Printable View
Which of the three do you think is the best form of an economic structure for global trade and why? As an economist, I'd like to hear the thoughts on this, especially with the recent fluctuation with the world markets. Have some of your opinions changed with recent events or do you still stand on a particular system?
I chose mixed economy. I think that the basic needs of people need to be taken care of to the extent that they can get food and health care. Homelessness doesn't even bother me that bad if somebody doesn't want to work, but if they do work, we need to increase the minimum wage to what it was in 1970 and keep it that way.
One person working should be able to support a spouse and two kids.
After that, capitalism is great but it needs to run in what a computer programmer would call a "sand box". It can't fuck with the important stuff that I outlined above. That should be socialist.
I believe in an automaton state, where all the goods and means of production and maintenance, etc. Is all taken care of by automatons or robots of some sort, which would allow an Anarchist-Communist state to survive, as there is always enough for everyone, there is no such thing as money or trade, and people are essentially allowed to do as they please as all of their basic needs and everything else will be met for them.
Of course, none of that probably makes sense if you read it right now, but I am writing a nice long paper on the idea that I'll post up later today if I finish.
But right now I am for a mixed economy, as humans are dastardly and greedy when put in stressful positions and positions of power.
It has to be mixed. Pure Capitalism was Bush's and Reagan's system, which failed miserably and the super-powerful companies start buying congress seats and run the country. Pure socialism was the USSR, which also failed miserably. The strongest economies are those who are capitalized, but controlled, so about 80/20. If Reaganomics had continued there would be an IBM logo on the flag right now.
I've had the same kinds of ideas actually, partly seeded by the endless hours I've spent washing up at the pub for money. Any automaton which can do basic tasks (basic vision, conceptualisation of 3D space, follow instructions...) would make me redundant for a fraction of the cost so capitalism itself would be enough to cause the initial restructuring of the economy... the vast majority of the population would then be free from work. All paper pushers, hairdressers, all of this menial rubbish, many labourers... all that would remain is highly specialised and trained personnel; thinkers. Vast economic upheaval would then be required to care for the unemployed masses; almost approaching a communist utopia, really.Quote:
Originally Posted by A Roxxor
The problem as I see it is what would become of the displaced population... I'm a dreamer of course so I idealise a state in which all human beings cooperate together in advancing the vanguards of human knowledge, and in creating art and discussing philosophy... but largely based on the society that surrounds me, I fear what would really happen is they would have no idea what to do with their total freedom and would simply not understand the concept of choosing to work, leading to a huge spread of lethargy creating a proletariat which just sits and eats and watches TV; a downward rather than upward spiral of human progression.
Regarding our current economic model, it has to be mixed economy. The rich are all selfish, stupid people and the poor need a source of income. You can overshoot it though; the British government has done this. Instead of supporting the unemployed, the amounts of money given to these people is so huge now that it's actually a self-propagating process, causing new unemployment and maintaining the unemployment that already exists (as PS warned about), and has created a whole new class of idiotic, pointless people to whom I alluded above.
I think free markets are the best, as long as they are actually free. None of this bullshit, its free but the government gives out money and favors to some companies. Its not free if the government is interfering with everything. The only thing the government should be doing is stopping illegal and harmful stuff.
Though more importantly I think the size of government has to be way smaller. Everyone would be far richer if the government wasn't siphoning off massive amount of money through taxes and inflation. Just image how much you could do if you didn't pay income tax. Ron Paul had a great plan for it.
Lets see we can have the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, or everyone in the US could have a 35-50% pay increase by removing income tax. Hmm such a hard choice, a pointless war, or 50% increase in my pay. Why the heck are people picking war! That would end the economic problems we are having right there, it would be a huge boost to the economy. The best part is everyone is getting money but there is no inflation, because its money that was already there.
So what's your view on the privatization of social services with a smaller government, like say the road system or fire fighting?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alric
If they could do a better job for cheaper then I am all for it. Though things like firefighting and building roads, I don't really have a problem with. There is a long list of things we waste money on, before we get down that far. All the foreign aid and stuff for example. That is money that Americans never see, cutting off wasteful foreign aid money and money spent on keeping troops over seas and stuff, would save us an insane amount of money and no person living in the US would be effected.
I agree with the other mixers here. basic needs definitely should be taken care of, and after that, yeah let competition do its thing and advance our technology, which can in turn improve the systems in place for providing needs. and the circle can go on :D
Competition is totally vital to any advancement. In my opinion, socialize police, fire departments, and other emergency services (not healthcare), but leave everything else free market.
In my opinion basic healthcare and education for everybody regardless of financial status is just an obvious necessity.
That's what I get for posting when sleep deprived. I forgot education.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
The problem is that competition disappears in pure capitalism, big companies get rid of their competitors and create monopolies. Once they have a monopoly, they cut back on quality. This is the Microsoft business model, and it works, but reduces quality and eliminates choice. The current state of Microsoft is the fault of 8 years of unrestrained capitalism.Quote:
Originally Posted by tkdyo
The more powerful a company gets, the more it influences politics, essentially buying the country. You know who the most powerful man in Florida is right now? It's not a politician, it's Robert Iger. Capitalism would only work if politicians weren't corruptible, but that's not that case.
Well you see where government ran education got this country. It sucks horribly. It seems almost odd when people say we can't have private education and the government needs to do it. When almost universally private education is far superior than public education in this country, and everyone knows it.
As for monopolies, they are really not a problem long term in a free market. In a pure capitalist system, a large company can not get rid of all competition, it is simply impossible. They might be able to in the short term but, they can never in the long term.
Compare our education to the education system of all sorts of other developed countries. They are way better.
Do you think that maybe the problem is that we just have a corrupt ass goverment that spends too much money training and financing latin american death squads to protect corrupt banana companies from "evil socialists" that don't think that a foreign company should own the bulk of the arable land and that companies shouldn't underpay people to apply fungicides that they know to be toxic?
Whoever said we can't have private education?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alric
Of course we have a corrupt and horrible government that wastes money. Which is exactly why anything that removes government from the system and replaces it with free market alternatives is a good thing.
The reason socialism always fails so horribly is because it fundamentally needs a strong government, which easily becomes corrupted and then proceeds to screw everyone over.
I would be all for voluntarily socialism without government being involved at all, however that is never going to happen so I am capitalist all the way.
Why is it that the European governments are able to provide good healthcare and good education though? Do you think that we should look at them and figure out what the difference is?
It is possible for high tech companies. Things like high technology requires millions of dollars worth of QA just to get off the ground, and bank will not make that kind of loan.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alric
We have a problem with conservatives in this country, that's less the case in the European countries.Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned
Exactly, mixed is the best. With no public alternative there would be more uneducated people because they're poor, and prices would skyrocket like the current cost problem with health care. But all public wouldn't be good either as without competition with private schools, quality would suffer (moreso than currently.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
It doesn't matter if the bank will loan you the money or not, even though they probably would. You just have people invest in the company. If there is a need for it, people will invest, they will make money and their will be competition. Something being expensive isn't a limitation to the free market. Also if it is at all possible, people will find a way to lower the cost as well.
People won't invest without a product. It takes 50 million to launch a technology company, minimum. That's hard to come by with just an idea. Software is different, a kid in a garage can cripple a software giant, hardware is different.
I'll also point out the the recent aids vaccine was made by the us army because companies didn't want to do it. Apparently, they can make more money with treatments and poor people in africa and south east asia can't afford their medicine anyway.
People invest all the time without a product. If you do the math and you figure out you can supply parts cheaper than the giant company and you line up buyers for your parts, people will easily invest in that, and there is a good chance you will make money.
Plus companies that are already manufacturing things, can switch products or add new hardware products and their cost will be significantly less.
Not true when a lot of the companies make the parts themselves, eliminating the middle man. Doen't happen as much in the PC market, but it does in every other silicon market.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alric
There is a lot of competition in that area today. You can find an alternative to nearly everything as far as hardware goes.
indeed, thats why I said mixed. all of either will inevitably result in corruption and negative trends. The two have to compete to stay healthy. However...I wouldnt be opposed to a good idea for states to run all the socialized thing rather than the national government. thats a kind of soft competition between the states then.Quote:
Originally Posted by ninja9578
The problem with socialism is not just the fact of an illegitimate form of government, but the absolute pricing of goods entirely. In a free market, the products are priced based on demand and inflation is justified by the amount of money circulating in the economy as well as the collateral that's backing the national currency of a sovereign economy. Countries have tried printing money without a commodity backing it, such as gold, to make sure it has standing value. These economies went into a state of panic as inflation rose substantially. Socialism essentially outlaws any sense of allowing the market to correct its inflation and deflation.
When we look at a mixed economy, such as Canada (although the USA is technically considered a mixed economy), specific industries are socialized. Usually, a mixed economy primarily has regulations set in play with the government having a minor role in any type of industry ownership. The only thing I disagree with is if education is owned by the state, then it needs to be provided in a much better way. In the USA, honestly, it is crap. Generals that you take in secondary schools such as a common university is something you all ready learn in a European high school. So, in other words, to get a bachelors in most European countries it's only three years. The system of college in the US is founded on excess waste of students spending money and putting themselves in debt. Debt is a primary thing that the common consumer lives with because that's what we're raised on, unfortunately.
