No. I have always said that taxes are necessary to a society, even in "Government ad Perfecto". I did float around the word "voluntary", but that was the impractical, idealistic side of me jumping in.
I suppose that may be true, but I would've expected you to at least choose the word "reluctantly" instead of "gladly."
Ideally, infrastructure would eventually be privatized, however that would be one of the last things to happen in forming this system. A treasury: I took it for granted that a treasury was implied with the mention of taxes. Yes, it would exist. However, the Federal Banking System would not. It is not the gov'ts job to touch the economy. Seperation of Economy and State.
I still don't see how roads can effectively be privatized. There is no way to create a free market for roads. Privately owned roads essentially grants a monopoly to the owning corporation, since you can't always "shop around" for a route between one place to another. For example, there is only one road I can possibly take to get out of my driveway. I don't see how you can imagine that monopolized roads will be efficient.
It's not the government's job to touch the economy? It's arguable perhaps, but what do you suggest should be done to combat recessions and inflation? Let the free market figure it out? And what about exchange rates--simply let the dollar be sold on a free market without controlling excessive depreciation or appreciation?
I still don't see how roads can effectively be privatized. There is no way to create a free market for roads. Privately owned roads essentially grants a monopoly to the owning corporation, since you can't always "shop around" for a route between one place to another. For example, there is only one road I can possibly take to get out of my driveway. I don't see how you can imagine that monopolized roads will be efficient.
God I hate making concessions. The problem I see with pivatized roads would be charging for use of roads, obviously. I suppose I can give you this one.
Quote from fadeblue »
It's not the government's job to touch the economy? It's arguable perhaps, but what do you suggest should be done to combat recessions and inflation? Let the free market figure it out? And what about exchange rates--simply let the dollar be sold on a free market without controlling excessive depreciation or appreciation?
I suggest the market fix itself. It is possible, but people seem to have lost sight of that; they are so used to looking to the gov't to fix it. Adam Smith may have been wrong on some points, but I don't think this was one of them. Also, the govt would not(assuming we're talking about my ideal gov't here) control the exchange rates.
Originally Posted by T2Sux
I suggest the market fix itself. It is possible, but people seem to have lost sight of that; they are so used to looking to the gov't to fix it. Adam Smith may have been wrong on some points, but I don't think this was one of them. Also, the govt would not(assuming we're talking about my ideal gov't here) control the exchange rates.
Free market capitalism, when left on its own, will continue in a death spiral that ends with the subject population living on the brink of starvation. This is espeically true of international systems. In order to achieve the best prices, companies hire workers at ever decreasing wages and working conditions to compete effectively. Its a spiral that continues until it literally squeezes the lifeforce out of the working class (and you get revolution). One need only look at turn of the century america to really see the ugliness, immorality, and corruptness of a largely free market economy (and we were doing better than our European cousins to boot!).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I never allowed my schooling to interfere with my education" -Mark Twain
Quote from hybrid life »
The war is for oil..its one of the ways to make this huge operation worthwhile. People care more about lower gas prices than iraqis anyway.
What others say about me:
Quote from JayC »
You're obviously an ignorant conservative. I blame your hill-billy Mom and Dad.
Out of curiosity---what is your economic status? Because, judging by that remark, it does not seem as though you've dealt with or met many poor people. Speaking from experience, having grown up in some very poor areas, there are very, very few cases in which a person has "no control" over their situation. More often than not, a person could improve their situation, except they are not willing to do what is required.
Though I'm not horrendously poor, I'm certainly not well to do either. I'd classify myself as lower middle class. Both my parents were underpaid teachers teaching in poor school districts.
Quote from T2sux »
Oh. So you're one of those, eh?
I'm so glad you can label and classify me as "one of those". I'm sure it helps you to ignore my arguments rather than actually answer them.
Quote from T2sux »
First off, your assertion that all wealth comes from extortion is not only wrong, but damn offensive. Contrary to popular belief, not everyone who owns property does so as a result of mercilessly leeching off the hard work of others. And it is NOT the gov'ts job to play Robin Hood.
