the government can do a better job of supplying water to every person better than millions of entrepreneurs can, you are wrong. The government cannot react to changes in supply like a million small traders can, and the government can make advancements in technology like a thousand small businesses can by taking risks.

okay now I now your just having us on, have you heard of Bolivia?

Think of it going over the course of 20 or 30 years.
Governments are simply going to decrease pension payments and make their citizens older before they get to receive them as the situation worsens, or there'll be such a massive budget defecit that the whole system will collapse.

Governments are simply going to decrease pension payments and make their citizens older before they get to receive them as the situation worsens, or there'll be such a massive budget defecit that the whole system will collapse.The government will probably need to do one of these things, yes, but the reason that there isn't a budget deficit is that there is (or was) a high ratio of people paying into the system than taking money from it.

The government will probably need to do one of these things, yes, but the reason that there isn't a budget deficit is that there is (or was) a high ratio of people paying into the system than taking money from it.
It's becoming a massive problem in Europe, especially Italy, where people are having a well under replacement rate amount of children, and are living a very long time.

Both of those things are currently going on.

Water supply is privatized in many third world countries. In most of the places where people die of thirst they can get water from small wells, and they don't rely on a government supplying them with water. Most of the times when people don't have enough water it's because of war or climate, not because the government failed in supplying them. Actually, most of the shitholes in the world have a very weak and corrupt government. You'll also see that when water is privatized the supply mostly comes in the hands of a large multinational (which is logical when you consider the fact that a million independent enterpreneurs can't really have enough money to make large supply lines.) which is often worse than the government (because the government often gives at least a minimum of services.). They liberalized electricity here too, and it's pretty shitty, prices didn't go down and services didn't improve.
The welfare state is the best we have, giving everything in the hands of private enterprise only works in fairy land.

Why don't private firms have enough money to build water lines? They have enough money to open car factories and build power plants. The government really should make sure that everyone can get clean water, basic education and a road to their house. I believe that. But I know that the government will hire private companies to build these things so I don't worry too much.

Why don't private firms have enough money to build water lines? They have enough money to open car factories and build power plants.
Erm, no they don't.
The government really should make sure that everyone can get clean water, basic education and a road to their house. I believe that. But I know that the government will hire private companies to build these things so I don't worry too much.
Just remember that an African government is generally essentially a conglomeration of the richest and most brutal, who are in it for themselves, and you'll realise that they don't hire people to do anything because they really want gold taps for their palatial villas, none of that silver rubbish.

okay you have mentioned this movie enough:

1) in the first minuet or so I noticed the bullshit building in my eyes, America is not the happiest country on Earth!!!1 The answer is hunter gatherers and society's where there is a big communal spirit (the tribe that British channel 4 seems to be humping is ranked highest iirc)

so as you can see the answer is a sense of community, imitating are natural surroundings as much as possible makes for happy people

2) Americans don't live longer or are "better" (God I hope that doesn't mean healthy)

3) America doesn't have more cars etc per person than anywhere else I think its trying to apply a nation of 300 million persons worth of cars to tiny independent metropolises and such

4) clap-trap on medical care

5) Americas economic might is the less than Britain, France and Germany iirc again its doing it by simply looking at numbers instead of per person (then again this was the 90's)

should I continue?



I have to ask:

you know how extremes usually are a bad idea as its putting ideology before what works yes?

is the same true for libertarianism?

and what of the bad points of libertarianism I usually put this too people who I find slightly fanatical but there goes

give us the bad points of libertarianism, if you can't find anything then you clearly haven't looked hard enough



okay now I now your just having us on, have you heard of Bolivia?

I don't know why you believe these things? Do you want to go live in a hunter gatherer tribe? You would be happier right?

Do you understand that most of the new medical technology and prescription drugs in this world come from giant American corporations that spend billions of dollars on developing these things?

Do you think the government can provide better services than competing companies can? Who does the government compete with? What is their incentive to work harder and take risks?

Alot of people on this forum seem to believe that wealth is neither created or destroyed, it is simply moved around. This is really a child's view of economics. When you have a free market with competition, wealth is created. When you take away the ability of people to trade with each other and keep what hey earn, you destroy wealth. This is norm all over the world and it is proven time and time again in economic science.

Yes, that's because you don't have any kind of argument whatsoever and are now bullshitting off the top of your head, in a vain attempt to try and stop me pressing the issue.

Yes, yes it is, you're obviously as ignorant as you are ideologised.

Yes, it really does.

I am the one who is bullshitting?

Erm, no they don't.


Wow, hmm, so all the factories and industry in the world is created by the government. People don't expand buisnesses right? They are not smart enough to do that on their own?


Just remember that an African government is generally essentially a conglomeration of the richest and most brutal, who are in it for themselves, and you'll realise that they don't hire people to do anything because they really want gold taps for their palatial villas, none of that silver rubbish.

:confused:

you know how extremes usually are a bad idea as its putting ideology before what works yes?

Yesteryear's extremes are what we consider practical common sense today.

give us the bad points of libertarianism, if you can't find anything then you clearly haven't looked hard enough


Libertarianism is far too broad a political movement to point out individual problems.

As such though, I think libertarianism faces issues with the residual effects of the state, the externalities of market participants dealing with foreign governments, externalities in general. I think right libertarians are too dogmatic in their defense of private property, and left libertarians are too dogmatic in their attacks on private property.

Most importantly, I think both sides have issues with their understanding of what a state is, and ignore certain statist structures simply because they prefer them.

No, this is just the ugly side of laissez-faire that you're ignoring. Those with the most money, and hence those who can afford the most weapons and hence can tell people what to do, are in control.


Congratulations! You have discovered the true role of the government. You see, Libertarians believe that the role of government is to keep businesses in check. The government should act as a manager, it should enforce contracts and make sure that basic human rights are not violated. Other than that, they should keep their greedy hands out of the economy. Its really very simple and not extreme at all.

In the US, you guys do realize that after welfare reform, a person

1. can only receive welfare for 5 years for his/her entire life
2. must have 40 working hours per week

There are more rules but those are the 2 highlights I want to mention. So those homeless people you see, they are actually not receiving federal aids, you are not paying them. So where do all those money go?

The real big problem is that now, rather than paying less welfare, we spend more. Welfare money simply goes from the poor into the pocket of the rich. That's right, since 1997 corporations are getting compensations for 18 months for hiring a guy in poverty under WtW. What ends up happening naturally is that they fire the guy after 18 months and hire a new one to continue receiving tax credits. Another big money eater is the increase regulation and qualification check. Put 2 together and you end up paying more than before.

Here's a source of where welfare goes.

http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/social-welfare-spending04/summary.htm

I don't know why you believe these things? Do you want to go live in a hunter gatherer tribe? You would be happier right?

yes you would be much happier, sadly its a very tough life so we would all die fairly quickly I'd suspect (though on nations level its Denmark so still a bunch of "socialists" (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/5224306.stm))

fact remains though when asked hunter Gatherers are happy with there life

Do you understand that most of the new medical technology and prescription drugs in this world come from giant American corporations that spend billions of dollars on developing these things?

No corporations don't make profit from wonder cures, keeping people taking pills is much more profitable (though this indicates happiness how?)

there is also all that aids medicine that doesn't get to nobody because its a patented idea that is sold at an immense profit

Do you think the government can provide better services than competing companies can? Who does the government compete with? What is their incentive to work harder and take risks?

Mail is a good example, currently Royal mail raises postage costs so private companies can at least keep up (which they don't)

same goes for public transport

Alot of people on this forum seem to believe that wealth is neither created or destroyed, it is simply moved around. This is really a child's view of economics. When you have a free market with competition, wealth is created. When you take away the ability of people to trade with each other and keep what hey earn, you destroy wealth. This is norm all over the world and it is proven time and time again in economic science.

the environmentalist in me disagrees, Trees and Rivers are absolutely priceless to our species let alone the country

you don't "create" anything its impossible we don't live in that universe thats simple physics

They didn't steal that role, everybody still is free to donate to charity.

They stole the role as benefactor from these institutions. Instead of having to maintain certain levels of conduct in order to receive their aid, such as from one's family members, people can now turn to a faceless entity that will give them what they want in exchange for political legitimation. Hence the almost complete destruction of ostracism as a tool of stabilizing social relations, among other indicators. The state has stolen a very important role from private citizens.

I wasn't arguing that unemployment is good, I was just asking if it was true that 100% employment is impossible (an argument I heard here before I think.)(also, I don't know a lot of economics, so it could be that they said something else)

It is theoretically possible, if people would accept a very low wage.

Yes, the majority of people do, especially since people are living longer than before.
I think you're making a claim that's based on hope, rather than facts. If I do a quick calculation based on my circumstances, I find that I contribute about $200,000 more than I receive.

I recall reading that, on average, only white women live long enough to make back what they have contributed. And that SSI is really a rip-off for black men because their life span is so much shorter...

In the US, you guys do realize that after welfare reform, a person

1. can only receive welfare for 5 years for his/her entire life
2. must have 40 working hours per week

There are more rules but those are the 2 highlights I want to mention. So those homeless people you see, they are actually not receiving federal aids, you are not paying them. So where do all those money go?

The real big problem is that now, rather than paying less welfare, we spend more. Welfare money simply goes from the poor into the pocket of the rich. That's right, since 1997 corporations are getting compensations for 18 months for hiring a guy in poverty under WtW. What ends up happening naturally is that they fire the guy after 18 months and hire a new one to continue receiving tax credits. Another big money eater is the increase regulation and qualification check. Put 2 together and you end up paying more than before.

Here's a source of where welfare goes.

http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/social-welfare-spending04/summary.htm

Wow, those corporate kickbacks for hiring people on welfare have to go.

Government shouldn't interfere with business, after all.

yes you would be much happier, sadly its a very tough life so we would all die fairly quickly I'd suspect (though on nations level its Denmark so still a bunch of "socialists" (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/5224306.stm))


Well I did hear that they eat more chocolate in Denmark than anywhere else in the world. That explains it.


fact remains though when asked hunter Gatherers are happy with there life

Thats interesting. Well, I for one am happier living without easily curable diseases.


No corporations don't make profit from wonder cures, keeping people taking pills is much more profitable (though this indicates happiness how?)

That is just foolish. Why do you think corporations spend billions on drug development? There is a lot of money in it! It is true that they will make more money selling you drugs for the rest of your life than they will curing you permanently, but competition doesn't allow that. The company that decides to sell the cure(if a cure exists) will put the other company out of business. Now there are patents and property rights that give drug companies sole dominion over products that they develop so that they can make a good profit, but after a certain amount of time, the government makes that information public for the common good. Everybody wins.


Mail is a good example, currently Royal mail raises postage costs so private companies can at least keep up (which they don't)
same goes for public transport


I don't know about you, but FedEx works much better for me. Cheaper too. And how many airlines are owned by governments? Well, airforce one is pretty nice I hear, but I like Delta just fine.


the environmentalist in me disagrees, Trees and Rivers are absolutely priceless to our species let alone the country

you don't "create" anything its impossible we don't live in that universe thats simple physics

You are very confused if you are comparing economic principles with the law of conservation of mass. You might as well say that people are greedy because the entropy of the universe is expanding. You can't just link principles and philosophies together because it feels right. That dumb. No, sorry, look at this.: (http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/AAPAM/UNPAN025730.pdf)

process and dynamic definition, which gives people, power over the different social, economic, cultural and political forces, which govern their lives. When people gain power and control over these factors they achieve social and economic progress. The aim of empowerment is to create true wealth and involve the people in all aspects of governance.
Any wealth creation initiative therefore must increase the productivity of the individual and family. It must boost the human capital elements such as knowledge, skills and health, which increase the total productivity of the individual and the human development index of the society.

maybe they should save on the military and wars instead of on welfare.
yes that sound like the logical thing to do because if war is declered then
we wont need welfare we will need military and bersides the people of my country can look after them selfs :sniper::mp5::eek:

Hold up, people. How did I know this was going to happen? :rolleyes:

Several times I have seen violations of the 'credo'. That is, several times I have seen 'Libertarians believe' or variations. Please...

