The post-fact universe has arrived

I still don't understand how the government actually does anything if it's "small enough to drown in a bathtub."

Besides, conservatives don't mean that. They mean "small enough to drown in a bathtub, except for the part that monitors every woman in the country to make sure she doesn't miscarry, and the giant Mountain of Doom Military Compound that makes flying tanks that transform into Dinobots. Oh, and farm subsidies for the *good* ( read as: white Christian ) kind of welfare queen."
 
Wait, Somalia has a functioning government that protects every person's rights of life, liberty, and property? Damn, I need to read newspapers more often.

So what you want is a fantasy government that dosent collect taxes but somehow functions with a socialist police force, socialist army and a socialist justice system.
 
American history has overwhelming been that the closer the government is, the more oppressive it is and the less effective it is. That's just the reality of what has been happening for the past 200 odd years.

More oppressive? Well, sure. When the Federal government apparently has nothing better to do than ban Internet gambling and regulate the wattage of our incandescent light bulbs, the state and local governments have to find even stupider things to do. HOWEVER, this is only because there's a HUGE overlap between "more oppressive" and "more responsive... to the wants and needs of its voters and taxpayers". It's the exact reason why Congress is Constitutionally prohibited from doing 90% of the crap that it does.

It's true in all the states and they aren't going to change it.

Citation needed.

Exactly my point.

Your point is that you don't know the difference between anarchy and libertarianism? In that case, you need to STFU and GTFO, or at least read some Rousseau.

So what you want is a fantasy government that dosent collect taxes

Again, if you don't know the difference between anarchy and libertarianism, you'll find STFU and GTFO to the door behind you, and relevant literature on Amazon.com
 
Personal attacks are not allowed on this forum. Telling some of the most veteran members of our community to GTFO is completely uncalled for. Why don't you try and address their points rather than showing the maturity of a YouTube commenter?
 
Your point is that you don't know the difference between anarchy and libertarianism? In that case, you need to STFU and GTFO, or at least read some Rousseau.

Again, if you don't know the difference between anarchy and libertarianism, you'll find STFU and GTFO to the door behind you, and relevant literature on Amazon.com

Do you even know why Libertarians are aligned with the Republican party ?
Do you even have a clue why US libertarians are not in favor of capitalism-libertarianism. but want armed invasions to support capitalism and government suppression ?

Some favor the existence of states and see them as necessary while others favor stateless societies and view the state as being undesirable, unnecessary, and harmful

Classical liberals extended protection of the country to protection of overseas markets through armed intervention. Protection of individuals against wrongs normally meant protection of private property and enforcement of contracts and the suppression of trade unions and the Chartist movement. Public works included a stable currency, standard weights and measures, and support of roads, canals, harbors, railways, and postal and other communications services

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism
 
However, a quick talk with anyone who had to close down their small or start-up business for tax reasons will support the libertarian position.

Any reasonable tax system* will (mostly) tax the profit a company makes. So their business is either not paying tax, debunking your claim, or they are turning a profit which suggests they shouldn't have shut it down.

* I admit that I don't know if the US system is reasonable. Somehow I expect it isn't.
 
Okay. Try getting a face-to-face meeting with a member of your local school board, and try to get anything more than an automated response from the office of your Congressman (or equivalent in whatever country you're from)

Try getting a face-to-face meeting with your state senator. Hell, try getting a face-to-face meeting with Chuck Reid. It ain't gonna happen. What makes you think a government based in California having to oversee 50 million people is going to be any more effective at serving the needs of the populace than a government based in DC having to oversee 350 million people is?
 
I have actually talked with more members of parliament than local councilmen in any of the 3 cities I have lived in, and I used to work for one of those cities!
 
The economic pie is getting smaller by the day and the wealthy are ideally positioned to maintain their share of it. The lower you are on the scale, the rate of loss becomes progressively larger as a proportion of your current share. You can either fight this trend, which is an unwise expenditure of your energies, or learn to do without that which they can take away. In time, without the average American consumer, the wealthy of this country will lose everything, themselves. Of course, our economic system is destined to fail no matter who has the wealth, so ultimately none of it matters.
 
