Absolute Capitalism

[Dachs]

hahaha moral wholesomeness of society

 

[gangleri2001]

hahaha moral wholesomeness of society

These guys have been doing this for 2000 years successfully

Bring me your land, money and children while I take good care of morals!

 

[GhostWriter16]

Except that they don't. Whether you call it Supply-side Economics, Trickle-down theory, or Horse and Sparrow theory, it has been shown to be a rather abject failure. The reason being that the incentive you would intuitively assume to be present isn't actually there.



Nonsense. There are some services that only a non-business can deliver efficiently. There is no realistic way to fund these activities without taxes of some form.



Is it now? Where exactly do you think that money goes? They're not just dumping it in a big hole for fun (monetary policy aside of course, where they do at times ), nor is being unfairly pocketed by bureaucrats.



[Citation Needed]



No, it's not stealing, neither in a legal or philosophical sense. Trust me, Libertarian theory as applied to economics is deeply flawed. Or would you like to argue that the government can't legally tax you?



You haven't demonstrated anything. All you've said is that 'only the necessary is necessary', without offering any rubric for how to decide what is necessary is in the first place.

That, and the latter part of that paragraph directly contradicts the first part. Which is it? And again, taxing you isn't the government telling you what to spend your money on, it's the government charging you for the cost of services your countrymen have asked it to provide.

I said in a theoretical world there ought be no taxes. Obviously I know that that is not practical. And I'm not saying that taxation is theft per say, I'm saying that the system in which taxation takes place in which half of the average American's money is given to a huge government while people who ruined their own lives or won't work to make them better get free money checks from the government is theft. And no, I would never argue the government can't tax me, they can, but just because something can and realistically should exist doesn't mean more is better.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I am not twisting anything. Your response to every scenario I have proposed in this thread is more government.

How would lower taxes give them incentive to make jobs? Why wouldn't it give them incentive to take another European vacation instead?

Well, I haven't suggested more government. You can't make a legally binding contract from your son. It doesn't work that way, nor should it.

 

[Cutlass]

I said in a theoretical world there ought be no taxes. Obviously I know that that is not practical. And I'm not saying that taxation is theft per say, I'm saying that the system in which taxation takes place in which half of the average American's money is given to a huge government while people who ruined their own lives or won't work to make them better get free money checks from the government is theft. And no, I would never argue the government can't tax me, they can, but just because something can and realistically should exist doesn't mean more is better.

See, here is the problem. You just won't let go of the fact that your arguments are based on things which are just not even remotely true. The "average American" is paying something like 35% of their income in taxes. Of course, the middle of Americans are paying more than that so that the rich can pay less than that. But in no case are Americans as a whole paying half. Further, you insist on sticking to the fantasy that there is any substantial number of people who refuse to work on welfare. Even though the system is designed to prevent that.

So, since you begin with 2 fundamentally disproven premises be build your theories from, you really need to go back to basics to make your arguments.

 

[History_Buff]

I said in a theoretical world there ought be no taxes.

And I say that in a theoretical world there ought to still be taxes. Because there ought to be a government that ought to be doing things.

Obviously I know that that is not practical. And I'm not saying that taxation is theft per say, I'm saying that the system in which taxation takes place in which half of the average American's money is given to a huge government while people who ruined their own lives or won't work to make them better get free money checks from the government is theft.

That might be wrong, but you also just made those figures up.

And no, I would never argue the government can't tax me, they can, but just because something can and realistically should exist doesn't mean more is better.

No, it doesn't mean more it better, but it also doesn't mean that more is worse.

 

[JollyRoger]

Well, I haven't suggested more government. You can't make a legally binding contract from your son. It doesn't work that way, nor should it.

Why can't you? The only way I see you can't is if the government is so eager to interfere with contracts that it subverts the authority of parents.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I'm not responding Jolly Roger because I know that was a sarcastic comment. Yeah, parents can kill their kids too Obviously there has to be some limit.

Historybuff, in a theoretical world no government would be necessary because everybody would respect the rights of everybody else and everybody would follow the golden rule and so no laws would be needed. Now, this is 100% theoretical and 0% realistic, but the point is that there ought to be as much government as necessary and not any more than that.

 

[Cutlass]

I'm not responding Jolly Roger because I know that was a sarcastic comment. Yeah, parents can kill their kids too Obviously there has to be some limit.

Historybuff, in a theoretical world no government would be necessary because everybody would respect the rights of everybody else and everybody would follow the golden rule and so no laws would be needed. Now, this is 100% theoretical and 0% realistic, but the point is that there ought to be as much government as necessary and not any more than that.

And that is what liberals are fighting for.

 

[JollyRoger]

I'm not responding Jolly Roger because I know that was a sarcastic comment. Yeah, parents can kill their kids too Obviously there has to be some limit.

Why should the government interfere with a parent securing lifetime employment for their child?

 

[History_Buff]

Historybuff, in a theoretical world no government would be necessary because everybody would respect the rights of everybody else and everybody would follow the golden rule and so no laws would be needed. Now, this is 100% theoretical and 0% realistic, but the point is that there ought to be as much government as necessary and not any more than that.

Even in a purely theoretical world, where the rights of everyone were perfectly respected (which is computationally impossible, even if people were perfect), government would still be a good thing, as certain goods are more efficient when delivered to the entire community.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Historybuff, I realize 100% that my ideal scenario is impossible, but if all people were perfect everywhere, no government would be needed. Everyone would share of his own free will. Actually, it sounds a bit like communism, which in theory may well be a good thing, it just doesn't work.