I also view that the libertarian side of this argument is not doing justice to my particular libertarian arguments.

No it does not. If you let people buy and sell water, then people will start building damns and creating reservoirs along with proper treatment facilities. Free markets create wealth. People die of bad water because in most countries, you are not allowed to start your own water business. If you think that the government can do a better job of supplying water to every person better than millions of entrepreneurs can, you are wrong. The government cannot react to changes in supply like a million small traders can, and the government can make advancements in technology like a thousand small businesses can by taking risks.

This is the single most baffling, myopic, repulsive, willfully ignorant thing I have ever read in a susposedly intelligent debate. No wonder you can have such bizzare views when you've fashioned an alternate reality where these views can have some kind of credence.

Very true; free markets do not create wealth. The only way to create wealth is to A. (philosophically) assign value to something or B. develop, manufacture, produce, or augment something; the free market does neither. The free market does, however, provide a place to trade wealth and 'make money'.

I think everyone desires a free market in some way (for example, libertarians want an unfettered market, liberals (I think, man) want to have a level playing field so to speak with assets (welfare), conservatives large business... fascists government control... communists, the absence of a market, making it 'free' of a market.

This is the single most baffling, myopic, repulsive, willfully ignorant thing I have ever read in a susposedly intelligent debate. No wonder you can have such bizzare views when you've fashioned an alternate reality where these views can have some kind of credence.

Hmm, okay, um, you are wrong.

This is a link you should look at (http://www.ruwart.com/Healing/chap2.html)

Wealth is created when we use existing resources in new ways. Since such creativity is virtually limitless, wealth is too.

Crazy! right? Well not crazy enough, bizarro land is comming to socialist-ville.

Very true; free markets do not create wealth. The only way to create wealth is to A. (philosophically) assign value to something or B. develop, manufacture, produce, or augment something; the free market does neither. The free market does, however, provide a place to trade wealth and 'make money'.

All interferences into the market and non aggressive property gains are hindrances to wealth production.

I am the one who is bullshitting?
Yes, or you'd have put together a much better argument than "NAWW WAY, NOT TRUE", with absolutely zero proof, no countering to the fact that nationbuilding and the industrial revolution have been utterly intertwined, and using the kind of faux-intellectual vagueness that gets you nowhere.
Wow, hmm, so all the factories and industry in the world is created by the government.
No, that's not what I said.

What I said is that in the poorer countries of the world, only the government has enough money to build factories, carry out any kind of meaningful technical research, etc. etc.

That and multinational companies from Europe and North America.
People don't expand buisnesses right? They are not smart enough to do that on their own?
It's not about intelligence, more about feasibility. In Africa, all you get is basically very small scale industry becoming small scale industry, with almost all non-cottage secondary industry coming from outside sources, and the same being true of tourism, with the state generally also running a tourist company of its own, to try and create jobs and generally line the pockets of the Minister of Finance.
:confused:
Subsaharan Africa. Take a damned fine look at it, and instantly realise that the only people in any kind of power are basically gang leaders, and everyone else is piss poor.

Congratulations! You have discovered the true role of the government. You see, Libertarians believe that the role of government is to keep businesses in check. The government should act as a manager, it should enforce contracts and make sure that basic human rights are not violated. Other than that, they should keep their greedy hands out of the economy. Its really very simple and not extreme at all.
Yes, that's not how it works, though. What actually happens is that government is basically a big business with a huge and well-armed security force, which doesn't enforce contracts it doesn't like, and forces legitimate businesses out of the country if they don't like them much.

Basic human rights are no object for the government a fair few of African states, they basically leave that to the richer NGOs, such as Medicins Sans Frontiers et al. whilst they concentrate on building themselves some serious wealth.

Hmm, okay, um, you are wrong.

This is a link you should look at (http://www.ruwart.com/Healing/chap2.html)

Wealth is created when we use existing resources in new ways. Since such creativity is virtually limitless, wealth is too.

Crazy! right? Well not crazy enough, bizarro land is comming to socialist-ville.

Capitalism does not create real wealth, it creates abstract wealth which only enriches a tiny economic elite class, real wealth is distributed equally, not concentrated.

Capitalism does not create real wealth, it creates abstract wealth which only enriches a tiny economic elite class, real wealth is distributed equally, not concentrated.
No, you're also wrong.

You need a class of people with technical ability and fiscal acumen in control with more money, simply because they know what they're doing.

Whether that comes through a more capitalist system whereby people earn this money through whatever means, or via a planned economy in a 'communist' state, there is always a group of very wealthy and capable people in overall control, because that's how things work in real life.

No, you're also wrong.

You need a class of people with technical ability and fiscal acumen in control with more money, simply because they know what they're doing.

Whether that comes through a more capitalist system whereby people earn this money through whatever means, or via a planned economy in a 'communist' state, there is always a group of very wealthy and capable people in overall control, because that's how things work in real life.
You don't need any class, you may as well say you need class oppression. It's that kind of 'the rich know best' professionalist elitist that justifies White-terror and capitalist privilege and oligarchy. The people as a whole deserve to control the means of production, political equality not extended to the economic realm is meaningless without class struggle. Worker control is not a means but an end, the only reason they don't know 'what they're doing' and have the 'fiscal acumen' as you so aristocratically put is precisely because they are products of the material (in this case low) conditions which meant they couldn't attain this expertise. Exploitation is always wrong, and as long as a minority controls the means of production, that is exploitation to not have an equal share in the products and control over the production.

You don't need any class, you may as well say you need class oppression.
Yes, you actually do, or a society doesn't work. Without 'class oppression', you don't really have any reason to do anything, seeing as the rich won't want to keep their position, the middle classes won't want to work their way up to being upper class, and the working class won't want to try and escape their situation.
It's that kind of 'the rich know best' professionalist elitist that justifies White-terror and capitalist privilege and oligarchy.
I'm no fan of racism in the slightest, squire, don't level that at me.

I'm also no fan of Marxists who think that they can cram as many stupid buzzwords into everything they say as possible.

The rich know best, because if they didn't, they wouldn't be rich. Let's look at the Hilton family, for example.

Hilton parentals - capable people, who can run a business.
Hilton daughter - is probably to lose it all, unless she gets some useful advisors, who will be making much money through their expertise.

Without people with the knowledge and skills to keep themselves in wealth, any enterprise falls down.

You can't honestly claim that the people at Veshenkha were big fans of letting the worker decide on what was produced, nor can you say that they didn't know what they were doing - the people leading the command economy in the USSR were pretty capable, it was just the beaurocracy and the fact that people don't really want 2.3 shoes a year, because people aren't rational, that brought it all down.
The people as a whole deserve to control the means of production, political equality not extended to the economic realm is meaningless without class struggle.
Evidently they don't deserve to
Worker control is not a means but an end
What a particularly pointless and stupid end.
the only reason they don't know 'what they're doing' and have the 'fiscal acumen' as you so aristocratically put is precisely because they are products of the material (in this case low) conditions which meant they couldn't attain this expertise.
Nothing at all stopping people going on to do Economics or Business Studies if they want to get into that particular field. I know quite a few working class people doing Business Studies at York College, and they seem to be prety happy with doing so, and indeed relishing getting into the field at university, too.
Exploitation is always wrong
Morally, yes, absolutely, but exploitation is how the whole animal kingdom, and the whole human race works.
and as long as a minority controls the means of production, that is exploitation to not have an equal share in the products and control over the production.
Yes, well as Russia before War Communism showed, if you give workers control of the factories, then they give themselves extremely short working days, basically produce a subsistence level of consumer goods for themselves and their friends, and have no idea about organising supply chains, and it was only when the evil, bourgeoism counter-revolutionary pig-dogs known as capable managers were brought back that Russian industry began to get back on its feet a bit, up until the NEP, where things really took off.

When I hear comments like that above, I like to think of the class victories like those over the Kulaks,it also hardens my resolve that the only way to deal with capitalists if they will not work selflessly is mass extermination. Us Marxists should remember that we are in a war, a class war, and in war you kill the enemy.
Sorry, are you threatening to kill me because you have literally no arguments at all to my points, and realise that violence is your only way out?

Yeah, way to utterly discredit Marxism.
Please read this also, your history is blatantly bias:
http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/book.html
Right, because from the look of that, yours isn't?

Sorry, are you threatening to kill me because you have literally no arguments at all to my points, and realise that violence is your only way out?

Yeah, way to utterly discredit Marxism.

Right, because from the look of that, yours isn't?

It doesn't discredit Marxism-Leninism one iota that we are tough on our class enemies, why shouldn't we be after centuries of class oppression and struggle, anyone who is selfish and does everything for himself and nothing for the community isn't even human as far as I am concerned.

It doesn't discredit Marxism-Leninism one iota that we are tough on our class enemies, why shouldn't we be after centuries of class oppression and struggle, anyone who is selfish and does everything for himself and nothing for the community isn't even human as far as I am concerned.

You can romanticise it all you want but your belief that willingness to murder is a more favourable human characteristic than selfishness is ridiculous

You can romanticise it all you want but your belief that willingness to murder is a more favourable human characteristic than selfishness is ridiculous
As I said those who operate on the cold selfish utility of capitalism are no longer human, they contribute nothing to society - instead they exploit it based on unethical calculations, does any society want these 'people'?

The government is spending WAY to much!
I agree. Cut the defense budget by a factor of 200, and reinvest that money in programs that actually help Americans. Education, health care, support for small businesses, public transportation...anything that isn't guns or handouts to the super-rich.

I agree. Cut the defense budget by a factor of 200, and reinvest that money in programs that actually help Americans. Education, health care, support for small businesses, public transportation...anything that isn't guns or handouts to the super-rich.

Or "governmental aid" to Israel and Saudi Arabia in the form of billions of US dollars that go directly into the IDF and Saudi Royal bank accounts respectively.

As I said those who operate on the cold selfish utility of capitalism are no longer human, they contribute nothing to society - instead they exploit it based on unethical calculations, does any society want these 'people'?
...

They contribute to the ruling class which is actually what keeps things stuck together...

Or "governmental aid" to Israel and Saudi Arabia in the form of billions of US dollars that go directly into the IDF and Saudi Royal bank accounts respectively.
I kind of tally those under "handouts to the super-rich," since not a single dime of that money is actually going to the people of those countries.

Capitalism does not create real wealth, it creates abstract wealth which only enriches a tiny economic elite class, real wealth is distributed equally, not concentrated.

So does that mean that since bill gates has billions of dollars, the rest of america is much poorer? That is a very primitive view of the world. Capatalism does indeed create real wealth. When an individual makes alot of money in a free market, it is because he has provided a product or service that the rest of society needs. Everybody wins!

Free markets create wealth!

An example straight out of my economics class:

A T-shirt, is worth more than the raw cotton, inks, dyes, and electricity used to produce it. It is worth more than the sum of its parts, so when you make a T-shirt, you create new wealth.

A T-shirt, is worth more than the raw cotton, inks, dyes, and electricity used to produce it. It is worth more than the sum of its parts, so when you make a T-shirt, you create new wealth.