You need to brush up on your reading comprehension skills. Nowhere in my post did I say either of the two things you accuse me of saying. You'd be better served by addressing my actual arguments rather than ridiculously transparent strawmen.
To say that all wealth comes from extortion would be idiotic. Wealth can only be generated through production. However, a lot of people can and do supplement or even completely replace their income from production with income from other people's production extorted out of them through interest on loans, capital gains, and other uses of property to get income without work.
As for there being people who don't leech off the work of others, unless you save your money under your mattress, you are leeching off of others. Earning interest is a form of leeching. The question is not whether or not you are leeching, but if you are leeching more than you are being leeched from.
You never answered my question about the hypothetical man who has $2 million in bank accounts, investments, etc., and lives off the $60,000 in interest he recieves from it annually. Has this man earned that $60,000? And if so, how has he earned it? It certainly isn't by working, because he doesn't.
Quote from T2sux »
In addition to that: As it stands, a huge chunk of the country's wealth is in the hands of maybe 10 Americans...the lower class and middle class outnumber the upper class greatly. Where is your plutocracy?
Umm... the very fact that there is a large middle class means that the wealth is concentrated, not at the top, but in the middle. Just take a look at Forbes's list of richest Americans is history and see that 4 of the top 8 all lived and had their fortunes at approximately the same time. Together, Rockefeller, Vanderbilt, Carnegie, and Weyerhauser had nearly 4% or 1/25th of the entire US economy. The only person currently alive in the top 8 is Bill Gates with a measly 0.6% of the US economy. The "huge chunk of wealth" you refer to is simply nonexistant. Perhaps you should get your facts straight before you try to reply next time.
Which is a blatant lie. I agree that a guy who says "Hey, lets have a tequila party today" instead of briefing on the big account, therefore losing his job does not deserve protection.
Really, now? Whatever happened to "just because they made a mistake, it doesn't mean they should be left to die"? You have always on these threads argued that the person who throws the tequila party and loses their job is still entitled to gov't protection. Or are you changing your mind?
Quote from Stax »
But when, for instance, Mom and Pop's General store gets shunted out by Walmart, that simply is beyond their control. It's not quite so nasty, but not their fault as a nuclear attack.
....and just as likely as one. Not to be nitpicky, but WalMarts and small town General Stores do and can coexist. However, that is beside the point. If this were to happen...fine. It is WalMart's right to expand. If the employees at Mom and Pop's lose their jobs...they should get new ones. You are not entitled by right to keep the same job forever.
Quote from Senori »
Last time I checked, I wasn't able to control whether the company I was working for's CEO was conducting massive fraud, and about to make the company go kaput.
However, you would be held responsible for GETTING ANOTHER JOB. You are all using examples of losing jobs; Since when is no one capable of getting a new job? You lose your job? Tough. It happens. Job security is not an inalienable right. Get a new one.
Quote from GMontag »
'm so glad you can label and classify me as "one of those". I'm sure it helps you to ignore my arguments rather than actually answer them.
I apologize. I saw the words property and extortion in the same sentence, a combination usually used by the socialist idiots I deal with at school, ie my teachers.
Quote from GMontag »
You need to brush up on your reading comprehension skills. Nowhere in my post did I say either of the two things you accuse me of saying.
You didn't?
In capitalism, having property allows you to extort money from the people who actually earned it by producing.
Wealth is extorted from those who "earn it"
And then you said:
it is the governement's responsibility to redistribute the wealth from those who benefit from this extortion to those who suffer from it.
And there's your Robin Hood. Rob from the rich and give to the poor.
Quote from GMontag »
To say that all wealth comes from extortion would be idiotic. Wealth can only be generated through production. However, a lot of people can and do supplement or even completely replace their income from production with income from other people's production extorted out of them through interest on loans, capital gains, and other uses of property to get income without work.
I'm trying to get what you're saying here. Earning interest on loans is extortion? Presumably, you mean a bank loaning someone money, then making interest off it. While I would agree that they are not, per se, earning the money, I would not call it extortion. It was the bank's money to begin with, which they chose to lend to someone, off of which they have the right to collect interest--they need to make a profit. This is(assuming this is what you meant, of course) a distortion of the word extortion.