Yes. Meanwhile, tighten your belts, polish your foraging skills, and learn to get on with your neighbours.
 
The economic pie is getting smaller by the day and the wealthy are ideally positioned to maintain their share of it. The lower you are on the scale, the rate of loss becomes progressively larger as a proportion of your current share. You can either fight this trend, which is an unwise expenditure of your energies, or learn to do without that which they can take away. In time, without the average American consumer, the wealthy of this country will lose everything, themselves. Of course, our economic system is destined to fail no matter who has the wealth, so ultimately none of it matters.

So you're posting this on a log with a keyboard painted on it or what?
 
A correlation has never been demonstrated due to sample size (not enough countries) and the lack of a good way to control for factors like spending and debt. However, a quick talk with anyone who had to close down their small or start-up business for tax reasons will support the libertarian position.
I'm extremely skeptical of this. As a start-up business-thingy guy, my experience has been quite the opposite. If anything, the tax code is skewed to keep my piddly little venture going for quarter after quarter, year after year, no matter how poorly my cash flow is. There is definitely a hump when it comes to expansion - but that's where the private sector lending institutions come in. I had a meeting with a couple different small business 'specialists' regarding lines of credit specifically geared to my company's size and maturity. Taxes have NOTHING to do with my venture's growth.

Try getting a face-to-face meeting with a member of your local school board, and try to get anything more than an automated response from the office of your Congressman (or equivalent in whatever country you're from)
I have a very different experience from you - perhaps you're voting for the wrong people? :mischief:

So I live in Long Island City, Queens County, New York City. Population 2,250,000 - isn't that remarkable? And here's my experience with responsive government:

I have had multiple in-person conversations with my city councillor, some fewer with my state assembly-person, a couple with my state senator, and several email exchanges with both my House Representative and one of my Senators. The senator who has been entirely unresponsive? Chuck Schumer. Go figure :rolleye: Senator Gillibrand has been fine, but not worthy of mention in this regard. But that's not a mark against her, only that I haven't had reason to contact her.

The exchanges that I was most floored by was with current Secretary of State Clinton - but back when she was a Senator we had a little back and forth about the confirmation hearings for Condoleeza Rice's appointment to be Secretary of State. The responses to my questions may not have been written by her, nor the electronic signature clicked by her, but these were not form letters. Her 3 replies addressed my points specifically. True, it could have been a staffer, but that isn't unreasonable - perhaps a distinction without a difference. As long as my concerns were being communicated, I'm a satisfied customer. In fact, she disagreed with my premise - and told me why. After the second reply I came to see the wisdom in her position. And, frankly, I want a wiser person than me making decisions for me. Don't you?


More oppressive? Well, sure. When the Federal government apparently has nothing better to do than ban Internet gambling and regulate the wattage of our incandescent light bulbs, the state and local governments have to find even stupider things to do.

Citation needed [I learn from the best :)]

Fallacy: a government staffed by nearly 40,000 civilian legislative branch employees can only do one thing at a time.

However, if you're referring to the federal ban on selling incandescent bulbs, then you're completely mischaracterizing the goal here. Incandescent bulbs are stupendously inefficient. Only something like 20% of the energy they use is converted to light - their very purpose.

There are already other products on the market which are not only more efficient, but also cheaper to operate.

Defending incandescent bulbs is no different than proclaiming the benefits of a rawhide buggy whip in 1910, as the industrialized consumer automobile supplants horse-based transport. Go ahead an die on that pitard if you like, but banning incandescents for domestic use is smart policy.
 
More oppressive? Well, sure. When the Federal government apparently has nothing better to do than ban Internet gambling and regulate the wattage of our incandescent light bulbs, the state and local governments have to find even stupider things to do. HOWEVER, this is only because there's a HUGE overlap between "more oppressive" and "more responsive... to the wants and needs of its voters and taxpayers". It's the exact reason why Congress is Constitutionally prohibited from doing 90% of the crap that it does.


So you want government to be more oppressive and less responsive. That explains why you choose the states over the feds. :p



Citation needed.

:lol: If they had any interest in changing it, then why haven't they done so? :lol::lol:




Your point is that you don't know the difference between anarchy and libertarianism? In that case, you need to STFU and GTFO, or at least read some Rousseau.


