Absolute Capitalism

[schlaufuchs]

I chose Il Duce because that is the title of the person who founded Fascism, which is my ideology. however Il Duces fascism was wrong for 2 reason:
1. Killing of minorities who could benefit society
2. Funding the big buisness and creating wage and price controls

Fascism is the combination of a Military Dictatorship with a free capitalist society. Both are necessary for the security and well being of all citizens.



Y, we r talking about modern politics

Isn't government control of business, or government marrying with business a big part of fascism? I might be mistaken though...

 

[lovett]

Courts and protection services are an economic good. As such, exchanges make possible their production according to consumer preferences and coordinate capital structure formulation. Right now, we dont have it, so improvement of consumer satisfaction would be possible through economising them.

If 'protection services' are attempting to profit maximize (and that they must to make a perfect market efficient) what disincentivizes them from violating the property rights of their customers?

 

[History_Buff]

Isn't government control of business, or government marrying with business a big part of fascism? I might be mistaken though...

In the instances where it has occurred, yes, but probably not in any shocking amount; it's sort of comparable to the Commonwealth/Canadian concept of Crown Corporations. The problem with Fascism is that the term isn't all that well defined, and can encompass just about any strongly nationalist country if you want it to.

 

[Racsoviale]

I think some of you guys advocating no government and extreme capitalism should go here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somalia

 

[History_Buff]

There is no exchange of the goods distrivbuted by govt. You are not giving up your property right to something in exchange for a property right in the good that government distributes.

You are giving up the property right only in exchange for a promise of not being aggressed against.

Of course there's an exchange of goods as distributed by the government. I give up my rights to my income in exchange for the promise of free health care, judicial protection, national defense, research grants to scientists, etc. Things that the people of this country claim to value.

It's exactly the same way I give my money to my insurance company for the promise that they will cover my expenses should I be involved in an auto collision.

The fact that the government possesses a monopoly on force really has no bearing on the conversation, given that the power is not used arbitrarily, which it isn't.

 

[ilduce349]

Social Services - The elderly who are receiving those services paid into them for years. They are legally entitled to it. And it is not the fault of the boomers that they were all born around the same time.

They put years of their lives not to make money in the future, it was to make money in the present, also by doing this is would raise the retirement age, thus raising productivity and improving the economy. The only reason against doing this is because of the socialist who plague the world, the ones who's hearts r bigger then their brains.

Unemployment Insurance - You pay into it every pay cheque. You are legally entitled to it. It also happens to be good for the economy.

How does it improve the economy, it takes money out of the system, gives it to people who dont deserve it just so they can put it back in the system.

Free Health Care - Great. In fact, that you assert that it would take you 6 months to get a doctor's appointment gives me 100% confidence in saying you're just lying to try and make a point. Last time I needed a doctor's appointment, I was in 3 days later (that was more due to my schedule than anything). Last fall when I realized I had bronchitis, and walked up to the local walk-in clinic, took a mere 3 hours. That was during flu season.

To book an appointment 4 a minor reason can take a few months in a big city like toronto, especially those who dont have their own doctor (a third of us torontonians)

O RLY? Lets run the numbers.

From here, the Median US Income for the 2009 tax year was $61,500.

From here the median tax bracket was 25%.

From here, that created $915B of income for the Federal government. Now, those numbers may not all be correct, and this is certainly a far too simplistic analysis, but bear with me for a moment.

Now, we use our tax rate to work back to a simple 'taxable income' number. $915B / 0.25 gives us $3,660B. Now, if we hike the tax rate to 35%, lets say the government might rake in $1,281B in individual income taxes. So that's an extra $366B to play with.

Now, from here, U.S. debt is currently sitting at $12,311B. Which means that, even if all they had to pay was the principle (and it's not), that would take 36 years. Which is to say, nowhere close to the 14 months you seem to have pulled out of thin air.

You can even reduce the tax rate I used to get a higher number of 'gross taxable income', even to the point where you double the tax rate, you still have more than a decade to go to pay of the debt.