As for there being people who don't leech off the work of others, unless you save your money under your mattress, you are leeching off of others. Earning interest is a form of leeching. The question is not whether or not you are leeching, but if you are leeching more than you are being leeched from.
Are you kidding me with this one? You are, again, using the word to twist the facts. Off of whom are you leeching if you have your money in a bank? No, you are not earning the money, however to call it leeching is a little extreme.
You never answered my question about the hypothetical man who has $2 million in bank accounts, investments, etc., and lives off the $60,000 in interest he recieves from it annually. Has this man earned that $60,000? And if so, how has he earned it? It certainly isn't by working, because he doesn't.
No, he hasn't earned it. However, he is entitled to it: by mutual advantage and mutual consent, both parties are doing what they please with their money. He is using the money he HAS earned, to make more; while he may not have physically earned it, the interest is a benefit of the money he has earned.
Umm... the very fact that there is a large middle class means that the wealth is concentrated, not at the top, but in the middle. Just take a look at Forbes's list of richest Americans is history and see that 4 of the top 8 all lived and had their fortunes at approximately the same time. Together, Rockefeller, Vanderbilt, Carnegie, and Weyerhauser had nearly 4% or 1/25th of the entire US economy. The only person currently alive in the top 8 is Bill Gates with a measly 0.6% of the US economy. The "huge chunk of wealth" you refer to is simply nonexistant. Perhaps you should get your facts straight before you try to reply next time.
I apologize for my mistake.
Again, concerning economic status- if you truly are lower middle class, and you have(presumably) met the people about whom we are debating...how can you say that poor people cannot control their situations?
However, you would be held responsible for GETTING ANOTHER JOB. You are all using examples of losing jobs; Since when is no one capable of getting a new job? You lose your job? Tough. It happens. Job security is not an inalienable right. Get a new one.
There are places where there are more people than jobs. What would you do here?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Sing lustily and with good courage.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
Move, or commute. Seriously, if you can't find a job one place, that doesn't mean you have the right to sit on your ass and wait for one to find you.
Suppose your economic situation makes it unfeasible for you to move. What would you do at this point?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Sing lustily and with good courage.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
And I suppose this hypothetical person has absolutely NO means of commuting, either, eh? A bike, a car, public transportation?
Moving requires not only a means to commute, but a location for the subject to inhabit. Even if they had a means of transportation such as a bike, they would still be hard-pressed to find a place to live in their new home with their current funds. As well, using an automobile requires money as well, both for any maintenance neccessary, but fuel.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Sing lustily and with good courage.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
No. I meant: is this hypothetical hobo utterly incapable of commuting to a job in another town?
In many states, yes.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Sing lustily and with good courage.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
So wait....this person cannot move....they cannot find a job, ANY job, in their own town...they cannot get a job in ANY town....where does this person live, exactly, that this is a plausible scenario? Because I cannot think of anywhere in this country where this is mildly plausible, and I've been to some damn poor places.
As the world's only anarchist-socialist, I feel that people should be supported whatever their economic situation. The only issue at hand is money, an invention of mankind. The ideal country would have no money, and thus, no greed. People only need money because others have money, which they use as capital and extort others by stealing the food and resources from the earth and selling it to them for... money.
We need to rid ourselves of the culture of greed and all the evils associated with it... money, the class system, and destruction of the environment [/rant]
The ideal government is non-fiscal and non-coercive. Nobody works who doesn't want to, but everyone reaps the fruit of the nation's labor. Non-creative jobs are mechanized, making industrialism the friend, not the enemy, of the working classes. The job-based problems of modern government are a casualty of the Darwinian economy. If everyone gets what they want without having to work, unions and government will stop fighting progress, and production will skyrocket. Surplus will be universal, not personal.
Sounds impractical and idealized? Not to me.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from morgan_coke »
not to be overly picky, but do you mean "weird" to be "wierd"? I'm just trying to figure out if thats a type or if they're just being wierd by making a creature type thats really wierd because its a misspelled wierd.