The one thing that has been pointed out in an absolutely free market is that there will be corporations that will profit so much, that they will become a monopoly. Shell Oil was an example of this, and, I haven't done the number myself, but from what I recall they were making equivalent or more of the United States government back in their day. John D. Rockefeller is also an individual who was another example of the monopolistic regimes that existed back in the day. He was forced to split his company into multiple ones since it had become so big (he owned 90% of the worlds oil).
If regulations aren't put into place, essentially, a single company can take over an entire industry or multiple industries, so long as competitors are willing to accept any bid to be bought out. Usually, they're not going to say no when they are going to get a paycheck in the eight to ten digit range. Plus, monopolies have the resources to compete faster and better than their competitors. If a free market truly rained, countries would eventually be operated by or governed as a corporation.
Capitalism should be like a football game. Competition should be bound by rules and regulations. Government's role should only be as a referee, making sure all sides are playing by the rules, so that one team can't bring bats to a football game. Or in other words, one team can't become a monopoly. They have to use fair business practices.
Government should not be a player, because they make the rules, therefore, cannot be an objective enforcer of those rules. In the end, business are free to succeed or fail based on merits and drive by playing within those rules.
Even within the U.S. government, it was set up with three branches: legislative, executive, and judicial, so that no one branch could essentially become a 'monopoly'.
There already is, on less of a level. The more progressive states have more state regulations, and the conservative ones have less. State legislature is one of the largest reasons that progressive states tend to be far more wealthy than the conservative ones, and less of a class gap. If Silicon Valley had been located in Texas, the computer companies would have grown out of control and eventually crumbled under the class gap that they created.Quote:
Originally Posted by tkdyo
Remember "The Bubble?" If not: damn you kids. Part of why that happened was because it was a new field and lots of companies tried to get in on it, but another large reason is that because the industry was so new (and international,) there were almost no regulations on it.
I love this analogy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Exhalent
Hey i dont want to be devil's advocate, and I agree with you, ("and imma let you finish," lol) but I'm pretty darn sure that every last cent of the federal income tax is used to pay theinterest on the national debt. We're not even paying the debt off, we're just giving free money to the international banks because our debt has accumulated so much that our entire income tax revenue hasd to be used just to pay the interest. All of the physical spending the government does in Iraq or Afghanistan or here on or own soil, or wherever else is either on borrowed or printed money.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alric
But, for the sake of argument, and assuming we werent buried in debt, i completely agree with you.
This analogy is kind of misinterpreting the situation. Sure, there should be regulations. They're called anti-fraud laws. They're called anti-money laundering laws. They're called anti-collusion and price manipulation laws. NOT dictating how much money a person or company can make in a year, or how many employees you can have, or what kind of benefits you have to give, or how large you can expand your operations too, or any of the other socialist myopic fallacies.Quote:
Capitalism should be like a football game. Competition should be bound by rules and regulations. Government's role should only be as a referee, making sure all sides are playing by the rules, so that one team can't bring bats to a football game. Or in other words, one team can't become a monopoly. They have to use fair business practices.
Government should not be a player, because they make the rules, therefore, cannot be an objective enforcer of those rules. In the end, business are free to succeed or fail based on merits and drive by playing within those rules.
Even within the U.S. government, it was set up with three branches: legislative, executive, and judicial, so that no one branch could essentially become a 'monopoly'.
Do you people not understand that the richest people in the world, the ones you claim to be wanting to restrict, the Rockefellers, the Gates', the Buffets, among others, DO NOT EVEN PAY AS MUCH TAXES AS SOMEONE IN THE MIDDLE CLASS, even after all of the taxes that have been levied upon them. They have been able to beat all of the taxes that have been valiantly levied in the name of equality by simply creating foundations such as the Gates Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation, Warren Buffet contributed a ton of his personal wealth to the Gates Foundation, AND IT SURE AS HECK AINT BECAUSE THESE PEOPLE ARE PHILANTHROPISTS. They put all their money into family-established foundations because they are tax free, and they end up paying a miniscule amount of tax.
Well my point wasn't really where the money is going but how much is spent. If we are spending more on the wars, than we are gaining from income tax, if we get rid of the wars we can get rid of the income tax. If we get rid of all the foreign aid we can get rid of even more taxes. Though eventually instead of just cutting taxes, we should also be cutting the amount of money we print to get rid of inflation as well.
All the feat mongering has to stop. Eventually people need to decide, do we want this false type of protection that wars give, or do we want an to remain a competitive economy in the world? As we are going right now, eventually our country will bankrupt, hyper inflation will hip and wipe out most people's savings, then eventually we will have stop all the wars anyway, and our economy will be in ruins for atleast the next 10 to 20 years.
The biggest problem people and governments have as far as economy goes, is that people are so worried about the downsides, that they ignore the long term effects of everything in order to keep short term growth high. Its far better for the economy, long term for business to fail and die, than to prop them up and stuff.
We bailed out all the banks, and spent all that stimulus money, in order to try and manipulate the short term and it really didn't help us any. It would of been far better if the companies that would have went under got wiped out. It would of really sucked short term but we would of bounced back fairly quickly. 2 or 3 years of pain now, is far better than 10 years of pain later.
Anyone company that needs to bailed out, almost always ends up either needing more money or failing later anyway. They were failing for a reason, because they are not competitive in this market, and so they have no place in it.
ohhh yes, I remember the bubble. sad day for us all through those optimistic 90s. millionaires were made and destroyed over night lol.
also, that football analogy is win lol.
Totally agreedQuote:
Originally Posted by Alric
Who here believes in grade distribution? Should each student get the grade he or she earned, the average class grade, or close to the earned grade with a few points taken away from or given to other students? Which one of those systems has students working the hardest and getting the best educations?
I do believe in giving money to the truly disabled, but I think with real capitalism the volunteer organizations could handle that.
For the record, a healthcare system in which people wait eons to get necessary treatment because so many people are abusing their freebies and the government denies access to certain life saving drugs because the government flips the bill on them is NOT a good healthcare system. If people want socialism, there are plenty of places you can move and have it. Don't screw up this country too. Our public school system and Department of Motor Vehicles should tell you plenty about what socialized medicine would be like here.
How does this sound:
Remove income taxes and add a federal sales tax hike to make up the balance.
More closely ensure that businesses do not commit fraud, but remove all checks/balances that break monopolies because "they aren't fair". If a company pushes other companies out of business without breaking any law, it's because they are better at business than the competition. If they decide to raise prices ridiculously, the stage is set for a different company to arrive with lower prices. The only reason a government should intervene in the free market is to break a monopoly in power due to illegal activity, or if the prices go up and no new competition rises up to stop the standard of living from dropping too much (if the monopoly sells primarily staple products).
It sounds terrible. Income tax is much better than a sales tax. The sales tax hits the poor people harder than rich people.
On the whole, it sounds like your goal is to make sure that everybody can get as rich as they want. Why shouldn't the primary goal be to make sure that everybody has food, healthcare and education?
You are aware that less than 5% of the population controls around 95% of the wealth right? Do you think that that is reasonable? How hard to these people actually work?
And...you're also aware that that 5% of the population has gotten to that point through collusion with the government? It's called crony capitalism: where big business gets the government to legislate competition out of existence. Socialism hits small businesses the hardest, running most of them out of business, taking with them the middle class, while the larger companies and more wealthy families are able to withstand the blow. Thus, the gap between rich and poor becomes larger and more sparse, completely contrary to the aims of the self proclaimed socialists.Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned
Yes, I'm aware of that. That's what capitalism grows towards.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hercuflea
Tax the hell out of the rich, don't tax the poor and lightly tax the middle class. What's wrong with that? Better schools means a better educated populace which means a government that is held accountable.
Do you know that there are people that are so stupid that they actually believe that "It's a good thing that stephen hawking is american because they never would have given him healthcare in britain."?!?!? No wonder these people don't vote the republicrats out of office.
What i said earlier...the super rich are tax cheats. They have all their money in tax free foundations to preserve their wealth such as the gates' foundation, rockefeller foundation, planned parenthood, etc. Crony capitalism is not real capitalism, its a fraudulent form of capitalism designed to aid the super rich and put everyone else on bottom. In a true free market the government protects the rights of ALL businesses and persons, not just the ones with a significant bribe or lobbying power. In fact, if the politicians had any backbone they wouldn't submit to lobbyist at all, no matter where they're from.
Also, sales taxes work at the local level.
And, the national government in America is not even supposed to be able to directly tax its citizens. Before the 16th amendment, nearly all federal money was supplied directly by the states.
But don't you see that the same can be said about socialism? There has never been a real socialist government just like there has never been a real capitalist government.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hercuflea
So, why are all these big corporations so terrified of socialism if it's good for the rich? Answer that.