According to nationaldebtclock.org, or something like that, I was able to see
1. Mass of debt accumulated over the last year (may 2009- april 2010)
2. Mass of income the government acculmated over the last year
3. were the money was going to create the debt

by subtracting the social services fees and unemployment fees, as well as the price of the Iraq war (different site for this one) and increasing profit by 10%, as well as including a GST (which is non existent in the states) at 5% or 8% (cant remember which 1 i used) It took aprox 1.18 years to repay the entire debt, however thats not counting interest so might take a few extra weeks. Time 1.18 by 12, and u get 14.16, or 14 months. Also according to the Globe and Mail (an article last year) it said the US would have to raise taxes 10% and install a GST, to take just over a year to get out of debt. I didn't take the numbers out of thin air, I just took them from 2 credible sources (not Wikipedia like u)

Isn't government control of business, or government marrying with business a big part of fascism? I might be mistaken though...

Fascism was created in Italy when Mussolini wanted to install a dictatorship with people who hated the communists. 4 his first 2, 3 or 4 years it was a free capitalist system but then Il Duce (not me the other 1) merged his government with the big businesses because he got greedy

 

[lovett]

The concept of incentives is pseudo scientific as profit maximisation only exists in psychic profit, which can be anything. It is a dead end to discuss over it, we will keep arguing about what people might value and we will have no way of determining it.

So that doesn't answer my question. Is it your contention that classically egoistic motives may be far outweighed by classically altruistic motives in the case of protection services? That is, protection services won't be in the industry due to self-interest and will rather just want to help other. Consequently they won't violate the 'rights' of their customers.

Doesn't seem like a dead end to me. Seems like a contestable argument which is both empirically and logically defunct.

 

[History_Buff]

They put years of their lives not to make money in the future, it was to make money in the present, also by doing this is would raise the retirement age, thus raising productivity and improving the economy. The only reason against doing this is because of the socialist who plague the world, the ones who's hearts r bigger then their brains.

But they were deducted that income on every single pay cheque. While they were certainly doing it to make money in both the present and future, not giving them the money that was taken for the very purpose of giving back to them would be unfair, illegal, and downright stupid. Regardless of relative brain-heart size ratios.

How does it improve the economy, it takes money out of the system, gives it to people who dont deserve it just so they can put it back in the system.

Because it keeps them participating in society. Prisoners and the homeless are bad for the economy. These are people that are not working, and in the case of prisoners, are actually costing yet more money to feed/house them.

It's been pretty well demonstrated that both crime rates and homelessness are linked to poverty; the poorer people get, the more they wind up in jail, on the streets, or dead. Keeping these people afloat keeps them in the workforce, which is good for the economy.

The identical argument can be applied to both education and health care as well.

To book an appointment 4 a minor reason can take a few months in a big city like toronto, especially those who dont have their own doctor (a third of us torontonians)

I'll take your word for it, but only if you recognize that this isn't a symptom of government, but instead a symptom of your local conditions. To book an appointment for a minor check up in the 3rd/5th (depending on how you count it) biggest city in Canada took almost no time.

And you can never count out the fact that I may have been overly lucky, and you might have been overly unlucky. Hence why anecdotal evidence doesn't count for much.

According to nationaldebtclock.org, or something like that, I was able to see
1. Mass of debt accumulated over the last year (may 2009- april 2010)
2. Mass of income the government acculmated over the last year
3. were the money was going to create the debt

by subtracting the social services fees and unemployment fees, as well as the price of the Iraq war (different site for this one) and increasing profit by 10%, as well as including a GST (which is non existent in the states) at 5% or 8% (cant remember which 1 i used) It took aprox 1.18 years to repay the entire debt, however thats not counting interest so might take a few extra weeks. Time 1.18 by 12, and u get 14.16, or 14 months. Also according to the Globe and Mail (an article last year) it said the US would have to raise taxes 10% and install a GST, to take just over a year to get out of debt. I didn't take the numbers out of thin air, I just took them from 2 credible sources (not Wikipedia like u)

Yes, if the U.S. government eliminated most of their spending, and their tax revenues stayed the same (they wouldn't), then yeah, they could pay off the debt pretty quick. But by dumping all of the social services spending, you'd have all out rioting on your hands. The government wouldn't last two weeks.

Then you'd see a massive drop in revenue as people's taxable income falls off, bankruptcies skyrocket, crime rates increase, people flee the country, etc. It wouldn't work quite like you imagine it in your head.