Sing lustily and with good courage.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
In my experience, people in those areas are very, very rarely for want of work. They have small communities with jobs for everyone, or farms or some type of trade.
Yes, but you are proposing a different world. Those small communities would only have one or two stores, which would require significantly fewer workers. Big companies would have taken over the local farms, and likely have automated them, requiring even fewer workers.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Sing lustily and with good courage.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
Well, in this hypothetical situation, you would be **** out of luck. However, if you have put yourself in a position of having ZERO chances to find a job, then I have a hard time shedding tears.
Well, in this hypothetical situation, you would be **** out of luck. However, if you have put yourself in a position of having ZERO chances to find a job, then I have a hard time shedding tears.
If you were born into the community, it is not neccessarily your choices that put you there.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Sing lustily and with good courage.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
There is no ideal government.
Every form of government has its own trade-offs.
Correctly run, I believe a democracy is the best form of government.
Of course, correctly run, communism would work too ...
and gottagetmac, if everyone gets what they want without having to work, 50% of those people will just do nothing.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
my mouth is full of winsome lies -
and eyes are full of death besides
but luckily the soul is wise -
it sees beyond my blindness and
forced failure makes a better guise,
so as i come again alive,
it feels like life's a decent plan
I think the ideal government would exist solely to protect its citizens from the other citizens. People would otherwise be free to live their lives as they saw fit. A Libertarian democracy, if you will.
Incidentally, blaming money for greed is nonsensical. Greed is the desire to have more than one needs of something. Money is only one of many such things.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
--the Chaos Turtle "Uncommonly Smooth."
Banner by Tidwell
Avatar jazzed up by Zoobamaphooza
These numbers are BAD: 4 8 15 16 23 42
These numbers are GOOD: 45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
These numbers are OLD: 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 wicked-zen.blogspot.com
Sing lustily and with good courage.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
Not neccessarily. Those whose parents are very poor can generally not afford anything beyond High School; and don't give me the "They can work three jobs" thing, because in the world you're proposing, there probably wouldn't be that many jobs available.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Sing lustily and with good courage.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I suppose that may be true, but I would've expected you to at least choose the word "reluctantly" instead of "gladly."
I still don't see how roads can effectively be privatized. There is no way to create a free market for roads. Privately owned roads essentially grants a monopoly to the owning corporation, since you can't always "shop around" for a route between one place to another. For example, there is only one road I can possibly take to get out of my driveway. I don't see how you can imagine that monopolized roads will be efficient.
It's not the government's job to touch the economy? It's arguable perhaps, but what do you suggest should be done to combat recessions and inflation? Let the free market figure it out? And what about exchange rates--simply let the dollar be sold on a free market without controlling excessive depreciation or appreciation?
I suggest the market fix itself. It is possible, but people seem to have lost sight of that; they are so used to looking to the gov't to fix it. Adam Smith may have been wrong on some points, but I don't think this was one of them. Also, the govt would not(assuming we're talking about my ideal gov't here) control the exchange rates.
Free market capitalism, when left on its own, will continue in a death spiral that ends with the subject population living on the brink of starvation. This is espeically true of international systems. In order to achieve the best prices, companies hire workers at ever decreasing wages and working conditions to compete effectively. Its a spiral that continues until it literally squeezes the lifeforce out of the working class (and you get revolution). One need only look at turn of the century america to really see the ugliness, immorality, and corruptness of a largely free market economy (and we were doing better than our European cousins to boot!).
What others say about me:
Sven Dostei
Unofficial Official arrogant teenage elitist of The Ivory Tower
Though I'm not horrendously poor, I'm certainly not well to do either. I'd classify myself as lower middle class. Both my parents were underpaid teachers teaching in poor school districts.
I'm so glad you can label and classify me as "one of those". I'm sure it helps you to ignore my arguments rather than actually answer them.
You need to brush up on your reading comprehension skills. Nowhere in my post did I say either of the two things you accuse me of saying. You'd be better served by addressing my actual arguments rather than ridiculously transparent strawmen.