They are still regressive just like payroll taxes. Eliminate sales taxes and payroll taxes and adjust the income tax. If the rich want to cheat, change the rules so they cant.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hercuflea
That's irrelevant. The income tax is here and it's a good thing. It just needs to be adjusted so the rich can't cheat on it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hercuflea
I cant think of any corporation that is not in favor of the current presidents plan for "fixing" the economy. In fact, the ones who support it the most are the ones you would least expect to. Microsoft, the banks, insurance companies, disney, Timewarner, Hearst, the list goes on.
I said socialism. Not this half assed thing that obama is proposing.
I mean sandinista style stuff where the people actually get to control stuff instead of corporations.
The people dont get to control squat in any of the classical socialist nations. They just pay for it. The government controls it. If you consider being forced to pay for something you dont even want control, then you've got issues. And yes there has been real socialism in the past, but there has never been real capitalism, except maybe in the early days after the american revolution. Mao, Stalin, Kim jung il, Chavez, Mexico are all examples of socialism, and look where it got them. Mao and stalin killed tens of millions of people, Chavez is trying to shut his country off from the rest of the world, while his people starve, and its obvious the state of misery that Mexico has been and still is under.
There are a lot of states that don't have income tax. They just have sales tax. It works. It's also fair. It's a flat tax, which is what is fair. Anything else is class discrimination.
Don't forget that property should be respected. What belongs to you belongs to you. Socialists don't respect that. I think socialists are very steal happy, and I don't trust them not to steal shit out of my house. Why wouldn't they? The fact that something belongs to somebody means absolutely nothing to a socialist. They don't even think it is anything to consider for two seconds.
Everybody should pay the same percentage in taxes. I hate the idea of punishing success, and so does the economy. The neurotic obsession a certain faction of the population has with being rich is what makes the system happen. Let's not screw with that. I know they're crazy and shallow, but let them be crazy and shallow. They create business all over the place and stimulate the economy big time. If you take away their rewards, everything starts dying. Greed is what fuels the system. What could realistically take the place of greed? Even petrifying fear of a ruthless dictator is worlds less economically effective than greed. Nothing can take its place. Let's not kill it.
Income tax isn't a good thing, its a horrible thing. In fact taxes in general are horrible. Paying half your pay in taxes each year is ridiculous. Depending on where and how you spend your money, its realistically possible for a person to be paying 80-90 of everything they make into taxes, in one form or another. Be it income tax, social security, sales tax, property tax, inflation or what have you. People are being sucked dry in the US. No offense but anyone who thinks high taxes are good is a moron.
We have run away huge government spending and that is why we are being so hammered by taxes in this country. People have grown up being taxed into poverty, they don't even realize it anymore.
There isn't a single reason you shouldn't have 50% more money than you do right now. All it would take is to cut spending and you would have it. You don't even have to cut spending in the US, you just cut spending on foreign aid and military spending overseas.
I have to agree here. the income tax is bs. punishing people for bettering themselves is bs. Of course...to support all our government run programs we "need" one. then again...there is always trimming the fat off the government and putting it where the government is actually needed or would be effective...but that would be too much work for our so called representatives.
Apply a 5% sales tax to everything purchased, and remove income taxes. Now the rich can't hide their money in charitable organizations to avoid taxation.Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned
Everybody should be able to get as rich as they want. You're saying the government has the right to arbitrarily suspend free trade for the sake of making sure that we support people that don't work, therefore do not make money, therefore don't spend money, therefore don't pay sales tax to the government?
In my opinion the vast amount of taxes are just political devices created so that parties can argue with each other.
I'd just put a flat tax on income and have done with it, with 0% for those earning under something like £10,000 a year, and then rising in a bell curve to some larger figure for the very rich.
The simplicity would also cut out a large amount of pointless bureaucracy and loopholes.
Quote:
Apply a 5% sales tax to everything purchased, and remove income taxes. Now the rich can't hide their money in charitable organizations to avoid taxation.
Quote:
Income tax isn't a good thing, its a horrible thing. In fact taxes in general are horrible. Paying half your pay in taxes each year is ridiculous. Depending on where and how you spend your money, its realistically possible for a person to be paying 80-90 of everything they make into taxes, in one form or another. Be it income tax, social security, sales tax, property tax, inflation or what have you. People are being sucked dry in the US. No offense but anyone who thinks high taxes are good is a moron.
If you abolished income taxes, you're going to destroy a primary source of revenue that the government uses to function it's economic activity for purchasing power of currency, commodities, and it's existence of governmental agencies. I'm not saying all agencies are legitimate or needed, but you'd be seeing a dramatic drop that primarily aids in what could be considered a surplus if government spending wasn't at an all time high as well as the strength of our dollar in the currency market. If presidential administrations were doing things differently, we could create a surplus and also develop enough capital/resources to downsize our owed debt to other countries.Quote:
In my opinion the vast amount of taxes are just political devices created so that parties can argue with each other.
But, this is where I also have to stand in and say income taxes are bullshit. I find myself as an individual who will be located in the rich bracket when I'm in my 30's, and I don't like forfeiting over 1/3 of what I earn to the government so it can use it for other illegitimate goals. 1/3 of $1 billion could produce so many types of businesses, which would in turn develop jobs and income for employees to spend. I find it ludicrous!
Also, if one thing was also realized, the less taxes there are, the more money there is to flow in the economy. Progress and production booms. Other issues of inflation come into play, though, depending on how much money was being pushed into the economy. It's a frustrating thing to compromise what to do in a world where consumer market behavior can either be predictable or unpredictable.
I don't understand. The US Economy all ready is operating under a flat tax income. Did you mean you just want a difference in the tax brackets themselves?Quote:
I'd just put a flat tax on income and have done with it, with 0% for those earning under something like £10,000 a year, and then rising in a bell curve to some larger figure for the very rich.
What you would be referring to is not socialism, but communism. The only problem with Karl Marx's communism is that it was a theory never put into place. His ideology was not just economic, but politically structured, too. People just called Stalin and other "Red Countries" communism since their political regimes stemmed from Karl's ideas. Communism was originally a classless society where every has equal ownership, everyone pitches in for work that they are physically or mentally capable of doing, and the government's power is completely decentralized. There is no president or anything like that.Quote:
I said socialism. Not this half assed thing that obama is proposing.
I mean sandinista style stuff where the people actually get to control stuff instead of corporations.
Commun-ism came from community. The communities of each city would hold power over themselves with probably a chain of other members going up a further sociocratic order to make sure cooperation and knowledge would be exchanged between the world. This type of ideology could never function, though, because every nation in the world functions on a type of currency.
Socialism is where everything is controlled by the government. The people have no say, unless you're an individual in the government that's part of the regulatory policies that the controlling system institutes.
You know what's also funny about that is now since this entire economic mess has happened, the government itself has invested into major global companies, from the car industries and real estate, to the financial industry (Citigroup). If you recall history, this is what a lot of tyrants did: They slowly invested control into the economy.Quote:
I cant think of any corporation that is not in favor of the current presidents plan for "fixing" the economy. In fact, the ones who support it the most are the ones you would least expect to. Microsoft, the banks, insurance companies, disney, Timewarner, Hearst, the list goes on.
If you also recall, the Obama Administration is wanting to turn the Federal Reserve into a "Super-Regulatory System" which would ultimately be the power for a more socialist regime. It's quite scary. Whoever is really pulling the strings is someone above the white house. All of this economic mess seems too engineered for my views... but that's just me.
Well I don't want to get rid of just income tax, I also want to get rid of social security tax. The combined hit from social security and income tax can be up to 50 percent of your pay, and that is for people down at the bottom of the tax scale! That is just ridiculous. The social security part isn't even going to any services for the vast majority of us. It aptly named social security because its a socialist program that redistributes wealth from the young(and often poor) to the older, while siphoning off a great deal due to inefficiency. Politicians don't even pretend its for our benefit anymore, everyone knows there isn't going to be social security benefits in 40 years from now.
How the heck are people supposed to make a living when the government is taking their fair share of 50 percent of everything you make! And that is not including inflation, sale taxes, property taxes, or any other sort of tax. If they are taking 50 percent of my pay off the top, why the hell do I have to pay taxes on things I already own? Why are they taxing me for owning land or having a car?
If there was no income tax, you might legitimately say, well if you drive you should pay to upkeep the roads, but if your sucking out 50 percent of my income, why are you hitting me up for even more?
If you try to invest money, the government wants to take its cut on that as well. If you die, they want a piece of your wealth. They got their hands in everything. You stick your money under your bed and you hide it, well to bad! Here comes inflation, which eats away at the value of all money in the entire US, no one is untouched when it comes to inflation.
Realistically people are paying upwards to 90 percent of everything they own directly to the government. So when people say they want even more government, they are insane. Any more government and you just becomes slaves to the system. People already feel like that today. Its crazy, you can't escape how freaking huge the government has come. Its horrible disgusting bloated monster that devours everything in front of it.
i personally think income tax and property tax are evil, but if i was forced to choose id take income tax over property tax. The government has no right or legitimate authority to say that it owns YOUR property
^ and yeah i consider bureaucracy a cancer
Um... how does the government claim to own my property..?