I don't see any wealth created.

I see someone giving up some of their "wealth" for a t-shirt.

A T-shirt, is worth more than the raw cotton, inks, dyes, and electricity used to produce it.

That's true. Because you're deliberately leaving out the LABOR that must be expended to make the t-shirt.


It is worth more than the sum of its parts,

Only if you deliberately leave one of the parts off the list.


so when you make a T-shirt, you create new wealth.
No, you don't. You take a set of materials, you expend a certain amount of labor to make them into something, and then you charge for the combined cost of materials and labor.

You are not magically creating something out of nothing. Rather, you are charging for the FULL cost of the item.

I pay more for a t-shirt than I would for all the individual materials needed to make the t-shirt, because I'm paying for the convenience of not having to make the shirt myself. I'm paying for the convenience of somebody else spending their time to convert those materials into a finished product for me.

I don't see any wealth created.

I see someone giving up some of their "wealth" for a t-shirt.

Create profit, perhaps?

Create profit, perhaps?

the profit wasn't created though. the person buying the t-shirt gave up the money that covered the cost of said shirt and the profit for the company.

the profit wasn't created though. the person buying the t-shirt gave up the money that covered the cost of said shirt and the profit for the company.

Huh? If the cost the buyer pays for the finished article, is higher than the cost the buyer could be expected to pay for the raw materials, how has the profit not been created?

Huh? If the cost the buyer pays for the finished article, is higher than the cost the buyer could be expected to pay for the raw materials, how has the profit not been created?
It hasn't "been created" out of nowhere. It was created through the labor of the individual(s) who made the item from the starting materials.

How much they are able to charge for their efforts will vary based on the demand for the article in question. If lots of people want t-shirts and are willing to pay for them, the demand will allow t-shirt makers to charge more for their product. If very few people want t-shirts, then they won't be able to charge as much. In some cases, the demand could be so low that the raw materials are worth more than the t-shirt.

Huh? If the cost the buyer pays for the finished article, is higher than the cost the buyer could be expected to pay for the raw materials, how has the profit not been created?

sooo...

If I pour water for one glass to another I created water?

It hasn't "been created" out of nowhere. It was created through the labor of the individual(s) who made the item from the starting materials.

How much they are able to charge for their efforts will vary based on the demand for the article in question. If lots of people want t-shirts and are willing to pay for them, the demand will allow t-shirt makers to charge more for their product. If very few people want t-shirts, then they won't be able to charge as much. In some cases, the demand could be so low that the raw materials are worth more than the t-shirt.

Well of course it hasn't been created out of nowhere, I mean what is? Surly though the act of manufacture and then charging that little bit more than what the parts and labour costs, makes a profit.

Thus profit has been created.

sooo...

If I pour water for one glass to another I created water?

Again, huh?

Again, huh?

your saying that because the buyers gives the company money to cover the cost to make the shirt + a bit more that profit was created.

it wasn't. money simply shifted from the buyer to the company.

ie like pouring water from one cup to another. nothing created, just shifted.

your saying that because the buyers gives the company money to cover the cost to make the shirt + a bit more that profit was created.

it wasn't. money simply shifted from the buyer to the company.

ie like pouring water from one cup to another. nothing created, just shifted.

Ummm now perhaps we have crossed wires here, but profit is that extra money you have after all bills, wages and other payments have been made yes?

If I have £5.00 and with that purchase materials to make a product. If I then manufacture this product and sell it for £10.00. Then deduct £2.50 for the overall cost of manufacture, that leaves me with £7.50, a total profit of £2.50.

No matter where this extra cash comes from I did not have it before I started, I have created for myself £2.50, have I not?

Taking you water anolgy, there is a quarter cup of water extra than what I started with. No mater where this water come from, I didn't have it now I have, it can cetianly be said that I have created for myself more water than what I started with, if not that I have created water.

Ummm now perhaps we have crossed wires here, but profit is that extra money you have after all bills, wages and other payments have been made yes?

If I have £5.00 and with that purchase materials to make a product. If I then manufacture this product and sell it for £10.00. Then deduct £2.50 for the overall cost of manufacture, that leaves me with £7.50, a total profit of £2.50.

No matter where this extra cash comes from I did not have it before I started, I have created for myself £2.50, have I not?

Taking you water anolgy, there is a quarter cup of water extra than what I started with. No mater where this water come from, I didn't have it now I have, it can cetianly be said that I have created for myself more water than what I started with, if not that I have created water.

......I think we are arguing semantics.

If you don't have any money and I give you $10 you didn't create the $10 you have now. It shifted from me to you. (simplified version of make sell subtract cost)

......I think we are arguing semantics.

If you don't have any money and I give you $10 you didn't create the $10 you have now. It shifted from me to you. (simplified version of make sell subtract cost)

Yes I think you are right. Semantics huh, but then by using you definition no wealth, or profit can be created, only the printers can do such a thing.

Yes I think you are right. Semantics huh, but then by using you definition no wealth, or profit can be created, only the printers can do such a thing.

pretty much. that was my understanding of it anyway. well minus the profit part. that is a shifting of money not creation.


afterall, it you were creating money, that would be counterfit....;)

Hmm, okay, um, you are wrong.

This is a link you should look at (http://www.ruwart.com/Healing/chap2.html)

Wealth is created when we use existing resources in new ways. Since such creativity is virtually limitless, wealth is too.

Crazy! right? Well not crazy enough, bizarro land is comming to socialist-ville.

Firstly, that's not what I was talking about and anyone with a grip on reality would have understood that

Secondly, wealth isn't limitless, it is limited because natural resources are limited.

Well of course it hasn't been created out of nowhere, I mean what is? Surly though the act of manufacture and then charging that little bit more than what the parts and labour costs, makes a profit.

Thus profit has been created.
Think about it in terms of conservation of mass/energy.

Profit hasn't actually been created, it's been moved from one individual to another.

That's true. Because you're deliberately leaving out the LABOR that must be expended to make the t-shirt.


Only if you deliberately leave one of the parts off the list.


No, you don't. You take a set of materials, you expend a certain amount of labor to make them into something, and then you charge for the combined cost of materials and labor.

You are not magically creating something out of nothing. Rather, you are charging for the FULL cost of the item.

I pay more for a t-shirt than I would for all the individual materials needed to make the t-shirt, because I'm paying for the convenience of not having to make the shirt myself. I'm paying for the convenience of somebody else spending their time to convert those materials into a finished product for me.

Even if you include labor, its still worth more! It the T-shirt was not worth more than the sum of its parts, people would not waste time making them. It has this value becuase people like you want to buy them rather than make them by themselves./

Seriously, this is straight out of my economics class.

Not one damn American has the right to complain about welfare spending when we are currently waging the most pointless, destructive war in our history,

Non-sequitur. Whether or not the money we are spending on the Iraqi conflict is justified is wholly irrelevant to the question of whether we are spending too much on welfare.

and we spend 10 times more on our military than China who has 10 times our population.

What's your point?

You want a solution to our national defecit? Tax religion. Tax every damn church, mosque, synagogue, temple, and scientologist golf club as a business. You'd be drooling over how much money that would rake in.

How much money do you think that would bring in?

How much money do you think that would bring in?
A lot. A really, really lot.

Here's a NYTimes article on the subject:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/10/business/10religious.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

A few quotes from that article:

"There are no national figures on how much money these tax breaks save religious organizations and on how much extra cost is shifted to other citizens. But a typical state, Colorado, reported that religious real estate valued at more than $1.1 billion was exempt from local property taxes there last year. Nationally, tax-exempt financing for religious organizations totaled at least $20 billion during the decade that ended last year."

"Congressional budget records show that just the income tax breaks uniquely available for ministers, rabbis and other clergy members cost taxpayers just under $500 million a year."

"In June, for example, the Florida Legislature passed, and Gov. Jeb Bush signed, a law that ended a five-year effort by Orange County tax authorities in Orlando to collect about $300,000 a year in property taxes from Holy Land Experience, a biblical museum and theme park that had sought exemption as a religious ministry but had been repeatedly turned down by the county."

Even if you include labor, its still worth more! It the T-shirt was not worth more than the sum of its parts, people would not waste time making them.

Totally untrue. There are plenty of reasons why people might continue to make things which are not worth more than the sum of their parts. But that's really beside my point anyhow.


It has this value becuase people like you want to buy them rather than make them by themselves./

That is why the labor has value, yes. That's why the cost of labor is included in the cost of the product. That was my point.

What?


No one's taking anything from the poor that was already theirs.

There's a big difference between taking something from someone and not giving it to him.


All bona fide crimes are properly punished by lifetime imprisonment.

Ideally it'd be torture followed by death, but mistakes sometime happen.

And that individual's property would be held in escrow until he is either executed or dies on his own, so that if he is later exonerated he will get it back.



What?



There is no insanity in liberty.


That made me lol....

Even if you include labor, its still worth more! It the T-shirt was not worth more than the sum of its parts, people would not waste time making them. It has this value becuase people like you want to buy them rather than make them by themselves./

Seriously, this is straight out of my economics class.

Right, because the raw materials cost the same for me as for nike? My time is worth the same as the time of a kid in a sweatshop? Of course not. The sum of the parts for me making a t-shirt (even if I had the requisite skills, which I don't) is:

die + material + whatever + equipment (fixed costs and unit costs) + labor

Yeah, the only reason I don't make my own t-shirts is because the t-shirt is worth more than the sum of its parts. You're CLUELESS.

Yes, or you'd have put together a much better argument than "NAWW WAY, NOT TRUE", with absolutely zero proof, no countering to the fact that nationbuilding and the industrial revolution have been utterly intertwined, and using the kind of faux-intellectual vagueness that gets you nowhere.

I asked you for a source that private provision of "essential" services presently provided by government would be more expensive. You provided an example, and I said that your example doesn't represent what I consider to be privatization of industry and posted an article explaining what I mean. In brief, privatization of state assets to some person or people at the discretion of the state is not real privatization but relegation of state power by the state.

Now if you have any examples that entrepreneurship is inherently less efficient or more costly than government when it comes to essential services, I will attempt to counter. If you have any argument as to why "nation building" is the only successful way for a modern society to organize itself, as to why industrial power and "nation building" is inherently linked, or why I should prefer the current industrial model of society, I will address those as well.

Until then, the I have there is no obligation placed upon me to say anything more than "NAWW WAY, NOT TRUE".

It's becoming a massive problem in Europe, especially Italy, where people are having a well under replacement rate amount of children, and are living a very long time.

Both of those things are currently going on.Indeed. At some point, they may need to lower benefits, raise the retirement age, or increase immigration rates, but at the moment the system works because more people pay into it than are taking from it.

Do you understand that most of the new medical technology and prescription drugs in this world come from giant American corporations that spend billions of dollars on developing these things? And many of them came as the result of state universities doing a large part of the initial research.

I think you're making a claim that's based on hope, rather than facts. If I do a quick calculation based on my circumstances, I find that I contribute about $200,000 more than I receive..Over what period of time?

Ok, now that we all agree about the T-shirt thing. I would like to emphasisze my main point again.

Wealth is created and destroyed. Wealth is created when we use existing resources in new ways. Since such creativity is virtually limitless, wealth is too. Free trade creates wealth. Government agression, or the forced reallocation of goods within a marketplace, destroys free-trade and in turn limits wealth.

linky (http://www.ruwart.com/Healing/chap2.html)

If you disagree with me, please respond with a sound arguement. I will not respond to "no its not" or "you're just stupid." And I love to read your sources too, so post some sources.

who has a right to keep the planet and its resources to themselves?

well, obviously they share them with enough people to act as guards
from everybody else on the planet.

who has a right to keep the planet and its resources to themselves?