 

[ilduce349]

Xarthaz Protection services don't regulate the market. They help the market. In order 4 the market 2 succeed there cant be people murdering and stealing profits, otherwise a monopoly would be required in order 4 the people to succeed (a big business, who as its own police force, farming industry, and what ever industry it is using 4 profit) if thats the case then that Business owns everything in the country, and therefore becomes the government, then we have a centralist dictator in power, who controls everything, with that the market is no longer an absolute capitalism. Remember absolute capitalism is really just anarchy and anarchy isn't capitalism at all. So i am looking a cm to the left of that line and calling it absolute capitalism. Protection services keep that balance, regulating the market only when it is in danger of falling apart and becoming centralized, and prevent people from breaking the laws, the current government has installed. It is as Lovett put it, to maximize the efficiency protection services must be in place. The reason I am so right wing is because efficiency is the only thing i look at, and the freer the market the more efficient the market (to a certain extent, cant be an anarchy).

 

[ilduce349]

But they were deducted that income on every single pay cheque. While they were certainly doing it to make money in both the present and future, not giving them the money that was taken for the very purpose of giving back to them would be unfair, illegal, and downright stupid. Regardless of relative brain-heart size ratios.

I said abolish income tax and get rid of social security (in other words i suggested giving them the money instantly, rather then taking it from them, and giving it back)(in a different slide i said raising taxes would get rid of the debt but that was a different argument for different reasons, i don't want that 2 happen, but it is possibilty to get rid of the debt)

Because it keeps them participating in society. Prisoners and the homeless are bad for the economy. These are people that are not working, and in the case of prisoners, are actually costing yet more money to feed/house them.

It's been pretty well demonstrated that both crime rates and homelessness are linked to poverty; the poorer people get, the more they wind up in jail, on the streets, or dead. Keeping these people afloat keeps them in the workforce, which is good for the economy.

The identical argument can be applied to both education and health care as well.

1. Thats exactly y i believe in capitol punishment
2. It keeps them out of the workforce as they feel less inclined to give them a job, its terrible 4 the economy. It requires higher taxes, reduces the efficiency of the system. If they don't work, they starve, thats how society needs to run. We don't have the food to feed all 6.7 billion people on the planet, so those actually working should be the ones who get it. (and their kids of course)
3. The same argument can't be made for health care and education, anyway i believe in a 2 tier system 4 those (my statements above was 4 an absolute capitalism scenario 2 work, not wat i truly believe)

I'll take your word for it, but only if you recognize that this isn't a symptom of government, but instead a symptom of your local conditions. To book an appointment for a minor check up in the 3rd/5th (depending on how you count it) biggest city in Canada took almost no time.

And you can never count out the fact that I may have been overly lucky, and you might have been overly unlucky. Hence why anecdotal evidence doesn't count for much.

Toronto is 4 times the size of Calgary (in population) so in theory it should take 4 times as long to book an appointment. which means it was very possible that I was overly unlucky and u were overly lucky, but it should normally take 1-3 weeks for u. (which means 4-12 4 me, which is wat normally happens)

Yes, if the U.S. government eliminated most of their spending, and their tax revenues stayed the same (they wouldn't), then yeah, they could pay off the debt pretty quick. But by dumping all of the social services spending, you'd have all out rioting on your hands. The government wouldn't last two weeks.

Then you'd see a massive drop in revenue as people's taxable income falls off, bankruptcies skyrocket, crime rates increase, people flee the country, etc. It wouldn't work quite like you imagine it in your head.

As i said, in a dictatorship, it would work, in a democracy it wouldn't, the only reason I pointed that out was to show y a democracy was bad. People only vote 4 the choice better in the short run, but wat i was suggesting would be better 4 the people in the long run (as long as they no it would be better in the long run)

 

[GhostWriter16]

I said abolish income tax and get rid of social security (in other words i suggested giving them the money instantly, rather then taking it from them, and giving it back)(in a different slide i said raising taxes would get rid of the debt but that was a different argument for different reasons, i don't want that 2 happen, but it is possibilty to get rid of the debt)



1. Thats exactly y i believe in capitol punishment
2. It keeps them out of the workforce as they feel less inclined to give them a job, its terrible 4 the economy. It requires higher taxes, reduces the efficiency of the system. If they don't work, they starve, thats how society needs to run. We don't have the food to feed all 6.7 billion people on the planet, so those actually working should be the ones who get it. (and their kids of course)
3. The same argument can't be made for health care and education, anyway i believe in a 2 tier system 4 those (my statements above was 4 an absolute capitalism scenario 2 work, not wat i truly believe)




Toronto is 4 times the size of Calgary (in population) so in theory it should take 4 times as long to book an appointment. which means it was very possible that I was overly unlucky and u were overly lucky, but it should normally take 1-3 weeks for u. (which means 4-12 4 me, which is wat normally happens)


As i said, in a dictatorship, it would work, in a democracy it wouldn't, the only reason I pointed that out was to show y a democracy was bad. People only vote 4 the choice better in the short run, but wat i was suggesting would be better 4 the people in the long run (as long as they no it would be better in the long run)

Well, you can't give capital punishment for everything but I do think petty theft can be punished by higher restitution, while armed robbery getting the death penalty is fair enough. So, yeah, no prisons would be a good thing, or, at least, few crimes would require it that could be punished in no other way.