And how do you propose to pay for infrastructure, education, health etc.?
The government claims to own your property by taking it away if you do not pay a property tax. You dont truly own your property, you're only paying rent for it as long as they bill you a percentage of your net worth every year.
You cut spending. I wont talk about Britain, but in America's case, we have no business spending a trillion dollars a year on our overseas military policing, warmongering, slaughter, and meddling in the affairs of other countries. That is the biggest money vacuum in our governments budget. We dont need to maintain bases in Japan, Germany, and Korea with tens of thousands of troops each. It has nothing to do with our national defense, its only putting an umbrella over our allies, protecting them from something that threatened them over 50 years ago. Not to mention Iraq.
And the government has no business in healthcare.
Of the choices above, a mixed economy is not only the best, but the only realistic system. Anywhere more than three unrelated persons live in proximity, they will both establish resources and goals in common, and trade their property and services for agreed upon fair value. Anything resembling a Libertarian-style free market or a completely planned economy can only be established by force and maintained at great expense. It's not in the nature of markets to remain free, nor in the nature of wealth/power to remain evenly distributed, because both are prone to the human drive to seek advantage over others. A functional society needs to capitalize upon that drive, but a stable society also needs to temper it.
In theory. In practice, boom times in the private sector are often built upon government initiatives and/or reliant upon government assistance, as with the railroads, WWII, the Apollo missions and the internet. Government exists precisely to take care of 'big picture' issues that get overlooked in the pursuit of profit. Tax money is not removed from the economy, just directed differently within it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Absolute
If you outright own a piece of land, then there is no reason you should ever have to pay anyone. However the government will take it away from you if you do not pay property tax every year. You never really own it, your just renting it as Hercuflea pointed out.
"the government" in this case being your county or municipality. If you want to live in a county without property taxes, you will probably find it lacking hospitals, schools, libraries and serviceable roads and bridges, too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alric
There is no reason it should, seeing as we pay so much in other taxes, it should cover everything. If they weren't so wasteful, its totally unneeded.
Yes, but see, a county is different from a state or nation. Most counties do get some assistance from the state and federal governments, but the main source of revenue for maintaining local core services comes from property tax. See how far you get telling the gas company, "But I already paid my electric bill!"Quote:
Originally Posted by Alric
There is no reason they can't pay for schools and stuff with the local sales tax, which I am pretty sure is what they do. Which makes a lot more sense, anyone who is buying stuff, pays sale tax. Schools and stuff are for everyone, not just people who own a home.
The point is they make layers and layers of taxes, so that each dollar you get, you are paying dozens or more taxes on it, which is ridiculous.
True, there is no reason that just because there is no property tax, that there are no schools and fire stations, etc. The problem is that they are going to tell me that they own my property. And with a sales tax, even illegal aliens have to pay the tax, and seeing that there are 15 million plus of them in this country, it will generate a ton of revenue.
Not essentially, my friend. When we're talking about economic booms, a variety of factors come into play, including the governments role in handling regulation and managing capital derived from taxpayers. Booms can technically come from either end of high taxes or low taxes. For higher taxes, it will depend on how legitimate the government is operating all of their expenses. Creating employment through outsourcing of contractors and direct employment for development in the national infrastructure can create growth, yes. However, lower taxes for both consumers and businesses can also negate the fear of having too little.Quote:
In theory. In practice, boom times in the private sector are often built upon government initiatives and/or reliant upon government assistance, as with the railroads, WWII, the Apollo missions and the internet. Government exists precisely to take care of 'big picture' issues that get overlooked in the pursuit of profit. Tax money is not removed from the economy, just directed differently within it.
The problem that we're facing right now all has to do with fear and how everyone is operating under tight pockets. Essentially, there are four variables that justify the factors of high or low taxes:
1) The competence that the government has in its regulatory procedures and how well it manages the capital from taxpayer dollars to produce economic growth.
2) The employment available for the unemployed.
3) The marginal cash versus debt that an average consumer holds.
4) The amount of confidence or fear in the average consumer or investor to purchase products/services or do direct investments in derivatives, securities, and the overall general exchange markets.
It boils down to confidence and competence, I'd say. What do you think, my friend?
Quote:
There is no reason they can't pay for schools and stuff with the local sales tax, which I am pretty sure is what they do. Which makes a lot more sense, anyone who is buying stuff, pays sale tax. Schools and stuff are for everyone, not just people who own a home.
The point is they make layers and layers of taxes, so that each dollar you get, you are paying dozens or more taxes on it, which is ridiculous.
The only predicament we run into is you're ruining the municipal structure for not just law enforcement and safety, but also education and infrastructure. The education sector is derived from tax levies produced by property taxes. Usually, they range only around two to three digits on an annual basis depending on where you live. You'll be noticing a lot of rises in tax levies since the federal government is currently tight.Quote:
True, there is no reason that just because there is no property tax, that there are no schools and fire stations, etc. The problem is that they are going to tell me that they own my property. And with a sales tax, even illegal aliens have to pay the tax, and seeing that there are 15 million plus of them in this country, it will generate a ton of revenue.
If the municipal levies were removed and you just went straight to sales taxes, then you'd be paying enormous prices to make up for that loss in standard stores, whether they're retail or or restaurant. I don't know what the exact ratios would be, but instead of going out to Wal-Mart to buy groceries for $100, what if you had to pay up to 50% to make up for that lost tax margin? And with the current markets in their state of spiral, consumers don't have the exact purchasing power they did prior to this catastrophe.
What are your thoughts?
The government is always tight. It is set up that way. Any time they have excess money they set up new things to spend it on, and if the economy goes down at all, they come up short. Instead of cutting back the new stuff, they just raise taxes. Its an endless cycle, with government getting bigger and bigger, and we keep paying more and more.
I am not saying raise sale taxes to remove another tax. I am saying, cut spending so that the current sales tax covers everything, and they can start removing things like property tax all together. They could get rid of income tax for everyone, with making simple cuts that wouldn't effect anyone.
Schools should all be private any way. People work much harder than otherwise when they are competing for profits. It's a fact of human nature.
Recommended Reading: Why Government Doesn't Work by Harry Browne
Oh, I totally agree there. The question is, though, will everyone get the chance to have a good education regardless of what type of family they're born into.Quote:
Schools should all be private any way. People work much harder than otherwise when they are competing for profits. It's a fact of human nature.
Of course schools shouldn't be exclusively private. That codemns every single child born to a poor family to a crap future. That's the exact opposite of supposed American values, and indeed my values; social mobility. I can't think of a single advanced country with such a system.
The government should provide vouchers to students who truly can't afford schools, and the "crap" schools would be steps above the schools existing on the "crap" level now. Privatization would not be a step back for any school. Competition would bring about enormous improvement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Hm... That could actually work, but... then that leaves in the problem of how limited is the voucher? What's the cap on how much the voucher covers?
MY thoughts: The State government should be the one doing ALL revenue collection. I mean every form of taxation needs to be done by the state government. All constitutionally grounded actions made by the federal government should be done by funds given to the federal government by the states directly, but not a direct tax on the people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Absolute
Also, the counties are political subdivisions of the States, so all of their money needs to come from the State, but the States are not political subdivisions of the Federal Government; they are sovereign. So basically, a State sales tax would be good enough to fund the functional needs of the State, and some of the proceeds should be set aside, and given to the Federal Government so that it can carry out its constitutionally delegated powers. Anything beyond this is unnecessary government waste.
If you could provide mathematical research behind this proposition, would you mind posting it or PMing me? It could work, but I'd have to see the numbers involved. =D
Well, there aren't really any numbers on it, because the days of the States giving the Federal Government ALL of its money are long gone, since before the civil war i believe. And i dont think the States have ever given the counties all of their money, either, but that is just the method i would use if i had my way.
And one more thing, the only trade restriction/tax i think the Fed should be able to do is tariffs. Furthermore, these tariffs/trade restrictions should only be put on nations that we have declared war on and are currently fighting, such as, in the past, the British Empire, or Nazi Germany.
Probably enough to go to the least expensive schools. It wouldn't be fair to give away more money to each student than what others are paying for themselves. Legislators could vote on what's fair. That part isn't a problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by Absolute
No of course not; we should just let poor people die. :shock:Quote:
Originally Posted by Hercuflea
The warped system that results from mass handouts results in a lot more people dying. If the government would interfere less economically instead of more, the economy would be so much better that most people could afford health insurance and the ones who can't could be taken care of by volunteer organizations. Capitalism benefits a nation as a whole. Socialism decays it.Quote:
Originally Posted by imran_p
Mixed economy , simple for me to vote for that....
I will tell you my personal reason for it : I think the whole capitalistic system is gone crazy and out of controll on a wordwide scale . Everyone is making everyone CRAZY It reminds me somewhat of a pop-concert or other large crowd where everybody wants to get to the front-row , people get squashed in the process....
We all need to take a step back and look for what is really important human-wise. The whole BIG problem is that if a country would decide that they would take on this more humane "route" they would be surpassed by others that don't take the human factor that seriously production and other-wise , it's a global problem.