That being said, government needs to protect its people's rights, but they don't need to dominate all aspects of their people's lives. No, they don't do that by any means, but they control more aspects then they ought.

Cutlass, I guess we have different opinions on how much government is necessary. But, that's what America is about isn't it. People are entitled to their opinions. Now, if anybody takes that to mean they can just have communism because it benefits them, please don't. However, if someone wishes to believe in communism, keep it to yourself please, and please don't try to overthrow our government to install yours, you will lose.

However, that aside, people have different opinions, I can accept that. However, the difference between liberals like you (Cutlass) and the ones in power is you genuinely believe that your way is the correct way for our country to move in, while the politicians in Washington (Republicans as well as Democrats, though I do agree with the ideals of Republicans more) just want money and power for themselves. Like, do you know those politicians voted to opt out of their health care bill? If its good for us, why not for them? Answer, they want money and power, and regardless of whether you are left-wing or right, don't be trapped into believing these people care about you.

Jollyroger, stop being sarcastic. It's only securing lifetime employment if the child wants it. And, your point isn't even that your scenario is acceptable, but that more government should be introduced. In the words of Ronald Regan, "Government exists to protect us from each other, it oversteps its bounds when it protects us from ourselves." Therefore, if someone wants to gamble their lives away, not wear seatbelts, or decide not to purchase healthcare, that should be allowed, though the government should also leave these people to the consequences of their actions rather than giving them welfare. However, if somebody wants to sign a contract on behalf of their child, abort a baby in the womb (Please do not debate the point of whether a fetus is a life or not, I believe that it is, and that being said, my point is understood whether agreed with or not) or recklessly drive the government should interfere because you are overstepping the bounds of your own freedom and interfering with someone elses.

 

[Cutlass]

Cutlass, I guess we have different opinions on how much government is necessary. But, that's what America is about isn't it. People are entitled to their opinions. Now, if anybody takes that to mean they can just have communism because it benefits them, please don't. However, if someone wishes to believe in communism, keep it to yourself please, and please don't try to overthrow our government to install yours, you will lose.

However, that aside, people have different opinions, I can accept that. However, the difference between liberals like you (Cutlass) and the ones in power is you genuinely believe that your way is the correct way for our country to move in, while the politicians in Washington (Republicans as well as Democrats, though I do agree with the ideals of Republicans more) just want money and power for themselves. Like, do you know those politicians voted to opt out of their health care bill? If its good for us, why not for them? Answer, they want money and power, and regardless of whether you are left-wing or right, don't be trapped into believing these people care about you.

Except.. THERE IS NO SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO WANT COMMUNISM! And the US is not headed for communism. Unless, that is, if you win. Because hard core communists like yourself will never go all the way towards making America communist. We liberals have been trying to prevent you "conservatives" from making America communist for a century now.

 

[NBAfan]

Except.. THERE IS NO SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO WANT COMMUNISM! And the US is not headed for communism. Unless, that is, if you win. Because hard core communists like yourself will never go all the way towards making America communist. We liberals have been trying to prevent you "conservatives" from making America communist for a century now.

You give me a good laugh every time you post that.

 

[Cutlass]

And yet you cannot name a Democrat that's held office in the US that isn't far more anti-communist than you yourself is.

 

[wabatt]

Except.. THERE IS NO SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO WANT COMMUNISM! And the US is not headed for communism. Unless, that is, if you win. Because hard core communists like yourself will never go all the way towards making America communist. We liberals have been trying to prevent you "conservatives" from making America communist for a century now.

Ha consildate all the taxes into one bill and once the people see half their income is going to the Gov. they will be clamouring for communism.

 

[Cutlass]

Except, of course, half their income is never going to go to government. Since that will never happen, we don't have to worry about it.

 

[wabatt]

Well i guess we will just have to hope another liberal goes into office and we try to ramp those tax dollars up "The night is darkest before the dawn"- Batman

 

[History_Buff]

Historybuff, I realize 100% that my ideal scenario is impossible, but if all people were perfect everywhere, no government would be needed. Everyone would share of his own free will. Actually, it sounds a bit like communism, which in theory may well be a good thing, it just doesn't work.

How would everyone sharing perfectly make everything ok? For that to be your ideal world, you have to assume that scarcity doesn't exist. Take for instance rare goods like oil, or diamonds, or food prepared by Jose Andres; we could all share it perfectly, but there will be so little to go around that it would never be useful to anyone.

From a position of no scarcity you can argue anything you want, but it has zero validity in the real world. It becomes like the writings of von Mises and his ilk; looks great on paper, but even the guys who write it eventually acknowledge that you could never base a working economy on it.

Cutlass, I guess we have different opinions on how much government is necessary. But, that's what America is about isn't it. People are entitled to their opinions. Now, if anybody takes that to mean they can just have communism because it benefits them, please don't. However, if someone wishes to believe in communism, keep it to yourself please, and please don't try to overthrow our government to install yours, you will lose.

So, without addressing any of the specific strong points and failings of communism, are you actually saying that America should always, now and forever, be a constitutional democracy just because some guys 200 years ago saw that it was a good idea?

Lets say we discovered a perfect government system that made everyone perfectly happy and satisfied (like your impossible theoretical model). It has worked flawlessly in every other country in the world. Should it be rejected just because it's not the system America has used forever?

 

[wabatt]

How would everyone sharing perfectly make everything ok? For that to be your ideal world, you have to assume that scarcity doesn't exist. Take for instance rare goods like oil, or diamonds, or food prepared by Jose Andres; we could all share it perfectly, but there will be so little to go around that it would never be useful to anyone.

How bout you take your pick you can have diamonds, or oil, or food prepared by Jose Andres but only one of choices