 

[ilduce349]

I think some of you guys advocating no government and extreme capitalism should go here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somalia

under communist rule second line of the page
The article explains that the situation of the country is because of extreme left no right
(remember anarchy is both left and right on the political spectrum)

 

[ilduce349]

Well, you can't give capital punishment for everything but I do think petty theft can be punished by higher restitution, while armed robbery getting the death penalty is fair enough. So, yeah, no prisons would be a good thing, or, at least, few crimes would require it that could be punished in no other way.

That is exactly wat i believe:

Max sentence time would be x amount of year (5-10 years) anything higher then that would result in death.

Also multiple offenders get death. 6 months ago I read an article which said that some guy was arrested 4 robbery 4 the 38th time (obviously he was going 2 commit the crime against as soon as he was released). The crime was clearly worth the the time, as he kept doing it. create a strike system (3-10 strikes, and u get the death penalty)

but yeah, 4 a few crimes have prisons, but their would be about way less inmates. Also make bailing out more simple ($6 for every hour u want to reduce from ur sentence, also restitution must be payed no matter wat) that way rather then loosing money due to law enforcement they gain money, which means they can lower taxes

 

[ilduce349]

Yes, the ideals of communism are more attainable.

I think the opposite. The ideals of capitalism r more attainable. However if any of them can be attained communism would be more ideal. Communism assumes everyone is equal, and in order for it to work everyone must be equal (and therefore identical). However we all know thats not the case. Some people r smarter, some r stronger, some r more beautiful, some r all 3. So in theory Communism is better, as a fascist, and a sworn enemy of communism I am willing to acknowledge that. But in real life capitalism works better. It encourages human nature. Encourages people to compete against each other, encourages them to work hard. If we r talk about ideal capitalism then we should talk about what ideal capitalism is:
Ideal communism suggests:
Everyone is equal

Ideal capitalism suggests:
I may be rich and u poor, but by working harder then u, we will become equals.

Ideal capitalism is perfect. It acknowledges that their is luck in this world, and that the world is far from perfect.

Also think about this. (2 all u communist who r arguing against capitalism)
If everyone was perfect imagine how boring the world would be. As a quote from a biblical analysis "perfection cannot be obtained indefinitely"
And as a quote from my favorite anime "The world isn't perfect, thats what makes it beautiful"
Both of those r true, perfection leads 2 boredom. describe what a perfect world would look like in ur eyes and wat u would want ur role to be in it, then imagine living like that 4ever. If ur life is fully planed out 4 u, then u cant call it life, as it was never urs from the start. (change is good, just not to much of it)
U may argue that if the world was perfect we would then loose knowledge of boredom or some bull, and the ability to be bored (or some bullsh*t like that) but that happened we would be soulless.

 

[Jabarto]

Ideal capitalism suggests:
I may be rich and u poor, but by working harder then u, we will become equals.

It's pretty naive to think this ever happens or is ever likely to happen. Just FYI.

 

[History_Buff]

I said abolish income tax and get rid of social security (in other words i suggested giving them the money instantly, rather then taking it from them, and giving it back)(in a different slide i said raising taxes would get rid of the debt but that was a different argument for different reasons, i don't want that 2 happen, but it is possibilty to get rid of the debt)

But you can't just stop the two together. If you're going to stop Social Services, you have to stop taxing people first, while still paying out others who have paid into the system. And even then you'll have a mighty big pile of pissed off people.

1. Thats exactly y i believe in capitol punishment
2. It keeps them out of the workforce as they feel less inclined to give them a job, its terrible 4 the economy. It requires higher taxes, reduces the efficiency of the system. If they don't work, they starve, thats how society needs to run. We don't have the food to feed all 6.7 billion people on the planet, so those actually working should be the ones who get it. (and their kids of course)
3. The same argument can't be made for health care and education, anyway i believe in a 2 tier system 4 those (my statements above was 4 an absolute capitalism scenario 2 work, not wat i truly believe)

1. I disagree vehemently.
2. Except that it doesn't keep them out of the workplace. If you look at the science, it will tell you as much. Your objections are based on emotion, stereotypes and partisanship. And there's more than enough food (and additional arable land) for far more than 6.7 billion people.
3. The exact same argument can be made. What are the corner stones of industry and commerce? An educated middle class, a healthy middle class, and a working middle class.