It seems we are all fighting each other , and that brings both the best in a person and the world , and the worst .......we need to get smarter. Share what is for the benefit of all.
> UM : How on earth can you write this down so "easily" ? What if we would change something small in youre own personal life and YOU would have to rely on "volunteer organisations". For sure , there will always be a have and have-not's society , that's only natural in the universe it seems . But do you want it to be that harsh ?Quote:
The warped system that results from mass handouts results in a lot more people dying. If the government would interfere less economically instead of more, the economy would be so much better that most people could afford health insurance and the ones who can't could be taken care of by volunteer organizations. Capitalism benefits a nation as a whole. Socialism decays it.
On a personal note : I've read such a lot of posts from you these past months and they are always interesting , just like the other great posters that are always here frequently on DV. You dissappoint me now :( I wish i could have a great long argument with you now about this but my typing-skills are simply not that quick as yours ( this all took me probably a half hour with 1 1/2 finger)
I might try though with short sentences ....please review your ideas for the benefit of all ;)
The government getting involved really doesn't help anyone, since anything they run is less efficient and more wasteful. Some people get the idea into their head, that if the government doesn't force people to help the less fortunate by taxing then redistributing wealth, then it will never happen. However this can not be further from the truth. A lot of people naturally donate to charity, and if people had more money because taxes were lower, they would donate even more.
So we should take the stance that the government will never help the less fortunate, then trust in humans to be kind and giving. Because no matter how evil people want to make other humans look, the fact is people can be very generous and kind.
Thanks for the positive comments, and I will give you some things to think about as for the negative ones. The problem most big government stances have is that they focus on just one part of a very big picture. I really believe that a government take over of healthcare, which is exactly what we will end up with once they get their filthy hands too far into the system, will be worse for our society on the whole than what we have now and much more so than for what we could have. I don't trust it at all. Our public school system on the whole and our Department of Motor vehicles should tell you why. I don't believe in wrecking an entire system because of how it doesn't completely help a small percentage of people who are under the it. So, that's the starting point on my stance. The next one is that by improving our economic system, which there is a major amount of room to do, we can have even fewer people who can't afford healthcare. They will be so few that volunteer organizations can handle them, and the volunteer organizations will have a lot more money. Then, IF there is still a problem, a government aid could come in and pay for some people just like food stamps and so forth. I want as little government as possible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fligh High
People bitch about corporations all the time, but governments are even more screwed up. At least executives suffer consequences directly when they screw over their customers. Politicians just babble and point fingers, and it dilutes their responsiblity. Corporations lose money, and smooth talking doesn't get them out of it. Government officials can, and they do, and they forever suck. Government sucks. I recommend the book Why Government Doesn't Work by Harry Browne.
http://commendatori.files.wordpress....llustrated.jpg
Dear Alric , your view on the world and human kind is a lot more positive than me.....:PQuote:
The government getting involved really doesn't help anyone, since anything they run is less efficient and more wasteful. Some people get the idea into their head, that if the government doesn't force people to help the less fortunate by taxing then redistributing wealth, then it will never happen. However this can not be further from the truth. A lot of people naturally donate to charity, and if people had more money because taxes were lower, they would donate even more.
So we should take the stance that the government will never help the less fortunate, then trust in humans to be kind and giving. Because no matter how evil people want to make other humans look, the fact is people can be very generous and kind.
For sure , that personal view can't be right , since a lot of poorer countries obviously don't help their poorer citizens that well either.
Trust in goverment > ok mayby not
Trust in humankind > sorry , not that easy :(
Poorer countries tend to be poor because they have corrupt governments, abusing their people. I mean look at all the worst countries to live in the world. They are almost always places with corrupt governments. Its not a coincidence that corrupt government and impoverished countries go hand in hand.
Think of it like this
There is world #1, where everyone is equally profit-seeking.
Then there is world # 2, where everyone is equally altruistic.
The only difference, is that in world #1 there is an incentive for people to invent, and strive for a higher quality and creativity, because that's what draws customers. In world number 2, they might as well be living in a village in the middle of nowhere, sharing everything, but having very little in total.
Exactly. And on top of that, this world is light years from altruistic, but EVERYBODY is greedy. Every person (of age and mental capacity) in the entire world would love to be #1 in one way or another. We can use that to fuel the system, but altruism is a rarity and would not fuel the system any way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hercuflea
Skimming through this thread, I saw two things that stood out.
-- Something about "pure Capitalism" being the policy of Reagan and Bush.
-- Sales Tax being fair. (I think Universal Mind said this)
Both of which make me want to stare into my palm, then violently smack myself with it.
Anyone who thinks either Reagan or Bush ran under a policy of "pure Capitalism" has a serious case of brain cell deficiency.
And Universal Mind, as a self-proclaimed Libertarian, the fact that you said a form of taxation is fair and everyone should pay a certain percentage in taxes is...odd.
WTF???? Flat tax, which sales tax is a form of, is a common libertarian (I use lower case l because I don't totally agree with the party on foreign policy, but I side with the party much more than any other.) ideal. It treats everyone equally in terms of percentage, people pay taxes on only when stimulating the economy, and the bureacracy involved is tiny compared to what we have now. What do you suggest? What do you think most Libertarians suggest?Quote:
Originally Posted by BLUELINE976
From where I come from (not geographically speaking), most Libertarians would be opposed to any taxes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
Edit - I don't mean "big L" libertarians. I just capitalize it for some reason.
The party platform supports keeping tariffs and excise taxes as they are and ditching everything else, but the Fair Tax, which is a sales tax, is commonly supported among libertarians too. There is a spectrum of libertarianism. Some are pretty close to being anarchists. I can see myself eventually being about there, but I don't want us to dive in that deep right away. If we can slowly get rid of even sales taxes, I am all for it. I want as little government as possible, except... foreign policy is the one area where I lean in the big government direction. I don't want to get rid of the CIA or turn the military into a mall security guard station.Quote:
Originally Posted by BLUELINE976
Forget the party platform. Except for spreading the basic word and laymen beliefs of libertarianism, its no good for actual philosophy and theory.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
Why wouldn't you want to get rid of the CIA? I'm not sure sending spies and special ops teams into other countries helps with foreign policy.
I don't see how someone can claim to be libertarian and support fighting multiple wars at once, while spending nearly as much on military as the rest of the world combined.
We were talking about what libertarians believe.Quote:
Originally Posted by BLUELINE976
Because it is one fuck up world of insanity and evil out there, and we need to know what is happening.Quote:
Originally Posted by BLUELINE976
Did you read what I wrote about foreign policy? I am libertarian on everything else. At this point, I want the wars to wind down. We did what we had to do. Still, complete isolationism is an incredibly naive philosophy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alric
There a huge gigantic differences between isolationism and being in every ones face, every where in the world, all at once. Even so, I don't see how a libertarian can be for massive government, the size of which we have never seen in the world. Even if its only applied to 'foreign affairs'.
Its not like you can separate them after all. We are still paying massive amounts of taxes, and there huge government infrastructure to support the American Empire over seas.
I didn't say I support everything about the current foreign policy. I just think we need effective military and intelligence and need to do things like preventing Iran from getting nukes and making sure the Soviet Union doesn't take over the world. That sort of thing. Soviet rule wouldn't be very libertarian. My domestic beliefs don't apply to just my own country.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alric
Why not use peaceful diplomacy and communication to learn what is going on in the world instead of using under-the-table, covert tactics?Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
No one here is suggesting isolationism. The key is non-interventionism. Free trade, commerce and diplomacy for all who want it, but no military or economic interventions (invasions, occupations, embargo's, sanctions).
Effective military and intelligence, sure. Why not? But overseas military and intelligence invading other countries just so we can hide behind some false sense of security? No thank you. Why does it matter is Iran gets nukes? If we were actually friendly to them, we wouldn't need to worry about being attacked. If we were friendly to the Soviet Union, we wouldn't need to worry about being invaded and taken over. Even if they decided to be assholes and invade us despite friendly diplomacy, we would have a strong, at-home military to defend ourselves. Keep your domestic beliefs where they belong, in the country you live in. You have no right to force your policy on some other country for reasons X, Y, and Z.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
Unfortunately, with these kind of arguments, I tend to blur the line between minarchism and Anarcho-Capitalism. I need to work on that.
As far as i'm concerned any "rule" by any country wouldn't be very libertarian, American, Soviet, or otherwise, would it? The definition of the word supports this.
We always try peaceful tactics at first. Hussein was a stubbon ass for twelve years, so we carried on with the threat concerning our ceasefire with him. He refused to follow the provisions of it, and the sanctions didn't even phase him.Quote:
Originally Posted by BLUELINE976
You might not be suggesting isolationism, but the Libertarian Party does, aside from trade.Quote:
Originally Posted by BLUELINE976
Do you believe there never comes a point when a country needs to be invaded? What about Germany in the 1940's?