I do. Its called ownership.

Wealth is created and destroyed. Wealth is created when we use existing resources in new ways. Since such creativity is virtually limitless, wealth is too. Free trade creates wealth. Government agression, or the forced reallocation of goods within a marketplace, destroys free-trade and in turn limits wealth.

Governments can create wealth with the funds they receive from taxes. it can spend money on human capital investment, R&D, public infrastructure, and the like. Wealth transfers can be justified, other than on humanitarian grounds, on the grounds that they help create stakeholder citizens. People who think they have little or nothing to lose are more likely to commit crimes than others.

In any case governments are the ones who allocate and enforce property rights. They can technically do whatever the hell they want and still honoe property rights, because they are the ones who set them. Now normative property rights, what property rights there ought to be, is another issue.

Governments can create wealth with the funds they receive from taxes. it can spend money on human capital investment, R&D, public infrastructure, and the like. Wealth transfers can be justified, other than on humanitarian grounds, on the grounds that they help create stakeholder citizens. People who think they have little or nothing to lose are more likely to commit crimes than others.

In any case governments are the ones who allocate and enforce property rights. They can technically do whatever the hell they want and still honoe property rights, because they are the ones who set them. Now normative property rights, what property rights there ought to be, is another issue.

Yeah you kind of have a point about property rights, but you couldn't be more wrong about government spending. You see, public works mean public taxes. Taxes almost always do more harm to society than good. see below.

The following passage is straight out of my economics book "The Armchair Economist" by Steven Landsburg.

"Taxes almost always do more harm than good. To collect a dollar, you need to take someone's dollar; almost inevitably, in the process, you discourage somebody else from buying a shirt, or building a house, or working overtime. When policy does more harm than good-that is, when it creates deadweight losses-we call it inefficient and tend to deplore it."

Since few economists are against all taxation(they want armies, police, and such) I don't see why I should give much if any weight to Landsburg. Milton Friedman, while no friend of taxes, was willing to have taxes to pay for education vouchers, a negative income tax, and other public works.

Since few economists are against all taxation(they want armies, police, and such) I don't see why I should give much if any weight to Landsburg. Milton Friedman, while no friend of taxes, was willing to have taxes to pay for education vouchers, a negative income tax, and other public works.

I agree. Taxes are necessary. But the idea that the government can stimulate the economy with public spending is a fallacy. Public spending always hurts free trade. In the case of having fire departments, education and police, its worth it. But welfare and other government programs that try to redistribute wealth through taxes do so much damage to the economy that they hurt the people they intend to help.

I agree. Taxes are necessary. But the idea that the government can stimulate the economy with public spending is a fallacy. Public spending always hurts free trade. In the case of having fire departments, education and police, its worth it. But welfare and other government programs that try to redistribute wealth through taxes do so much damage to the economy that they hurt the people they intend to help.

Spending money to stimulate the economy and spending money to redistribute wealth are two different things. In any case, most public services redistribute wealth. Education voucher redistridutes wealth from nonparents to parents. Fire departments tranfer wealth from those who didn't need their services to those who do. Same with law enforcement.

Spending money to stimulate the economy and spending money to redistribute wealth are two different things. In any case, most public services redistribute wealth. Education voucher redistridutes wealth from nonparents to parents. Fire departments tranfer wealth from those who didn't need their services to those who do. Same with law enforcement.

hmm. Are we arguing anymore. Where do we disagree with each other? I forgot.

hmm. Are we arguing anymore. Where do we disagree with each other? I forgot.
You don't. Taxation is usually distortionary, meaning it goes from economically optimal uses to alternative uses, causing some deadweight loss. There are however situations where this may not be the case, because the taxpayers weren't spending their money in the correct way (ie some sort of market failure).

Question is whether the government is any more capable of finding the correct way and then putting the money there, but that might be another matter.

There is a whole bunch of economists working for the various tax departments trying to figure out tax laws that minimise distortion and other negative effects. If they had the final say, that would probably be okay - in effect politicians have the final say and they couldn't give a toss about economics.

welfare is the last place in hell, for several reasons, to cut government spending, which does need to be cut, AND taxes on the upper economic escilons raised.

two of those reasons: one is that the well being of every person, place and thing a government exerts its claim of soverignty over, is one of the only two ligetimate reasons there are for any government in any form 'under' ANY idiology, TO EXIST. (the other reason to exist for governments is physical infrastructure and keeping it harmonious with nature)

the other reason to only cut 'welfare' LAST, and only when doing so can't otherwise be avoided, is that for the most part, it is also the LEAST effective place to do so!

(by welfare here i'm meaning keeping people from starving, freezing, or beating each other over the head. by physical infrastructure i'm refering of course to trasnportation and the power and telecommunications grids. institutions like schools, librarys, parks and hospitals of course are elements of both infrastructure AND welfare)

the FIRST place to look to cut, are subsidies where none are really needed, but exist primarily if not only because of political influence, if not outright usurpation of control. such as the oil and automotive industries, and of course armaments and the military.

=^^=
.../\...

"Taxes almost always do more harm than good. To collect a dollar, you need to take someone's dollar; almost inevitably, in the process, you discourage somebody else from buying a shirt, or building a house, or working overtime. This asserts that a person buying a shirt, building a house, or working overtime is better than whatever it is the tax money is being used for. While this is probably the case, that isn't a problem with taxation itself.

I agree. Taxes are necessary.

Incorrect.

The only proper means of funding the proper activities of government is through seizure of the assets of convicted criminals.

two of those reasons: one is that the well being of every person, place and thing a government exerts its claim of soverignty over, is one of the only two ligetimate reasons there are for any government in any form 'under' ANY idiology, TO EXIST.
Incorrect.

In fact, that runs counter to what is actually the sole proper role of government: to protect the sanctity of the individual.

Welfare is slavery; therefore, it actively works against the sanctity of the individual. It is antithetical to the proper role of government.

I don't see any wealth created.

I see someone giving up some of their "wealth" for a t-shirt.

Then you're blind.

Wealth is simply the aggregate accumulation of utility.

And utility, in an economic sense, is PURELY SUBJECTIVE.

Economists use the word "utilon" to refer to an arbitrary, fundamental unit of utility. In the real world, utility is generally represented by the highest price a buyer is willing to pay for a good or service, or the lowest price a seller is willing to accept, but by referring to utility directly it lets us discuss in a more general sense.

Let's say I'm producing t-shirts, and you're in the market to buy one.

Now, since I'm producing t-shirts, I probably have a shitload of them, so the marginal utility of a t-shirt is close to nil. You, on the other hand, obviously don't have enough t-shirts to satisfy your desires; otherwise, you wouldn't be looking for one.

So we'll assign the utility of a t-shirt to me as one utilon, and to you as ten utilons.

Let's say that I then sell the t-shirt to you for, say, five dollars. Obviously, I get at least as much utility out of the five dollars I get from you than I do the t-shirt I give up; otherwise I wouldn't make the deal. Similarly, you get at least as much utility out of the t-shirt you get from me than you do the five dollars you give up; otherwise you wouldn't make the deal.

Let's say, just to make the math a bit simpler, that we both derive the same amount of utility from five dollars: five utilons.

Now, if I have the t-shirt and you have the five dollars, there is a total of six utilons of wealth in our example. However, since the subjective value you and I place on the utility of a t-shirt differs, after the exchange you have ten utilons of wealth and I have five, for a total of fifteen.

So simply through trade, we have increased the total amount of wealth in our scenario by nine utilons.

This is the key to understanding how trade creates wealth: wealth is purely a function of economic utility, and economic utility is almost entirely subjective.

Incorrect.

In fact, that runs counter to what is actually the sole proper role of government: to protect the sanctity of the individual.

Welfare is slavery; therefore, it actively works against the sanctity of the individual. It is antithetical to the proper role of government.

Just a quick question to determine how in touch with the world you are:

How much money do you (or your parents, if you still live with them) make and where do you live?

Furthermore, you're assertion that welfare is slavery is a non sequitor. There is no in between there. You need to work a bit harder if you are going to make that claim.

Just a quick question to determine how in touch with the world you are:

How much money do you (or your parents, if you still live with them) make and where do you live?
Why?

Why is it relevant?

WHY IS IT ANY OF YOUR BUSINESS?

When objective moral principle is at stake, practical considerations are meaningless.

Furthermore, you're assertion that welfare is slavery is a non sequitor. There is no in between there. You need to work a bit harder if you are going to make that claim.

Slavery is when one individual is compelled to act for the sake of another. With welfare, my wealth is taken from me at gunpoint to give to another; therefore I am being compelled to act for his sake.

Slavery is when one individual is compelled to act for the sake of another. With welfare, my wealth is taken from me at gunpoint to give to another; therefore I am being compelled to act for his sake.You aren't compelled at gunpoint to accumulate wealth. You accumulate wealth knowing that you will be taxed. Therefore, you are not compelled.

Why?

Why is it relevant?

WHY IS IT ANY OF YOUR BUSINESS?

When objective moral principle is at stake, practical considerations are meaningless.

This is relevant because it is all part and partial to how you view the world. You wouldn't have very likely become an Objectivist if you grew up in a starkly different environment. It all goes back to the idea that people are subjective beings, and shouldn't really be making vague formulations about objective truth because no human can glimpse that objective truth other than through the lens of their own subjectivity.

For instance, had I not grown up in a poor working class family, I most likely wouldn't have become an anarchist.

Slavery is when one individual is compelled to act for the sake of another. With welfare, my wealth is taken from me at gunpoint to give to another; therefore I am being compelled to act for his sake.

This is what I'm talking about. If you make a claim in a debate, you need to go to this length and explain why you arrived at that claim, or else people will just dismiss you.

This is relevant because it is all part and partial to how you view the world. You wouldn't have very likely become an Objectivist if you grew up in a starkly different environment. It all goes back to the idea that people are subjective beings, and shouldn't really be making vague formulations about objective truth because no human can glimpse that objective truth other than through the lens of their own subjectivity.

For instance, had I not grown up in a poor working class family, I most likely wouldn't have become an anarchist.

Background is irrelevant. All that matters is the choice to be intellectually honest. I made that choice years ago; that is the only fact about me that is relevant to how I came to think as I do.

But if you must know...Dad was a police officer, later started digging graves after his position was cut. Mom was the receptionist at a local insurance agent's office. I grew up in a small town in Southwest Indiana; I earned a full scholarship to Purdue University, so I went there for two years until I decided that I didn't want to be an engineer (originally intended to be a pilot, but for medical reasons I couldn't).

So I left, and I started working full-time at a local automotive plant (non-union, thankfully...I'd shoot myself before I joined the UAW). Right now I'm living in a trailer park, living as Spartan a life as possible and saving my money so I'll be able to support myself when I return to school.

My only luxuries: two books a month, two CDs a month, Internet access, and a subscription to The Economist. Other than that, just bare essentials.

You happy?

Background is irrelevant. All that matters is the choice to be intellectually honest. I made that choice years ago; that is the only fact about me that is relevant to how I came to think as I do.

But if you must know...Dad was a police officer, later started digging graves after his position was cut. Mom was the receptionist at a local insurance agent's office. I grew up in a small town in Southwest Indiana; I earned a full scholarship to Purdue University, so I went there for two years until I decided that I didn't want to be an engineer (originally intended to be a pilot, but for medical reasons I couldn't).

So I left, and I started working full-time at a local automotive plant (non-union, thankfully...I'd shoot myself before I joined the UAW). Right now I'm living in a trailer park, living as Spartan a life as possible and saving my money so I'll be able to support myself when I return to school.