Toronto is 4 times the size of Calgary (in population) so in theory it should take 4 times as long to book an appointment. which means it was very possible that I was overly unlucky and u were overly lucky, but it should normally take 1-3 weeks for u. (which means 4-12 4 me, which is wat normally happens)

Toronto is 4 times the size of Calgary (in population), so in theory it should have 4 times as many doctors.

As i said, in a dictatorship, it would work, in a democracy it wouldn't, the only reason I pointed that out was to show y a democracy was bad. People only vote 4 the choice better in the short run, but wat i was suggesting would be better 4 the people in the long run (as long as they no it would be better in the long run)

How would it 'work' in a dictatorship? Martial law and suppression of dissent is not what I call 'working'.

Also multiple offenders get death. 6 months ago I read an article which said that some guy was arrested 4 robbery 4 the 38th time (obviously he was going 2 commit the crime against as soon as he was released). The crime was clearly worth the the time, as he kept doing it. create a strike system (3-10 strikes, and u get the death penalty)

Great. Keep guys like that locked away. But don't let bad apples ruin your perceptions. Last time I checked (last year), 80% of people who wind up with Corrections Canada don't re-offend. Many of those who do committed simple parole violations.



And as a side note, if you continue to shorten words and use numerical substitutes for words, this will be my last reply to you. I will not debate those who type like buffoons.

 

[ilduce349]

It's pretty naive to think this ever happens or is ever likely to happen. Just FYI.

Hence the word ideal. People r less likely to become equal (communism)

 

[ilduce349]

But you can't just stop the two together. If you're going to stop Social Services, you have to stop taxing people first, while still paying out others who have paid into the system. And even then you'll have a mighty big pile of pissed off people.

have a 2 turn period of anarchy and then it will be fine ( )
remember this is all theoretical it probably wont happen, if it does we will have to wait for the baby boomer's to die (20ish years till it wont be necessary)

1. I disagree vehemently.
2. Except that it doesn't keep them out of the workplace. If you look at the science, it will tell you as much. Your objections are based on emotion, stereotypes and partisanship. And there's more than enough food (and additional arable land) for far more than 6.7 billion people.
3. The exact same argument can be made. What are the corner stones of industry and commerce? An educated middle class, a healthy middle class, and a working middle class.

1. opinionated
2. their is enough food to properly feed 2 billion people (according to my grade 9 geo text book (4 years ago), Geo teacher, several different websites) it is projected that our population will hit 9 billion, and then our pop will collapse.
3. true, cant argue with you their, but that is exactly why i believe in 2 tier

Toronto is 4 times the size of Calgary (in population), so in theory it should have 4 times as many doctors.

true...
but according Civ (which is slightly related to real life) a hospital gives +3 health no matter what, as you get +1 sickness per citizen. What i am trying to say is, the denser the city is, the more people will get sick per doctor. I guess it wont be exactly 4 times as long then. Probably barely 2.

How would it 'work' in a dictatorship? Martial law and suppression of dissent is not what I call 'working'.

You can force them to work...
In a dictatorship people are less likely to revolt, as the consequences will be bigger. It is better to be feared then loved. Many examples in history prove this.

Great. Keep guys like that locked away. But don't let bad apples ruin your perceptions. Last time I checked (last year), 80% of people who wind up with Corrections Canada don't re-offend. Many of those who do committed simple parole violations.

Exactly why I said multiple offenders get the death, but one time offenders get prison.

And as a side note, if you continue to shorten words and use numerical substitutes for words, this will be my last reply to you. I will not debate those who type like buffoons.

Is your name Chris?

A friend of mine who lives in Alberta (can't remember whether it is Calgary or Edmonton) said the exact same thing to me on Facebook last week.

 

[History_Buff]

Is your name Chris?

It is not. But yeah, I'm done with you. Domination at least attempts to maintain in touch with reality.

 

[ilduce349]

It is not. But yeah, I'm done with you. Domination at least attempts to maintain in touch with reality.

I didn't shorten any words their, so why am I done