Do you honestly believe the crackpots in the Iranian government could be trusted with nukes if we were nice to them? Would you say the same thing about the Manson family? That is the level we are dealing with.Quote:
Originally Posted by BLUELINE976
How long should we have ingnored the Soviet Union? Let's say they take over all of Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia, and South America. Do we keep ignoring them? What about after they take over Mexico and Canada too? World history is covered with empire expansion. It is how the world works in the absence of a superpower that can stop it.
Judging from what you're saying, I suggest you stop calling yourself libertarian. You're just another statist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
Yeah, never mind the zillions of issues where I very much agree with the general libertarian views. I would be interested in reading your answers to my questions, and I wrote them with the hope of reading your answers because I always look for alternative ideas. Can you answer any of those questions?Quote:
Originally Posted by BLUELINE976
If we tried peaceful tactics at first, and he wasn't interested, why not just say, "Ok, we'll go our separate ways."Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
Edit - Not to mention the suffering the people of Iraq went through due to our sanctions. Maybe it didn't phase him because he didn't care about his people, and he was wealthy as hell.
Not until it becomes a problem for us. What's wrong with being peaceful and neutral toward conflicts that don't involve us?Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
Again, why should it matter? Maybe they're sick and tired of us constantly bothering them with sanctions and wrist-slapping? Nukes can be a great deterrent. If we were to invade Iran, what makes you so sure it won't be the same as Iraq or Afghanistan? Also, relating the Manson family to Iran doesn't make much sense to me. If you could elaborate, please do so.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
As long as possible until they were quite literally knocking on our doorstep.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
Frankly, you're taking the Soviet empire to an unlikely extreme. Not only do I doubt that the Soviet Union would have been able to take over and control Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia, and South America, but if they somehow had managed to do that, how long until rebellions started and the empire crumbled? Be realistic here and don't just throw probabilities at me.
Because, as you implied, it would be the result of his not being interested in peace. We signed a ceasefire with the regime, and they refused to comply with it. Future ceasefires would be worthless if we didn't enforce that one. Also, the Hussein regime was a terrorist government. I will give you the details on that if you don't already know them. They had already used WMD's in a terrorist attack and were reported by many governments to have more and be working on more. We did not want to chance a terrorist organization getting WMD's from the Hussein regime and using them on the United States. It was a very legitimate concern.Quote:
Originally Posted by BLUELINE976
Quote:
Originally Posted by BLUELINE976
I never agreed with the sanctions. I agree with your assessment of Hussein on the matter.
When countries are getting taken over, it is a threat to us. Also, our own country is not the only one we should care about. It all goes on in our world.Quote:
Originally Posted by BLUELINE976
Maybe we are sick of them funding and training terrorists. I am not so sure we should overthrow the government of Iran. We should at least take out their nuke facilities, or encourage Israel to do it. If we did put a better government in place of the current theocracy where homosexuals and adulterers are executed, they would have much hope of a great future, like Iraq and Afganistan are going to have.Quote:
Originally Posted by BLUELINE976
Delusional psychopaths who crave power and to destroy the United States.Quote:
Originally Posted by BLUELINE976
In other words, we should ignore them even after they have taken over all other countries than ours if they did that. No way. That would be way too dangerous and way too apathetic. Oppression of our fellow humans is our business.Quote:
Originally Posted by BLUELINE976
They could have at least taken ovre a huge chunk of it. We made sure they didn't get too far. Without our intervention, they might have control of Europe, the Middle East, and Africa by now. Possibly South America. The Nazis were able to take over a great deal of Europe in just a few years. The only rebellion that stopped them was ours (Allied Powers).Quote:
Originally Posted by BLUELINE976
If you knew about history, you would know there would be no reason to stop them. Large empires always fall apart, especially ones ruled by big armies. Some of them have gotten fairly large, I can admit that, but they all fell apart. Even when there is no outside forces they collapse under their own weight.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
Its pretty much what we got today. The US is trying to have armies all around the world and control everything at once, and really its only a matter of time before we go bankrupt and it all collapses. In fact, most people would say its already happening, just look at our debt.
Lets cut through the bullshit. We don't have money to continue this anymore, end of story. It really is that simple.
The Soviet Union was far more powerful than any of those empires. So were the Nazis. I am not talking about the Ottoman Empire or a bunch of sword wielding feathered helmet men on horses. I am talking about an enormous country that covered a great deal of both Europe and Asia and had enough nukes to end life on Earth. It was a problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alric
I am interested in knowing why the oppression of non-Americans doesn't concern you. Would you have been apathetic about all of the Jews in Europe being killed? What if the Nazis had gotten to Africa and started killing the people there with the aim of wiping out ALL of them? Still no intervention?
However, I think we have done our part in the Middle East. I'm not sure about having bases all over the world. Changing our domestic policies drastically would fix our money problem.
yeah, weve done our part.
1.3 million civilians dead.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hercuflea
Where in the world did you get that? Also, we don't target civilians, but the insurgents do. Tell me that region wasn't in need of cultural transformation.
Do you want liberty for Iraq, or just your country?
What gives us the right to tell others what to do? Other people in other countries, do no want us interfering with their affairs. They get mad and start attacking us when we interfere, we are not wanted or welcomed. People want to live free, and we should respect their wishes. They are free to choose how they live, and if they want a king, or a dictator, then that is their choices.
If a foreign country wants us to defend them, they should join the US. Once they become an official state, then I would be more than happy to use our full military to protect them, and if they are suffering horribly, we can send them money as aid as well. Otherwise, there isn't a single reason we should do anything at all, besides trading and talking with them.
First of all, there would be no need for "ceasefires." No conflict would begin in the first place to warrant one. If they don't want to play ball, then don't play ball. Don't bring in your 25 year old cousin to beat them up. The same goes for terrorist organizations. What do you think were the causes of that? If they attacked out of nowhere, maybe I would be on the side of going after them, but only after finding out WHERE they are, and not just invading some country and staying in it for years upon years.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
How is it a threat to us? How was Poland being taken over a threat to us, for example. Sure, we should care, but not enough to get us into a situation where we're screwed. If they attack us, then defend. If they're halfway across the world having their own little conflict, then leave it alone.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
Like I said, if they attack us for no reason, then yes, defend. If they attack us for effectively shitting on their country, then that's a whole other matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
This all goes back to the Non-Aggression Axiom. Maybe you've heard of it. They have not launched nukes at us or send troops over or invaded us. Why should we do the same to them? Treat others as you would like to be treated.
Also, using the whole "we can set up a good democracy there, so the Iranians will have a good life!" spiel is horrible. Look at Iraq and Afghanistan. If slaughtering innocent civilians, bombing the shit out of the country, and searching for "insurgents" for 8+ years is your way of setting up a democracy or "better" government, then there is something quite wrong with you.
Again, no empire would become that large. Stop with the fantasizing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
I suppose the French resistance and German assassination attempts don't count, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
Edit - Double post
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/6495753.stm
So the Iraqi casualties alone were 655,000 in 2007, civilians of course. Plus an extra two years of escalated fighting, and the casualties in afghanistan. Id say about 1.3 mill. That's more people than would have ever been killed if we had never gone in there in the first place. Plus our "reason" for going to Iraq was totally rendered false.
and here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12838343
And that is just the one story that got reported. Not every death that happens in the middle of the desert or the remote terrain gets reported in an undeveloped country
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/
Blue Line, I told you. It is our business because it is our world and because the more a power expands, the harder it is to take down.
I suggest you read Bin Laden's "Letter to the American Nation" to understand more of the details of why Islamoterrorists hate us. You are not presenting the full picture.
French resistance did not stop the Nazis. Stop fantasizing.
You can't judge the future of Iraq and Afghanistan solely on what is happening in their transition phases. That is fallacious of you.
Nope, not even close. The more a power expands, the easier it becomes to take down. Spreading a huge army over a very large area becomes a logistic nightmare, and its nearly impossible to put down large revolts on opposite sides of your empire at the same time. The biggest problems empires ever had, was biting off more than they can chew, and trying to take that extra step that just causes them to crumble.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
Besides your Nazi example is stupid. They wouldn't have had gone any further than they already did. They would of been bogged down fighting Russia for the rest of eternity. Or atleast until their country went bankrupt, and everyone revolted.
im not about to believe some website when a qualified report stated in 2007 that there were 655,000 casualties
A classic example of how wrong your statement is Rome. They were stretched so thin that mere tribes were able to take them out. Don't forget about the slave rebellion that, although was stopped, caused a lot of trouble. Factor in bad negative economic policies and general incompetence of the government.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
I have read bin Laden's letter. It clearly states that the overall reason they are attacking us is because of our interventions. Granted, there are a lot of crazy religious and generally ridiculous demands in there, so I'll give you that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
However, bin Laden nicely sums up my argument:
Quote:
- What we call you to thirdly is to take an honest stance with yourselves - and I doubt you will do so - to discover that you are a nation without principles or manners, and that the values and principles to you are something which you merely demand from others, not that which you yourself must adhere to.
- We also advise you to stop supporting Israel, and to end your support of the Indians in Kashmir, the Russians against the Chechens and to also cease supporting the Manila Government against the Muslims in Southern Philippines.