To say that all wealth comes from extortion would be idiotic. Wealth can only be generated through production. However, a lot of people can and do supplement or even completely replace their income from production with income from other people's production extorted out of them through interest on loans, capital gains, and other uses of property to get income without work.
As for there being people who don't leech off the work of others, unless you save your money under your mattress, you are leeching off of others. Earning interest is a form of leeching. The question is not whether or not you are leeching, but if you are leeching more than you are being leeched from.
You never answered my question about the hypothetical man who has $2 million in bank accounts, investments, etc., and lives off the $60,000 in interest he recieves from it annually. Has this man earned that $60,000? And if so, how has he earned it? It certainly isn't by working, because he doesn't.
Umm... the very fact that there is a large middle class means that the wealth is concentrated, not at the top, but in the middle. Just take a look at Forbes's list of richest Americans is history and see that 4 of the top 8 all lived and had their fortunes at approximately the same time. Together, Rockefeller, Vanderbilt, Carnegie, and Weyerhauser had nearly 4% or 1/25th of the entire US economy. The only person currently alive in the top 8 is Bill Gates with a measly 0.6% of the US economy. The "huge chunk of wealth" you refer to is simply nonexistant. Perhaps you should get your facts straight before you try to reply next time.
You didn't?
Wealth is extorted from those who "earn it"
And then you said:
And there's your Robin Hood. Rob from the rich and give to the poor. I'm trying to get what you're saying here. Earning interest on loans is extortion? Presumably, you mean a bank loaning someone money, then making interest off it. While I would agree that they are not, per se, earning the money, I would not call it extortion. It was the bank's money to begin with, which they chose to lend to someone, off of which they have the right to collect interest--they need to make a profit. This is(assuming this is what you meant, of course) a distortion of the word extortion. Are you kidding me with this one? You are, again, using the word to twist the facts. Off of whom are you leeching if you have your money in a bank? No, you are not earning the money, however to call it leeching is a little extreme. No, he hasn't earned it. However, he is entitled to it: by mutual advantage and mutual consent, both parties are doing what they please with their money. He is using the money he HAS earned, to make more; while he may not have physically earned it, the interest is a benefit of the money he has earned. I apologize for my mistake.
Again, concerning economic status- if you truly are lower middle class, and you have(presumably) met the people about whom we are debating...how can you say that poor people cannot control their situations?
There are places where there are more people than jobs. What would you do here?
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
Suppose your economic situation makes it unfeasible for you to move. What would you do at this point?
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
Moving requires not only a means to commute, but a location for the subject to inhabit. Even if they had a means of transportation such as a bike, they would still be hard-pressed to find a place to live in their new home with their current funds. As well, using an automobile requires money as well, both for any maintenance neccessary, but fuel.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
In many states, yes.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
We need to rid ourselves of the culture of greed and all the evils associated with it... money, the class system, and destruction of the environment [/rant]
The ideal government is non-fiscal and non-coercive. Nobody works who doesn't want to, but everyone reaps the fruit of the nation's labor. Non-creative jobs are mechanized, making industrialism the friend, not the enemy, of the working classes. The job-based problems of modern government are a casualty of the Darwinian economy. If everyone gets what they want without having to work, unions and government will stop fighting progress, and production will skyrocket. Surplus will be universal, not personal.
Sounds impractical and idealized? Not to me.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
If you were born into the community, it is not neccessarily your choices that put you there.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
Every form of government has its own trade-offs.
Correctly run, I believe a democracy is the best form of government.
Of course, correctly run, communism would work too ...
and gottagetmac, if everyone gets what they want without having to work, 50% of those people will just do nothing.
and eyes are full of death besides
but luckily the soul is wise -
it sees beyond my blindness and
forced failure makes a better guise,
so as i come again alive,
it feels like life's a decent plan
Incidentally, blaming money for greed is nonsensical. Greed is the desire to have more than one needs of something. Money is only one of many such things.
"Uncommonly Smooth."
Banner by Tidwell
Avatar jazzed up by Zoobamaphooza
These numbers are BAD: 4 8 15 16 23 42
These numbers are GOOD: 45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
These numbers are OLD: 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
wicked-zen.blogspot.com
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.