My only luxuries: two books a month, two CDs a month, Internet access, and a subscription to The Economist. Other than that, just bare essentials.

You happy?

Thank you. Believe it or not, it actually helps people understand each other if they know each other's background, since it gives us clues as to where you are coming from, and the experiences that shape our understanding.

Incorrect.

The only proper means of funding the proper activities of government is through seizure of the assets of convicted criminals.

Few convicted criminals have any assets to speak of. How much do you think the average murderer is worth?

Plus, such a system creates an incentive for government to create more and more criminal offenses so it can fund its own activities.

There is nothing inherently wrong with income taxes, if they are consensually agreed upon by the people of a country. One of the problems with this, though, is that you tend to end up with a system lime in the US where something like 5% of the people pay 50+% of the taxes, and a decent percentage pay no taxes.

I wouldn't be opposed to a system where a person's vote is weighted based on the taxes they pay. If you take out more from the treasury than you pay in, then you shouldn't get to vote.

I wouldn't be opposed to a system where a person's vote is weighted based on the taxes they pay. If you take out more from the treasury than you pay in, then you shouldn't get to vote.

That's called a plutocracy. If you want a good reason why that's a bad idea, look no further than the bananna republics of the Third World.

So, we have to choose between Charlie Brown's kleptocracy "seizing" the assets of "criminals" or rule by wealth. I'd frankly rather not...

Incorrect.

The only proper means of funding the proper activities of government is through seizure of the assets of convicted criminals.

Why is that proper?

That's called a plutocracy. If you want a good reason why that's a bad idea, look no further than the bananna republics of the Third World.

So, we have to choose between Charlie Brown's kleptocracy "seizing" the assets of "criminals" or rule by wealth. I'd frankly rather not...

Fine, no need to weigh the votes, then. Simply do not allow anyone to vote if they receive more from the treasury than they pay in.

The idea is that people who have a vested interest in receiving more government funds should not be allowed to vote, since they will presumably vote to increase their cut of the government pie. Note that this would serve to prevent government workers, people in the military, many senior citizens and even tax-dodging rich people from voting.

You aren't compelled at gunpoint to accumulate wealth. You accumulate wealth knowing that you will be taxed. Therefore, you are not compelled.

If you continue breathing I am going to punch you.

Libertarians - you are wankers, with no kind of perspective. Give up.

Not all libertarians are wankers. However there are a large number of people who call themselves libertarians (and have little idea of the concept) that are indeed wankers.

hmm. Are we arguing anymore. Where do we disagree with each other? I forgot.

The thing being why are for you government redistribution of resources for things like education, law enforcement, ect but against redistribution in the case of welfare?

If you continue breathing I am going to punch you.Breathing isn't something that a person can choose to not do (for long). Earning an income is.

Breathing isn't something that a person can choose to not do (for long). Earning an income is.

Well, earning an income isn't something that a person can choose to abstain for an extended period of time.

Nevertheless, whether it is something that one can choose is irrelevant.

If you cross the street I am going to run over you with a car. If you don't turn around I am justified because you had it coming, right?

Well, earning an income isn't something that a person can choose to abstain for an extended period of time.Homeless people manage okay.

Nevertheless, whether it is something that one can choose is irrelevant.

If you cross the street I am going to run over you with a car. If you don't turn around I am justified because you had it coming, right?It depends on who 'you' are. (Assuming, of course, that this is morally equivalent to taxation.)

It can, and it should. The welfare state is naught but a band-aid, its apparent necessity a symptom of the true underlying disease.

But, the problem is that most of those who rail against the welfare state (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism) do so for reasons different than mine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism) (and, I think, yours), in that they want simply to tear off the bandage but let the actual wound continue to fester. That is not a solution to the problem.

And at any rate, the amount of wealth being "stolen" from the people to fund the welfare state is a drop in the ocean compared to that which is being "stolen" from the people to fund the military-industrial hegemony. As such, one would expect the later to attain a certain level of precedence.

Of course, moral considerations augment the precedence. If my resources are going to be "stolen," I prefer they be "stolen" in order to provide food, medicine, or other goods to people that need them. But with the military-industrial hegemony, not only am I the victim of "theft," but then my resources are being used to kill people I have never met and have no issue with.

People would not feel the welfare state necessary if people actually did take care of each other. Not that I defend the welfare state; rather, I attack the ultra-individualist and Darwinian norms at the heart of contemporary capitalism, norms which produce a society full of people unwilling to care for each other voluntarily, thereby producing the feeling in others that force is necessary in order to make them care. The way I see it, I lose two ways: 1) a sociopathic society (capitalism), and 2) a sociopathic state in response (the welfare state).

I would love to abolish the welfare state. But it isn't going to happen until the capitalist norms which fuel its existence are abolished first.



An economic system that produces and tolerates starvation in the first place, making the welfare state necessary, is what's insulting to human dignity.



The problem is that you are one person. Until the norms of society are changed in such a fashion as I describe above, voluntary collective action will be impossible. Until those norms are changed, people will find appeals to your personal morality entirely unsatisfactory and irrelevant.


You make a lot of sense. I don't think a single person has replied to you :(

Homeless people manage okay.

I will remember you said that.

It depends on who 'you' are. (Assuming, of course, that this is morally equivalent to taxation.)

Why does it matter on who I am?

A lot. A really, really lot.

Here's a NYTimes article on the subject:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/10/business/10religious.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

A few quotes from that article:

"There are no national figures on how much money these tax breaks save religious organizations and on how much extra cost is shifted to other citizens. But a typical state, Colorado, reported that religious real estate valued at more than $1.1 billion was exempt from local property taxes there last year. Nationally, tax-exempt financing for religious organizations totaled at least $20 billion during the decade that ended last year."

"Congressional budget records show that just the income tax breaks uniquely available for ministers, rabbis and other clergy members cost taxpayers just under $500 million a year."

"In June, for example, the Florida Legislature passed, and Gov. Jeb Bush signed, a law that ended a five-year effort by Orange County tax authorities in Orlando to collect about $300,000 a year in property taxes from Holy Land Experience, a biblical museum and theme park that had sought exemption as a religious ministry but had been repeatedly turned down by the county."


holy shit

Maybe we should all just try declare ourselves religious entities to get out of paying taxes.

I will remember you said that.It's really the other side of the argument of why should a person seek employment, is it not? After all, since people need to work to live, there's no reason why they shouldn't work for someone else.

Why does it matter on who I am?It would deal with the creation of rights, and how they are created. If I have the right to bodily autonomy (not being hit by the car) only so far as I do not cross the street, it is a different situation than one where I have bodily autonomy on both sides of the street.

Few convicted criminals have any assets to speak of. How much do you think the average murderer is worth?
Not relevant. If the government is not able to obtain enough funds to sustain its legitimate operations, so be it. It doesn't matter.

Plus, such a system creates an incentive for government to create more and more criminal offenses so it can fund its own activities.
That's why the populace is armed.


There is nothing inherently wrong with income taxes, if they are consensually agreed upon by the people of a country.
If every single individual consents, sure--but then it can hardly be called a "tax", either.

But why should other people get to decide what to do with my money just because they're part of the majority?

Why is that proper?

Because the criminals are the ones whose actions necessitate government in the first place, so they should pay for it.

But why should other people get to decide what to do with my money just because they're part of the majority?

Why do other people get to decide that I'm not allowed to stab you in the face because they're part of the majority?

Why do other people get to decide that I'm not allowed to stab you in the face because they're part of the majority?

Snap!

Because the criminals are the ones whose actions necessitate government in the first place, so they should pay for it.

They didn't ask for the government to intervene in much the same way corporations don't ask for the government to regulate them.

Snap!

Unfortunately, my question is flawed as I assume the majority would be perfectly okay with linus and lucy being stabbed in the face.

It's really the other side of the argument of why should a person seek employment, is it not? After all, since people need to work to live, there's no reason why they shouldn't work for someone else.

I am not following you.

It would deal with the creation of rights, and how they are created. If I have the right to bodily autonomy (not being hit by the car) only so far as I do not cross the street, it is a different situation than one where I have bodily autonomy on both sides of the street.

Morality is the basis of rights not vice versa. The morality of my action does not rest on who I am or what rights I have.

If I purposefully hit you with a car, then I have done wrong. Would you agree with this statement?

Because the criminals are the ones whose actions necessitate government in the first place, so they should pay for it.

Why do criminals necessitate government?

Why is government the rightful entity to resolve these matters and seize property?

Snap!

crackle, pop

To get back to the topic, the government is taking way too much of my money for things I don't need. For some reason, the only two political parties in this country that enjoy large amounts of support are both big-government, spend more money on things it shouldn't parties. Important things like space sciences get less and less of an ever increasing budget. Why should I pay to support people that don't have jobs at the same time that fast food restaurants all over the country have had help wanted signs up for years at a time. If your pride is too much to accept an honest job, then it is too much to accept a dollar of charity from me. I support three people right now, not including what I give to charity. I do honest work and don't cause problems for this country. I would like a government that accepts that and allows me to live my life without trying to increase control over me at every turn.

I am not following you.Typically when a communist says talks about poor working conditions, the capitalist will say something akin to "you can always work somewhere else". When the communist says working conditions are poor everywhere, the capitalist typically says "doesn't matter, you still have a choice of where to work." This is the other side of that coin. It doesn't matter that the government taxes people, because they have the choice of not earning an income.

Morality is the basis of rights not vice versa. The morality of my action does not rest on who I am or what rights I have.

If I purposefully hit you with a car, then I have done wrong. Would you agree with this statement?Ah, I must have misunderstood you earlier. Yes.
Is taxation morally equivalent to hitting someone with a car?

Why should I pay to support people that don't have jobs at the same time that fast food restaurants all over the country have had help wanted signs up for years at a time. If your pride is too much to accept an honest job, then it is too much to accept a dollar of charity from me. I very much doubt it's the idea of accepting a job, moreso the paltry wages said jobs pay.

But, can you explain to me how someone can have too much pride to take an honest job, but they don't have enough to want to avoid being merely a burden on others?

But, can you explain to me how someone can have too much pride to take an honest job, but they don't have enough to want to avoid being merely a burden on others?Again, it's more that it's not a useful allocation of time to work for so little in such a job, not that the person is particularly prideful...though I suppose the latter could be the case also.

To get back to the topic, the government is taking way too much of my money for things I don't need. For some reason, the only two political parties in this country that enjoy large amounts of support are both big-government, spend more money on things it shouldn't parties. Important things like space sciences get less and less of an ever increasing budget. Why should I pay to support people that don't have jobs at the same time that fast food restaurants all over the country have had help wanted signs up for years at a time. If your pride is too much to accept an honest job, then it is too much to accept a dollar of charity from me. I support three people right now, not including what I give to charity. I do honest work and don't cause problems for this country. I would like a government that accepts that and allows me to live my life without trying to increase control over me at every turn.

IMPORTANT THINGS LIKE SPACE?

It's more important to send rockets into space then it is to make sure children are properly fed and clothed? Loving them priorities. Let me throw a few more at you: water or scarves? limbs or starbucks coffee? having eyes vs having a basketball?

IMPORTANT THINGS LIKE SPACE?

It's more important to send rockets into space then it is to make sure children are properly fed and clothed? Loving them priorities. Let me throw a few more at you: water or scarves? limbs or starbucks coffee? having eyes vs having a basketball?