- We also advise you to pack your luggage and get out of our lands. We desire for your goodness, guidance, and righteousness, so do not force us to send you back as cargo in coffins.
- Sixthly, we call upon you to end your support of the corrupt leaders in our countries. Do not interfere in our politics and method of education. Leave us alone, or else expect us in New York and Washington.
- We also call you to deal with us and interact with us on the basis of mutual interests and benefits, rather than the policies of sub dual, theft and occupation, and not to continue your policy of supporting the Jews because this will result in more disasters for you.
I didn't say the French Resistance stopped the Nazi's, so I am not fantasizing. However, you act like the only thing that could've possibly brought down the Nazi's was an organized coalition by various countries.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
Neither can you. You can't assume that they will be thriving democracies in x-years time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
We've been in Afghanistan for something like 9 years now, 7 in Iraq, and we're still having problems handing power over to the respective governments. Seems like a lost cause now.
Bin Laden is a horrible person, but the fact is, if we weren't interfering in everything over there, he couldn't care less about us.
Its not so much about leaving the area to appease him or any other group, but that we should never have been there in the first place. And if we leave, like we should anyway, they will lose all reason to fight us.
My friends, we are getting a bit off topic here. The purpose of this thread was to discuss the most efficient economic system for a nation or society as a whole. If you'd like to start another thread related to this topic, we most certainly can.
However, I will add my standing on this topic change:
Of course, any empire that spreads to thin can eventually deteriorate into pieces, but it takes much time and much oppression. If they are honestly manipulated and guided by a charismatic leader such as Adolf Hitler, then we can notice that an entire nation easily fell under the whim of his ideology regardless of the amount of racial extermination that took part.
The Soviet Union is a prime example of Rome because Rome didn't have consistent leadership. It was full of dictatorial assassinations and constant corruption within the senate itself. The Soviet Union was ruled by oppression, fear, and control. The Axis, however, was ruled by an illusion of a perfect society with absolute dedication and love to their leaders.
I wholeheartedly agree that if the Allied Invasion did not take place onto European or African soil, we would have seen the Germans accelerate into a phase of absolute dominion. There were countless factors at play that could have allowed the Axis to spread throughout the world. If Hitler had more time with the V2 rocket, or the manufacture of other types of technological devices, he would have fulfilled his eventual campaign. If you recall when Germany punctured into Russia, they had built a force so massive that was years in planning which they used strategically and conquered anywhere between 1/8 to almost 1/4 of Russian territory.
It was Hitler's goal to conquer the world, so our involvement in the war would have been inevitable.
I agree, that our foreign policy should not be involved with a lot of countries in the world, but when it comes to oppressors and aggressors who are clinically insane or are warped by illegitimate ideologies - many lives are at stake. When Iran was originally starting their nuclear program, their supreme leader was boasting of how Israel would be wiped off the face of the world. You may have a different opinion now, but what if a mushroom cloud appeared in Israel, following the deaths of thousands of other tourists including American and non-American? Not to mention, the following war that would ensue in the entire middle east would result in the deaths of even more thousands.
Our own government is illegitimate as it is, so yes I do not approve of many things that they do, but we must also bring into question of one thing: Should we stop the aggressor now or wait until thousands are killed before intervention?
Absolute, exactly. You said most of what I wanted to say. I will throw in some other quick points and let the dissenters have the last words if they want them.
Iraq and Afghanistan will take two or three generations to get right. We can't suddenly change the religious mental states of adults within their lifetimes. Our aim is at human development, not sudden revolutions of already existing minds. With democracy (the power of the people to have the ultimate authority over their government) comes eventual cultural advancment. With cultural advancement comes tamer forms of religious craziness.
Read the answer to Q2 of Bin Laden's "Letter to the American Nation" and see for yourself that Bin Laden's beef with us is our way of life on top of our Middle East intervention. He is a xenophobic schmuck in ways that go far beyond our "infidel" presence in the "holy land". His issues with us are widely representative of the Islamoterrorist mentality in general. Our MTV lifestyle influence on the rest of the world really makes Islamofascist blood boil. It is seen as a major threat to the power of Islam.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/nov/24/theobserver
One more thing. I don't 100% dismiss the idea that if we were militarily isolationist we would invite less or zero trouble from complete cuckoo burgers, considering our ability to defend ourselves. It just doesn't appear that way to me, based on the other things they bitch about in regard to us and demand from us.
With democracy comes the oppression of the masses. Mob rule, NAP violations, etc. You have no right to invade a country just to change their culture because you think they're insane fanatics, even if they really are.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
After reading some of your arguments, I'll revise my original statement and say: Judging from what you're saying, I suggest you stop calling yourself libertarian. You're just another warmonger.
Other than that, I've lost interest in this argument. You may now get back to your regularly scheduled economics program.
Okay, one more post.
Thanks for dodging my specific points. We DO have a right to tell genocidal terrorist oppressors that they may not oppress their masses, just like we DO have a right to tell child abusers they can't abuse their children. Totalitarianism and genocide are NOT rights that totalitarians are entitled to. They have no business existing in this world. Also, calling me "just another" war monger is dishonest, and you know it. I am a "war monger" who is majorly libertarian on domestic issues. You are only libertarian for yourself and don't give a flying fuck about the freedom of others. You have made that quite obvious. If the Nazis had gotten far enough into Africa, the black race would be pretty much gone now, and the Nazis were about three steps from killing off every last European Jew. You don't even think those are issues.
Hercuflea, the Iraq Body Count site is backed by a great deal of "qualified" reporting. It is also a left wing site, in case you were suspecting it of being a conservative propaganda machine or something.
It is not dishonest. Libertarians are against all kinds of wars. War is the health of the state. If you truly believe in your arguments yet still call yourself a libertarian, then you are the one who is being dishonest.Quote:
Also, calling me "just another" war monger is dishonest, and you know it. I am a "war monger" who is majorly libertarian on domestic issues. You are only libertarian for yourself and don't give a flying fuck about the freedom of others. You have made that quite obvious.
I am a libertarian for myself, and for everyone else. I don't support violence or rights violations for any reason, so long as they didn't violate someone else's rights.
I do think about them. I think they are atrocities and I don't support them. However, I don't support intervention which would've lead to many more dead African civilians and dead German soldiers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
I have a chapter from a book for you to read. "Chapter 14: War and Foreign Policy, 'Isolationism' Left and Right" from the book, "For a New Liberty, The Libertarian Manifesto" by the great libertarian Murray Rothbard. I think it applies excellently to our current argument.
Link: http://mises.org/rothbard/newlibertywhole.asp#p263
Libertarianism is not all or nothing. There is a spectrum of it. You don't have to be libertarian on 100% of all issues to be libertarian. And again, I am not "just another" "warmonger". I explained that. You dodged. Hilter wanted to kill every black person and Jew in the world. If the Allied Powers had not intervened, he would have killed every black person in Africa and every Jew in Europe.
If you want to argue about what a libertarian is and whether anybody who believes war off one's own soil is necessary in some cases is "just another warmonger", start a thread on it.
No need to start a new thread. Just read the chapter I suggested. Clearly you and I are of two different branches of libertarianism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
Edit - Scratch that. Clearly I am the libertarian and you are the classical liberal...Sort of.
:? I think you and Ninja should have a debate over whether or not I am a liberal.Quote:
Originally Posted by BLUELINE976
I said Classical Liberal. I know you're not a neo-liberal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
From wikipedia:
Central to the classical liberalism of the nineteenth century is a commitment to the liberty of individual citizens. Freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of assembly were core commitments of classical liberalism, as was the underlying conception of the proper role of just government as the protection of the liberties of individual citizens. Also central to classical liberalism was a commitment to a system of free markets as the best way to organize economic life.
he is not a classical liberal. Classical liberals were anti war, and anti- "entangling alliances" like Thomas Jefferson. He is no Jeffersonian.
Edit: @ UM: the fact that it is a "left wing" site makes me doubt it even more.
Did you just say the goal is to destroy their culture and religion and brainwash their children into seeing the world as we do? I know you put a really nice spin on the way you said it, but that is basically what you said.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
No, but that is one Hell of a spin you put on it. I was talking about the intellectual advancement and resulting social stability that come with the freedom all innocent people are entitled to. Did you just say that freedom and is resulting social progress qualify as "brainwashing"? I guess its not brainwashing when it happens in your own country, eh? You keep pushing for for increased freedom in the United States and talking about the social benefits that will come from it, yet you call the same thing "brainwashing" when it comes to non-Americans. Why the double standard?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alric
I might of said it in a more extreme way, but read what you said. You basically said that the adults don't want something, so you want to control the area until they die and a new generation comes in, a generation that believes in what you do. You said you wanted them to have a 'tamer' version of their culture and religion. It really comes down to, you do not like their culture and your end goal is to change it to a more acceptable form. Which is wrong.
Its not a double standard when Americans want it, and they are clearly resisting it. Resisting it so much, that you made the claim that the adults will never come around to your point of view.