I couldn't care less about some philosopher. The point is that in modern political discourse in the US the "libertarians" and the "anarchists" don't know which is which.
 
I'm a little confused how Rousseau is the first philosopher to visit for anarchism or libertarianism anyway. Am I missing something?
 
More oppressive? Well, sure. When the Federal government apparently has nothing better to do than ban Internet gambling and regulate the wattage of our incandescent light bulbs, the state and local governments have to find even stupider things to do.

The worst oppression imaginable.
 
I'm a little confused how Rousseau is the first philosopher to visit for anarchism or libertarianism anyway. Am I missing something?

Doesn't he kind of define the notion of the post-fact universe anyway?

Jean Jacques Rousseau said:
Let us begin then by laying facts aside, as they do not affect the question. The investigations we may enter into, in treating this subject, must not be considered as historical truths, but only as mere conditional and hypothetical reasonings, rather calculated to explain the nature of things, than to ascertain their actual origin; just like the hypotheses which our physicists daily form respecting the formation of the world. Religion commands us to believe that, God Himself having taken men out of a state of nature immediately after the creation, they are unequal only because it is His will they should be so: but it does not forbid us to form conjectures based solely on the nature of man, and the beings around him, concerning what might have become of the human race, if it had been left to itself. This then is the question asked me, and that which I propose to discuss in the following discourse. As my subject interests mankind in general, I shall endeavour to make use of a style adapted to all nations, or rather, forgetting time and place, to attend only to men to whom I am speaking. I shall suppose myself in the Lyceum of Athens, repeating the lessons of my masters, with Plato and Xenocrates for judges, and the whole human race for audience.

O man, of whatever country you are, and whatever your opinions may be, behold your history, such as I have thought to read it, not in books written by your fellow-creatures, who are liars, but in nature, which never lies. All that comes from her will be true; nor will you meet with anything false, unless I have involuntarily put in something of my own. The times of which I am going to speak are very remote: how much are you changed from what you once were! It is, so to speak, the life of your species which I am going to write, after the qualities which you have received, which your education and habits may have depraved, but cannot have entirely destroyed. There is, I feel, an age at which the individual man would wish to stop: you are about to inquire about the age at which you would have liked your whole species to stand still. Discontented with your present state, for reasons which threaten your unfortunate descendants with still greater discontent, you will perhaps wish it were in your power to go back; and this feeling should be a panegyric on your first ancestors, a criticism of your contemporaries, and a terror to the unfortunates who will come after you.
 
They were not personal attacks.
Yeah they were. You didn't say much of substance more than STFU GTFO. That's an attack.

Any reasonable tax system* will (mostly) tax the profit a company makes. So their business is either not paying tax, debunking your claim, or they are turning a profit which suggests they shouldn't have shut it down.

* I admit that I don't know if the US system is reasonable. Somehow I expect it isn't.
This is how it works in the US. Businesses don't pay taxes when they are making losses. They only pay on profits, which leads to misleading accounting tricks, but that's another issue.

However, if you're referring to the federal ban on selling incandescent bulbs, then you're completely mischaracterizing the goal here. Incandescent bulbs are stupendously inefficient. Only something like 20% of the energy they use is converted to light - their very purpose.

There are already other products on the market which are not only more efficient, but also cheaper to operate.

Defending incandescent bulbs is no different than proclaiming the benefits of a rawhide buggy whip in 1910, as the industrialized consumer automobile supplants horse-based transport. Go ahead an die on that pitard if you like, but banning incandescents for domestic use is smart policy.
Incandescents are actually <5% efficient.

Also, I find arguing against them kind of like arguing over mileage standards in cars.

Basically the arguments go:
"I can buy any car I want to go moar faster! It's no one's business how much I guzzle. I shouldn't have to pay moar monies for moar efficiency I don't want".

Counterargument:
"We all pay moar monies because people like you use moar gasoline which makes it moar expensive. We all have to go to the hospital moar because clunkers like your's pollute moar. You will pay less for using your moar efficient car in the long run because of gasoline savings, moar than making up for the upfront cost."

Incandescents and guzzlers are basically the same issue.
 
Back
Top Bottom