Just goes to show that you don't understand the role space assets play in our lives and making things better for ALL of us. The US weather service estimated savings of $100,000 a day as the difference between sending aircraft to track weather and launching satellites to do so. Those same weather satellites that give us warning of severe storms, blizzards, hurricanes, etc. America has saved millions of dollars by utilizing communications satellites instead of ground-based alternatives. All those lives saved....all those dollars saved for a tiny fraction of the money that we invest in giving free meals to violent felons and rewarding people for being too lazy or having too much 'pride' to accept an honest job at a fast food joint

To get back to the topic, the government is taking way too much of my money for things I don't need. For some reason, the only two political parties in this country that enjoy large amounts of support are both big-government, spend more money on things it shouldn't parties. Important things like space sciences get less and less of an ever increasing budget. Why should I pay to support people that don't have jobs at the same time that fast food restaurants all over the country have had help wanted signs up for years at a time. If your pride is too much to accept an honest job, then it is too much to accept a dollar of charity from me. I support three people right now, not including what I give to charity. I do honest work and don't cause problems for this country. I would like a government that accepts that and allows me to live my life without trying to increase control over me at every turn.

I like you, wanna be friends?

Just goes to show that you don't understand the role space assets play in our lives and making things better for ALL of us. The US weather service estimated savings of $100,000 a day as the difference between sending aircraft to track weather and launching satellites to do so. Those same weather satellites that give us warning of severe storms, blizzards, hurricanes, etc. America has saved millions of dollars by utilizing communications satellites instead of ground-based alternatives. All those lives saved....all those dollars saved for a tiny fraction of the money that we invest in giving free meals to violent felons and rewarding people for being too lazy or having too much 'pride' to accept an honest job at a fast food joint

If it saves money why does it need more money?

don't you people know from politics 101?

the poor are all lazy jerks and the rich are all lazy, privileged jerks who exploit the poor.

anyone against increased government welfare hates the poor
anyone against reduced government welfare is a communist asshole

it's just that simple!

If it saves money why does it need more money?


Well, with the simple concept that in order to be saving money by investing it in space....you actually have to spend the money on space.

Just goes to show that you don't understand the role space assets play in our lives and making things better for ALL of us. The US weather service estimated savings of $100,000 a day as the difference between sending aircraft to track weather and launching satellites to do so. Those same weather satellites that give us warning of severe storms, blizzards, hurricanes, etc. America has saved millions of dollars by utilizing communications satellites instead of ground-based alternatives. All those lives saved....all those dollars saved for a tiny fraction of the money that we invest in giving free meals to violent felons and rewarding people for being too lazy or having too much 'pride' to accept an honest job at a fast food joint

yeah those people who don't work are just lazy fucks...and we all know how eager fast food joints are to hire older workers over the teenagers who will accept lower pay, right?

fuck, those lazy assholes could be doing TONS of other jobs that bring in minimal pay that will be an ample amount of cash to pay for food and shelter and luxuries (you know, the shit that actually makes life worth living)!

yeah those people who don't work are just lazy fucks...and we all know how eager fast food joints are to hire older workers over the teenagers who will accept lower pay, right?

fuck, those lazy assholes could be doing TONS of other jobs that bring in minimal pay that will be an ample amount of cash to pay for food and shelter and luxuries (you know, the shit that actually makes life worth living)!


Yes, a large number of them ARE lazy. It's hard to find other reasons that jobs sit unfilled while there are perfectly healthy people collecting a check for someone else's money. I'm sorry that having to do actual hard work up on a roof for $12.50 an hour and being unable to afford that private plane you want makes life not worth living......Oh wait a minute....they are still living.....on someone else's dime.

Well, with the simple concept that in order to be saving money by investing it in space....you actually have to spend the money on space.

Which works logically if you plan financially for the next three months but governments look further ahead than that. It's called budgeting.

Yes, a large number of them ARE lazy. It's hard to find other reasons that jobs sit unfilled while there are perfectly healthy people collecting a check for someone else's money. I'm sorry that having to do actual hard work up on a roof for $12.50 an hour and being unable to afford that private plane you want makes life not worth living......Oh wait a minute....they are still living.....on someone else's dime.

I don't think you appreciate firstly how little people get from welfare and secondly that the children of those who don't work don't have a choice whether their parents work or not but they do have to live on the money they may or may not bring in.

I don't think you appreciate firstly how little people get from welfare and secondly that the children of those who don't work don't have a choice whether their parents work or not but they do have to live on the money they may or may not bring in.


The solution isn't that hard. If someone is perfectly capable of working and chooses not to do so....that's child neglect. Let the children be raised by someone that cares enough about them to work in order to feed them.

Typically when a communist says talks about poor working conditions, the capitalist will say something akin to "you can always work somewhere else". When the communist says working conditions are poor everywhere, the capitalist typically says "doesn't matter, you still have a choice of where to work." This is the other side of that coin. It doesn't matter that the government taxes people, because they have the choice of not earning an income.

The principle difference is the matter of force involved. The libertarian would say that government is using force to impose a positive obligation, while the employer is instituting no force by withholding his property until a explicit or implicit contract of employment is entered.

You know that I tend more towards usufruct property and collective ownership than the typical libertarian (I am even very skeptical of any justification of force concerning natural resources), and imagine a libertarian society less like a typical libertarian and more like Samuel Konkin:


In an agorist society, division of labor and self-respect of each worker-capitalist-entrepreneur will probably eliminate the traditional business organization - especially the corporate hierarchy, an imitation of the State and not the Market. Most companies will be associations of independent contractors, consultants, and other companies. Many may be just one entrepreneur and all his services, computers, suppliers and customers. This mode of operation is already around and growing in the freer segments of Western economies.

Only the most vulgar libertarians would not be concerned with universally poor working conditions and would point to the state complicity involved in bringing about these conditions.

Ah, I must have misunderstood you earlier. Yes.
Is taxation morally equivalent to hitting someone with a car?

It is wrong. As bad as pedestriancide? I don't know.

Why does it matter? If it is wrong, it is wrong, no matter if I could avoid it by changing my non aggressive behavior.

Force isn't legitimized when it becomes coercion and duress.


EDIT: JB, you have long held a system which I view as horrendously authoritarian and statist as the best alternative to capitalism. Explore these blogs and see if they might convince you of a different way:

Brad Spangler: http://www.bradspangler.com/blog/
Sheldon Richman: http://sheldonfreeassociation.blogspot.com/
Kevin Carson: http://mutualist.blogspot.com/
Wally Conger: http://wconger.blogspot.com/
Roderick Long: http://praxeology.net/blog/

The solution isn't that hard. If someone is perfectly capable of working and chooses not to do so....that's child neglect. Let the children be raised by someone that cares enough about them to work in order to feed them.

You do realise that not everyone can get a job all the time?

You do realise that not everyone can get a job all the time?


That is why we have government assistance.....but many people with no job don't have any good reason for not having a job. I feel that it is wrong to take money from people that actually work to pay for people that just don't feel like it.

That is why we have government assistance.....but many people with no job don't have any good reason for not having a job. I feel that it is wrong to take money from people that actually work to pay for people that just don't feel like it.

Well that's not the problem with welfare, that's the problem with how you decide how to distribute that welfare.

Well that's not the problem with welfare, that's the problem with how you decide how to distribute that welfare.


welfare IS the taking and distribution of money.

The government is spending WAY to much!Our government is knee-deep in debt and yet they still insist on welfare "think of the children!"they say.But they dontthink about that sizable chunk(social security) they take from the average person,claiming they will give it back.Yeah they take 15%(7.5%from you,7.5%from your employer)for your retirement and give back 2%.The government acts like we cant take care of ourselves.And then theres welfare,polititions say its for the poor,as if no one else donated to the poor.It is a huge part of government spending when private charities are far more effective!So they take from us and give to the poor.How charming,except it teaches people to rely on the government.I say the government has no right to do any of this(and if you're wondering,yes I am a libertarian)

A libertarian should always use individualist arguments rather than your more utilitarian points for a topic like this. There's nothing wrong with helping out poor people, but it is a violation of freedom to have money forcefully taken from a person to give to the poor.

Just goes to show that you don't understand the role space assets play in our lives and making things better for ALL of us. The US weather service estimated savings of $100,000 a day as the difference between sending aircraft to track weather and launching satellites to do so. Those same weather satellites that give us warning of severe storms, blizzards, hurricanes, etc. America has saved millions of dollars by utilizing communications satellites instead of ground-based alternatives. All those lives saved....all those dollars saved for a tiny fraction of the money that we invest in giving free meals to violent felons and rewarding people for being too lazy or having too much 'pride' to accept an honest job at a fast food joint

So it's morally justifiable to force me to pay for a space project but not for the collective welfare of the poor? What exactly is the difference?

So it's morally justifiable to force me to pay for a space project but not for the collective welfare of the poor? What exactly is the difference?


I never said it was. But as long as big-government types want to take from others, then it should at least go to something more useful than it is now.

Libertarianism: Making EVERYTHING somebody elses problem for 150 years!!!


I'd love to see a pure libertarian state filled with the sort of rabid proponents of it that I see here just to watch the violent implosion during an economic downturn when those citizens who couldn't find work got told to f*ck off and ask charity of someone else by every single citizen who was fortunate enough to have a job during the crisis period.

The principle difference is the matter of force involved. The libertarian would say that government is using force to impose a positive obligation, while the employer is instituting no force by withholding his property until a explicit or implicit contract of employment is entered.But the use of force is freely agreed to.
I can't see most libertarians having a problem with the German man who agreed to be cannibalized by the other man.

You know that I tend more towards usufruct property and collective ownership than the typical libertarian (I am even very skeptical of any justification of force concerning natural resources), and imagine a libertarian society less like a typical libertarian and more like Samuel Konkin:Yes, in your case this is true, however I made the original argument in a reply to Linus and Lucy. I doubt I would've started that train had I been replying to you in the beginning.

Only the most vulgar libertarians would not be concerned with universally poor working conditions and would point to the state complicity involved in bringing about these conditions.They might take umbrage with the state intervention that brought about those conditions...however, if those conditions could only be eliminated with some sort of force, would a libertarian support the elimination of those conditions?

It is wrong. As bad as pedestriancide? I don't know.

Why does it matter? If it is wrong, it is wrong, no matter if I could avoid it by changing my non aggressive behavior.

Force isn't legitimized when it becomes coercion and duress.True, but force isn't inherently illegitimate either.

EDIT: JB, you have long held a system which I view as horrendously authoritarian and statist as the best alternative to capitalism. Explore these blogs and see if they might convince you of a different way:

Brad Spangler: http://www.bradspangler.com/blog/
Sheldon Richman: http://sheldonfreeassociation.blogspot.com/
Kevin Carson: http://mutualist.blogspot.com/
Wally Conger: http://wconger.blogspot.com/
Roderick Long: http://praxeology.net/blog/All right, on the basis of your recommendation.

It's interesting how there's hostility for domestic welfare while the majority of US people had no qualms about dishing up to 1.9 trillion dollars (http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN2450753720071024?pageNumber=2) for the "welfare" of Iraqi people.

That's roughly a 75,000$ welfare check per Iraqi citizen (or 5,000$ per American citizen).

Now what did eg. Giuliani say about 5,000$ per American child or Bush about free health insurances for children? :D

I also do wonder how much welfare per American citizen per annum would, for example, halving the US military budget buy? 500$? 1,000$?

Most of Africa has a laissez-fair policy. Africa is also, as I'm sure you will note, a complete shithole.

Very few African countries have laissez faire economic policies. The vast majority have an ugly hybrid of crony capitalism and state socialism, with miles and miles of bureaucratic red tape and oodles of corruption thrown in. Many African countries, especially the poorer ones, rank very low on the Index of Economic Freedom and very high (i.e., high levels of corruption) on Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index. In many African countries, "privatization" means handing over state enterprises to toadies of the regime, meaning that absolutely nothing changes: The government still has the economy in the palm of its hand, and the state and its flunkies continue to milk the economy like a cow and skim off as much money as they can, while leaving the ordinary masses destitute. You can also see that the African countries that have higher degrees of economic freedom (Botswana and South Africa come to mind) tend to do much better economically than other African countries.

welfare IS the taking and distribution of money.

Jesus christ. HOW you distribute that money. There is a difference between doing something and how you do something.

but it is a violation of freedom to have money forcefully taken from a person to give to the poor.

How free do you think someone denied education is?

How free do you think someone denied education is?

Congratulations; you have just demonstrated that you have no clue what the word "freedom" means.

this thread needs comics that are on subject:

http://simulatedcomicproduct.com/comics/2005-11-06-FMM.png

I found it amusing and bring up many points (unintentionally I guess)

You make a lot of sense. I don't think a single person has replied to you :(

The solution to the problem would essentially bring to an end the two largest political (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism) religions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism) in the history of humanity.

If these political religions actually solved the problem themselves, as they claim they can, they would cease to have a purpose and would no longer need to exist. Naturally, these political religions have far too much at stake for any of that.

Thus, the solution goes ignored.

The solution to the problem would essentially bring to an end the two largest political (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism) religions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism) in the history of humanity.

If these political religions actually solved the problem themselves, as they claim they can, they would cease to have a purpose and would no longer need to exist. Naturally, these political religions have far too much at stake for any of that.

Thus, the solution goes ignored.

How would we get from here, the problem, to the solution?

Congratulations; you have just demonstrated that you have no clue what the word "freedom" means.

Congratulations you have just demonstrated your ignorance of the conpects of "positive" and "substantive" freedoms as opposed to "negative" and "formal" freedoms.

Good job! :rolleyes:

How would we get from here, the problem, to the solution?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=13153795#post13153795

Of course, I would be a liar if I were to claim that I knew of a specific plan, ideology, or candidate to vote for which best represents the solution to the problem.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=13153795#post13153795

Of course, I would be a liar if I were to claim that I knew of a specific plan, ideology, or candidate to vote for which best represents the solution to the problem.

Norms that create a society where individuals take care of each other is pretty vague.

If these political religions actually solved the problem themselves, as they claim they can, they would cease to have a purpose and would no longer need to exist. Naturally, these political religions have far too much at stake for any of that.

Capitalism, by definition, solves the only problem that matters, the only problem that is of any legitimate import in matters of social organization.

That problem is how best to protect the sanctity of the individual and his sacred rights.

That is the only relevant concern; nothing else matters.

Norms that create a society where individuals take care of each other is pretty vague.

Indeed. One can see why I cannot point out a particular plan, ideology, or candidate for support. Or, at least, I have yet to find an ideology that doesn't confuse "taking care of myself" with "take care of each other."

Congratulations; you have just demonstrated that you have no clue what the word "freedom" means.

Congratulations; you're a pompous ass!

And the only thing worse than a pompous ass is the massively wrong pompous ass.

If that seems unconstructive: well, that's probably because it is. There's no point trying to engage in a debate with somebody whose favourite response is the unelaborated word "incorrect". We see above a slighly wordier version of the same response but the basic meaning remains unchanged.

Linus and Lucy's main position seems to be that as he is right then anyone arguing otherwise must, by definition, be wrong and with these state of affairs being so self-evident it stands to reasons that engaging in debate is a waste of time that could be better spent at hos job that wouldn't pay the bills if it weren't for the government.

Capitalism, by definition, solves the only problem that matters[: ...]how best to protect the sanctity of the individual and his sacred rights.


Tell me, do these individual sacred rights include dying in the gutter when other free individuals choose to not trade with me? In the state of capitalism, I am free to act only to the extent that I can afford to trade; if I cannot afford to trade, my freedom to act, as supposedly guaranteed by my individual and sacred rights, has no practical value.

Of course, in the state of socialism, I face exactly the same problem, only the currency that limits my freedom is the will of the masses, in stead of gold and silver.

Surely one can see why neither model impresses me much.

By the way, I would appreciate a response to this post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13153614&postcount=43); I think it contains a valid objection to the post to which it replies.

Originally Posted by Linus and Lucy
But why should other people get to decide what to do with my money just because they're part of the majority?
----------------------

Why do other people get to decide that I'm not allowed to stab you in the face because they're part of the majority?

I would appreciate a response to this btw

Erm, yes it is.

It's a universal truth that you're a bunch of twats. Using your own Super Logic, this cannot be defeated.

Can I quote the latter statement in my sig?

Tell me, do these individual sacred rights include dying in the gutter when other free individuals choose to not trade with me?
As long as you have the permission of whoever owns the gutter to be there.

In the state of capitalism, I am free to act only to the extent that I can afford to trade;
Which is as it should be; one is not entitled to produce more than he can consume.

if I cannot afford to trade, my freedom to act, as supposedly guaranteed by my individual and sacred rights, has no practical value.
It has the only value that matters--moral value.

Surely one can see why neither model impresses me much.
No, I can't. I can't understand why anyone would put base pragmatic concerns over objective moral principle.

By the way, I would appreciate a response to this post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13153614&postcount=43); I think it contains a valid objection to the post to which it replies.

I already did.

They didn't ask for the government to intervene in much the same way corporations don't ask for the government to regulate them.

Since criminals have violated the rights of others, their consent is no longer necessary or relevant.

Why do criminals necessitate government?
Because the proper role of government is to punish criminals. No criminals, no need for government.

Why is government the rightful entity to resolve these matters and seize property?

Pretty much by definition, any organization that engages in those activities is a government.

Why do other people get to decide that I'm not allowed to stab you in the face because they're part of the majority?

This post conveys a horrific ignorance about what precisely it is that makes assault evil.

It is not illegitimate simply because the "majority" said so. Its illegitimacy is inherent in the act, and would still be so (and would therefore be a violation of individual rights, and thus those who engage in it deserving of punishment) even if EVERYONE thought it was ok.

Welfare, effectively, serves as a method of empowerment to those lower income communities who are unable to, essentially, afford the sort of opportunities which are available to upper-class communities with a large amount of money. However, it is clear that welfare is no longer being used to empower in the United States government, but rather as a way to appeal to the desires of the people in order to get their votes. Needless to say, people are inclined to vote in favor of something that benefits them directly, rather than some grand ideal. Welfare needs to be removed from the United States doctrine and instead replaced with a new public works program - something that has been proven to be effective as a method of giving work to those who have none, allowing them some amount of money with which to live off of, while encouraging them to seek new and better jobs.

This way, the country gets both labor and supports the poor.

This post conveys a horrific ignorance about what precisely it is that makes assault evil.

It is not illegitimate simply because the "majority" said so. Its illegitimacy is inherent in the act, and would still be so (and would therefore be a violation of individual rights, and thus those who engage in it deserving of punishment) even if EVERYONE thought it was ok.

Beyond you stating that it's 'inherent' what makes it 'inherent'?

Since criminals have violated the rights of others, their consent is no longer necessary or relevant.

Says you. Stating something doesn't make it so.

You have not logically shown that violating the 'rights' of others makes their consent no longer necessary. You have merely stated it.

As long as you have the permission of whoever owns the gutter to be there.


Yes, of course. I wouldn't want my dying to inconvenience anyone. :)

But then, if aid had been rendered to me, I might not end up trespassing so. An initial helping hand might have provided what I needed to eventually acquire and die on my own land.


Which is as it should be; one is not entitled to produce more than he can consume.


Surely one means "one is not entitled to consume more than he can produce." But either way, I ask for no such thing. All I ask for is an equal chance to be come a self-sufficient individual. But in the state of capitalism, exclusive ownership and control means that my ability to acquire what I need to become a self-sufficient individual is subject to the whim of others. Thus, my individual sacred rights (including being a self-sufficient individual) are placed under the direct control of others.

I am hardly free.


I can't understand why anyone would put base pragmatic concerns over objective moral principle.


It's because "objective moral principle" doesn't fill space in my stomach. Food and drink, necessary for my survival, and thus for my ability to exercise my liberty as a self-sufficient individual, which can be denied me by the whim of others, thus subordinating my liberty to the whim of others...does.




I already did.

I already went through the thread, and found no direct responses to my post. Perhaps one could provide a link?

This post conveys a horrific ignorance about what precisely it is that makes assault evil.

It is not illegitimate simply because the "majority" said so. Its illegitimacy is inherent in the act, and would still be so (and would therefore be a violation of individual rights, and thus those who engage in it deserving of punishment) even if EVERYONE thought it was ok.

Why?

Because the proper role of government is to punish criminals. No criminals, no need for government.

Why is that?

Pretty much by definition, any organization that engages in those activities is a government.

Explain.

But the use of force is freely agreed to.

No it is not.

They might take umbrage with the state intervention that brought about those conditions...however, if those conditions could only be eliminated with some sort of force, would a libertarian support the elimination of those conditions?

It depends very much on the situation and the libertarian.

True, but force isn't inherently illegitimate either.

Yes.

No it is not.Sure it is. People agree to work. Because of this agreement, they pay income tax.

It depends very much on the situation and the libertarian.Certainly, they aren't some sort of hive mind. However, it seems to me that most libertarians are more worried about the exascerbation of those conditions via government intervention than the conditions themselves.

Yes.I assume this means you agree with me on this point?

Sure it is. People agree to work. Because of this agreement, they pay income tax.

That's nonsense.

Certainly, they aren't some sort of hive mind. However, it seems to me that most libertarians are more worried about the exascerbation of those conditions via government intervention than the conditions themselves.

Why is that bad?

I assume this means you agree with me on this point?

I don't know what your argument is.

Do you agree with me?

That's nonsense.Are you channeling BAAWA now? :p

Why is that bad?If the conditions themselves aren't bad then why be concerned that they are worsened by government intervention?

I don't know what your argument is.

Do you agree with me?Now you're just being silly.

Are you channeling BAAWA now? :p

No, I just can't make any sense of your position on this.

If the conditions themselves aren't bad then why be concerned that they are worsened by government intervention?

The libertarian would argue that if those conditions do exist without force and coercion, then they are not bad. It is the coercion and force that is immoral, not the conditions themselves.

What I meant by my statement is that libertarians will see these conditions and point to government, showing that these conditions will be eliminated with the elimination of statist coercion.

It is generally the anarchist who holds that coercion is the root of these problems and that with the elimination of the state and violent monopoly, we can more peacefully, freely, and/or happily organize our own society. The statist, on the other hand, sees these conditions, states that they are the product of coercion and then argues that we need further statist coercion.

That is why I tend to lump you in with the statists.

Now you're just being silly.

I think you are.

You tried to justify taxation on a sort of contractarian basis, stating that if one works knowing that one will be taxed, one agrees to be taxed.

I argued that this was not true: one person's violent imposition upon another is not consensual because the other acted in some way predetermined by the aggressor to necessitate imposition. To say it does merely pushes the necessary consent back to an earlier point in time, namely to when it was determined that said action warranted imposition.

You then shifted to say that coercion is not always illegitimate.

I need to know if you agree with me on the matter of consent before any discussion of legitimate force is meaningful.

The libertarian would argue that if those conditions do exist without force and coercion, then they are not bad. It is the coercion and force that is immoral, not the conditions themselves.

What I meant by my statement is that libertarians will see these conditions and point to government, showing that these conditions will be eliminated with the elimination of statist coercion.

It is generally the anarchist who holds that coercion is the root of these problems and that with the elimination of the state and violent monopoly, we can more peacefully, freely, and/or happily organize our own society. The statist, on the other hand, sees these conditions, states that they are the product of coercion and then argues that we need further statist coercion.

That is why I tend to lump you in with the statists.Oh, I see what you mean. I disagree on two issues.
Firstly, I don't see how the conditions can be caused by state intervention and not by the institutions themselves. Or at the very least I haven't seen any compelling arguments for this.
Secondly, if the conditions were caused by state intervention, then anarchists wouldn't speak of destroying the institution of property.

I think you are.

You tried to justify taxation on a sort of contractarian basis, stating that if one works knowing that one will be taxed, one agrees to be taxed.

I argued that this was not true: one person's violent imposition upon another is not consensual because the other acted in some way predetermined by the aggressor to necessitate imposition. To say it does merely pushes the necessary consent back to an earlier point in time, namely to when it was determined that said action warranted imposition.

You then shifted to say that coercion is not always illegitimate.

I need to know if you agree with me on the matter of consent before any discussion of legitimate force is meaningful.Yes, it pushes the consent back further. When people live in a country, they agree to pay rent. Instead of a flat fee, the rent is tied to a portion of a person's income. If people don't wish to pay rent, they don't need to earn an income. If people wish to earn an income, they can always emigrate to a place that doesn't charge rent. By staying in a place that charges rent, they agree to it, in the same way that you agree to pay for a meal that you order in a restaurant.

Oh, I see what you mean. I disagree on two issues.
Firstly, I don't see how the conditions can be caused by state intervention and not by the institutions themselves. Or at the very least I haven't seen any compelling arguments for this.
Secondly, if the conditions were caused by state intervention, then anarchists wouldn't speak of destroying the institution of property.

Yes, it pushes the consent back further. When people live in a country, they agree to pay rent. Instead of a flat fee, the rent is tied to a portion of a person's income. If people don't wish to pay rent, they don't need to earn an income. If people wish to earn an income, they can always emigrate to a place that doesn't charge rent. By staying in a place that charges rent, they agree to it, in the same way that you agree to pay for a meal that you order in a restaurant.


That isn't necessarily true at all. Many people that live in a country don't agree to living in the country, let alone spend their time working for the benefit of someone else through force. I am born and raised on land....I have every bit as much of a right to it as anyone else, and saying that I should be forced to leave it if I choose not to join someone else's club can only be explained by the longing for power over others that we see in some members of mankind.

Congratulations; you have just demonstrated that you have no clue what the word "freedom" means.

He's completely correct actually. Freedom comes from a different eytomological root then the word "liberty". Liberty is the absence of restrictions, stemming from the Latin word "libertas". Freedom is derived from the germanic word "freheit", which meant the substantive ability to make choices that you deny.

Firstly, I don't see how the conditions can be caused by state intervention and not by the institutions themselves. Or at the very least I haven't seen any compelling arguments for this.

Then you haven't read enough, they are innumerable.

Secondly, if the conditions were caused by state intervention, then anarchists wouldn't speak of destroying the institution of property.

Don't those same anarchists argue that property (or at least capital) is only possible through the coercion of the state?

Yes, it pushes the consent back further. When people live in a country, they agree to pay rent. Instead of a flat fee, the rent is tied to a portion of a person's income. If people don't wish to pay rent, they don't need to earn an income. If people wish to earn an income, they can always emigrate to a place that doesn't charge rent.

Change "agree" to "are forced", and change "rent" to extortion and you have the truth.

There is no explicit or implicit contract entered into when one is born, or becomes old enough to engage in social interaction, or turns eighteen, or works, there is only an enormous aggressive entity that says you will do this or face violent imposition on your life.

Very rarely can you move without hassle, there are very few places where you can live without being arrested or paying taxes, and you can't even kill yourself when all of your other options are exhausted.

Let me ask you this, since I am going in this direction: If government has decreed that all homosexual activity will be punished with death, is government justified in executing practicing homosexuals?

By staying in a place that charges rent, they agree to it, in the same way that you agree to pay for a meal that you order in a restaurant.

Are there any implicit contracts that are illegitimate in your eyes? Is extortion ever wrong?

If I tell people who move into my apartment complex that I will rob them if they leave their apartment unlocked, can I begin searching for unlocked apartments to plunder?

Vittos, how would an anarchist society resolve conflicts when different anarchists believe in different property rights? Ed "owns" some land but doesn't use it. Ted thinks only land that used can be owned so he takes over the property to his use. Ed finds out and tries to force Ted of the land while Ted fights back. How is the conflict resolved when both sides believes the other side is the one using coercion?

That isn't necessarily true at all. Many people that live in a country don't agree to living in the country, let alone spend their time working for the benefit of someone else through force. I am born and raised on land....I have every bit as much of a right to it as anyone else, and saying that I should be forced to leave it if I choose not to join someone else's club can only be explained by the longing for power over others that we see in some members of mankind.You have a right to the land because you are a part of "someone else's club". If you were not in a social contract then you would have no rights.

Then you haven't read enough, they are innumerable.I started reading the blogs you linked to and didn't see anything. Is there a particular blog I should look through that puts forward the argument you like best?

Don't those same anarchists argue that property (or at least capital) is only possible through the coercion of the state?Yes, but only because they don't see usage rights as being property rights. If they did, then they wouldn't make such arguments.

Change "agree" to "are forced", and change "rent" to extortion and you have the truth.

There is no explicit or implicit contract entered into when one is born, or becomes old enough to engage in social interaction, or turns eighteen, or works, there is only an enormous aggressive entity that says you will do this or face violent imposition on your life.

Very rarely can you move without hassle, there are very few places where you can live without being arrested or paying taxes, and you can't even kill yourself when all of your other options are exhausted.Antarctica?

Let me ask you this, since I am going in this direction: If government has decreed that all homosexual activity will be punished with death, is government justified in executing practicing homosexuals?If I am coming from the point of view as an adherent to the social contract that has this in it, yes. Otherwise no. If I disagree with this, I should remove myself from the social contract.

Are there any implicit contracts that are illegitimate in your eyes? Is extortion ever wrong?

If I tell people who move into my apartment complex that I will rob them if they leave their apartment unlocked, can I begin searching for unlocked apartments to plunder?No, because that type of contract is not a social contract. The nature of a social contract is such that it outlines the rights a person has. A person doesn't have the right to be free from taxation under a social contract.
A person could argue that the social contract should be changed because a clause in it is morally wrong, but they couldn't make the claim that the social contract violates their rights.

When I speak of rights, I am speaking of legal rights, as distinct from what is morally right or wrong. The social contract doesn't necessarily need to consider what is morally right or wrong.
I just realized I had the same issue with Neu Leonstein in other thread, where I was talking of legal rights and he moral right.

No, you get PRIVILEGES for being part of someone's club.

Maybe if you don't quite get the concept of rights, I'll use something you surely understand: authority. I have the authority over me, and as much authority to my land as anybody else, without having to do anything for them.

When authority has the means to support the worse off of its economy, it has an obligation to do so.

Many African countries, especially the poorer ones, rank very low on the Index of Economic Freedom and very high (i.e., high levels of corruption) on Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index. In many African countries, "privatization" means handing over state enterprises to toadies of the regime, meaning that absolutely nothing changes.
Ah yes, wave away the abject failures of capitalism by appealing to corruption - even though corruption and cronyism are the natural results of unregulated capitalism.

What you are doing is a lot like saying "I define capitalism as good. Therefore, anything bad that happens in a capitalist country is by definition not capitalism's fault." :rolleyes:

You cannot simply define capitalism as a system lacking corruption, any more than a communist can define communism as a system that makes everyone happy and free. You have to prove that your preferred system will lack corruption or make people happy and free.

It depends upon what welfare it is.

I'm all for a state police force, military, road network (admittedly with certain toll roads and bridges), and the provision of education and certain services (bin collection etc), however, I disagree wholeheartedly with the notion of an NHS, or unemployment for those who are employable. Simply because one cannot be a footballer, astronaut or princess is no excuse not to have a job.

The government is spending WAY to much!Our government is knee-deep in debt and yet they still insist on welfare "think of the children!"they say.But they dontthink about that sizable chunk(social security) they take from the average person,claiming they will give it back.Yeah they take 15%(7.5%from you,7.5%from your employer)for your retirement and give back 2%.The government acts like we cant take care of ourselves.And then theres welfare,polititions say its for the poor,as if no one else donated to the poor.It is a huge part of government spending when private charities are far more effective!So they take from us and give to the poor.How charming,except it teaches people to rely on the government.I say the government has no right to do any of this(and if you're wondering,yes I am a libertarian)

I live in Finland, and our tax rates are sky-high. Though our economy is in great boost right now. We take care of our poor, and it has made them to look for a job and start to be a productive part of the society. Just thinking "They are too lazy, it´s all about that" is wrong, because most of the poor are anything but lazy. The parasites are a very mariginal group. And if the society takes more money from you than it gives, the money is used for the police and... well I can´t imagine anything else really useful than police where America keeps dumping her money, but maybe space exploration. The fact is that USA puts too much money on military, spying etc. US will eventually collapse like the Soviet Union due to economic difficulties. The only way USA could improve the situation is to get the hell out of Middle East, cut the defence budget and support the poor so that they can get into working life. Poverty creates criminality, and US currently has more prisoners than any other country in the world.

The government is spending WAY to much!Our government is knee-deep in debt and yet they still insist on welfare "think of the children!"they say.But they dontthink about that sizable chunk(social security) they take from the average person,claiming they will give it back.Yeah they take 15%(7.5%from you,7.5%from your employer)for your retirement and give back 2%.The government acts like we cant take care of ourselves.And then theres welfare,polititions say its for the poor,as if no one else donated to the poor.It is a huge part of government spending when private charities are far more effective!So they take from us and give to the poor.How charming,except it teaches people to rely on the government.I say the government has no right to do any of this(and if you're wondering,yes I am a libertarian)


I am a Libertarian.

I do not support government interference into the natural process of things. Everything takes the course that it needs to take. If you support someone who cannot or will not do those things to ensure their own survival, then you are only supporting and perpetuating those behaviors. If you want a strong, independent, and responsible population, then you have to allow nature to take its course and eliminate the weak.

Of course, most governments (and our current [US] one) don't want that. They want weak people who are dependent on the government for their survival and will submit to whatever scheme the government has concocted in order to extract ever more wealth out of the people for placement into the pockets of the new aristocracy.

I spit on the government and its programs for the dumbing down and weakening of the American people and those other peoples around the world. These programs are proven not to work, yet governments all around the world still tout them as the answer to all of our problems. They don't solve problems, at all. They create new problems and place them on the shoulders of others.

In nature, do not most social animals work as a community and not as individuals? Sure there is a hierarchy where the strongest eats first and has their pick of a mate but it isn't completely selfish.

Ah yes, wave away the abject failures of capitalism by appealing to corruption - even though corruption and cronyism are the natural results of unregulated capitalism.

What you are doing is a lot like saying "I define capitalism as good. Therefore, anything bad that happens in a capitalist country is by definition not capitalism's fault." :rolleyes:

You cannot simply define capitalism as a system lacking corruption, any more than a communist can define communism as a system that makes everyone happy and free. You have to prove that your preferred system will lack corruption or make people happy and free.

Way to ignore that post. If you really think African countries are "capitalist," you have a lot - I repeat, a lot - to learn about the continent.