You're still forcing something on people that aren't interested in it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
There is a difference between giving people freedom by educational and intellectual means and barging into their country and giving it to them. Some won't be interested, and you have just violated their rights. Some will be even less interested if you set up a democracy and the mob rules, which violates even more rights.
I said nothing about coaching them into it or forming cultural advancement choirs and showing them crazy movies with their eye lids taped open. I said culturual advancement is the natural result of freedom.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alric
We've got three threads on this going now, and I am repeating what I said in another thread... The majority has no business deciding that the minority is not entitled to freedom. Nobody has the right to oppress the innocent. Dictators don't have that right, oligarchies don't have it, and even a 99.999% majority doesn't have it. Oppression is not a moral right.Quote:
Originally Posted by BLUELINE976
Okay, it's official. Let's talk about this in the other threads and let Absolute's thread be about the best type of economy, which ironically all four of us agree on.
So, with that out of the way are we all on a general consensus between capitalism and a mixed economy?
Mostly free market, only socialism would be police and similar jobs (not heath). A totally free economy would not work, but you cant over socialize it either. No competitive business should be owned by the government. A healthcare would work as long as it is EMERGENCY only, and cannot be abused. However, that is almost impossible.
How would a totally free economy not work?Quote:
Originally Posted by sheogorath
The only problem with a totally free economy is that it is based on what is best long term, so short term problems may show up. They all get worked out in time, however people get all upset and so many people can't see anything past today.
People want short term gain, and don't care about the long term. Which is why we have so many problems in the country today.
It would work fine until companies monopolize themselves and eventually shift the direction of the world.Quote:
How would a totally free economy not work?
That isn't much a of a threat in a free market, atleast in any long term or permanent biases.
like alric and absolute said, there would be monopoly and it would be the equivalent of anarchy. There would not really be any laws because there would be private businesses being the police, and who would stop them if they chose not to obey s certain law?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Absolute
Twist and turn the monopoly problem as one may, one always comes back to the fact that monopoly prices are possible only where there is control over natural resources of a particular kind or where legislative enactment's and their administration create the necessary conditions for the formation of monopolies. In the unhampered development of the economy, with the exception of mining and related branches of production, there is no tendency toward the exclusion of competition.
-Ludwig von Mises, "Liberalism"
http://mises.org/story/621
http://mises.org/rothbard/mes/chap10d.asp
What's wrong with anarchy?Quote:
Originally Posted by sheogorath
Also, if there were no laws, what would be the problem with private police companies not obeying the laws?
I meant that there would be virtually no laws because the private companies would not obey them.
Whats wrong with anarchy is lack of organization. Organization is crucial when it comes to situations like war. Anarchy would maybe work in a full world anarchy situation, but if you want examples of how it fails in the real world just look at the tribes in africa. Is that not what anarchy would be like? You would have gangs of people (not everybody, but some) that would basicaly contoll certain areas.
As human beings, we abuse our rights when given too much, but at the same time, become restless when with none. The only way to solve this is to give us "enough" rights so that we FEEL like we are in charge, and we FEEL like we have power over our own lives.
just IMHO
How is there a lack of organization? If by organization you mean government, then yes. There will be organization, but among individuals through voluntary actions, like trade, commerce, and everything in general. If Anarchy can work world-wide (in fact we have Anarchy between nations right now since there is no world government), why not between states, cities, individuals?Quote:
Originally Posted by sheogorath
Give me information on how some African countries are in anarchy and not just governed by warlords.
You have to understand, though, that anarchy is chaos. There would be good people, bad people, and indifferent each having the power to do what they want. Rape, loot, and murder is an example. What would inevitably happen is organizations sprouting from the chaos that then become factions and eventual empires depending on their natural management of people and resources.
Which is what we precisely saw with Shell Oil in the past when they were making more money than the United States Government at one point.Quote:
Twist and turn the monopoly problem as one may, one always comes back to the fact that monopoly prices are possible only where there is control over natural resources of a particular kind or where legislative enactment's and their administration create the necessary conditions for the formation of monopolies. In the unhampered development of the economy, with the exception of mining and related branches of production, there is no tendency toward the exclusion of competition.
-Ludwig von Mises, "Liberalism"
Ridiculous. There would be no chaos because that would lead, as you described, to rape, loot, and murder, which would violate property rights, etc. Rape (violating property rights), loot (stealing/theft, violating property rights), murder (violating your general right to live) would be handled by private court systems and work somewhat similar to how they work now through contracts and their own legal codes. The families would be reimbursed through whatever means, whether it's monetary or imprisonment (though I'm not sure prisons would even exist in a free society because the victim's family/the victim them self would have to pay to keep the criminal in prison) or some other means.Quote:
Originally Posted by Absolute
Plus, you assume that everyone that is a respectable person now would suddenly change and just go and kill someone for no reason.
As for factions sprouting up, where will they get their power from? They would have to monopolize in a free society, and I've already explained monopoly in a free society.
I am not an anarchist , and I have no problem with the government stepping in to stop illegal things that are harmful to people. However, I would rather have anarchy, than the super government we have today.
I don't see why this is ridiculous nor do I appreciate such a declaration. In an anarchist society, there is no private court system, nor is there any entitlement to follow a law. I don't see why you are arguing for anarchy unless if I have some sort of misunderstanding? Unless if you mean a community-based society that is decentralized, then that would refer to the ORIGINAL format of Karl Marx's ideology, which was never instituted into a sovereign nation since it abolished any form of a currency-based economy or class based structure.Quote:
Ridiculous. There would be no chaos because that would lead, as you described, to rape, loot, and murder, which would violate property rights, etc. Rape (violating property rights), loot (stealing/theft, violating property rights), murder (violating your general right to live) would be handled by private court systems and work somewhat similar to how they work now through contracts and their own legal codes. The families would be reimbursed through whatever means, whether it's monetary or imprisonment (though I'm not sure prisons would even exist in a free society because the victim's family/the victim them self would have to pay to keep the criminal in prison) or some other means.
Hurricane Katrina is a prime example of what happens when order is non-existant. There were countless rapes, murders, and theft. We can also see disorder in some African countries where the government hardly has any control and people do as they please regardless of morals. People do it even in an ORDERED society and try to get away with it when an attempt of moral laws are continuously enforced.Quote:
Plus, you assume that everyone that is a respectable person now would suddenly change and just go and kill someone for no reason.
Once you have someone that is capable of converting people into their form of thinking, it does not take long until more can rally under such an umbrella. It is how religions and previous empires have started in the past. This is self-evident, is it not?Quote:
As for factions sprouting up, where will they get their power from? They would have to monopolize in a free society, and I've already explained monopoly in a free society.
Mixed. The government does need to do its job of protecting the people while giving them the opportunity to do as they wish and allow for economic innovation.
We learned that the second week in my Economics class.
First off, sorry for getting to this so late.
Why would there be no private court systems?Quote:
Originally Posted by Absolute
But why did New Orleans end up in the condition that it did? Could it have been the government-owned levees, maintained by the Army Corp. of Engineers? Maybe the drainage system, operated by the New Orleans Sewerage and Water Board? Note that I'm not saying that private ownership would've guaranteed 100% efficiency when it comes to drainage and levees. Could private ownership have done it better? Most likely. There would've been a profit/loss initiative to build stronger levees and a better drainage system.Quote:
Hurricane Katrina is a prime example of what happens when order is non-existant. There were countless rapes, murders, and theft. We can also see disorder in some African countries where the government hardly has any control and people do as they please regardless of morals. People do it even in an ORDERED society and try to get away with it when an attempt of moral laws are continuously enforced.
Don't forget that New Orleans was militarized shortly after the hurricane hit. Citizens were disarmed, which almost certainly led to more looting.
And remember FEMA and its...less than acceptable response to the disaster.
And as far as I know, most African "anarchist" countries are run by warlords or just corrupt warlord-influence governments (so basically, they're not anarchist).
Possibly, but again, where would these factions get their power? In an Anarcho-Capitalist society they would have to monopolize, and free markets make monopolies impossible.Quote:
Once you have someone that is capable of converting people into their form of thinking, it does not take long until more can rally under such an umbrella. It is how religions and previous empires have started in the past. This is self-evident, is it not?
My god two anarchists are jacking every thread and turning it into an anarchism thread.
Definition of Anarchy:
Quote:
1. a state of society without government or law.
2. political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control.
3. a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.
4. confusion; chaos; disorder:
1. A state of society without government or law would produce people fending for themselves. No law enforcement would create the open doorway for people to do as they please, unless all of humanity was subject to the fellow acceptance of acceptable ethics and morals.
2. Social and political disorder is self explanatory with the absence of law enforcement or bureaucracy.
3. This theory is a nice one, but in practice, with the present state of humanity the way that it is, it would not allow any form of perfect union since there are those who do not embrace any morales and only follow the fulfillment of their self indulgent desires regardless if it is at the cost of another.
4. Self explanatory in its own way.
Because there would be no justification of jurisdiction within distances and communities, nor would there be any type of law enforcement for someone to abide to a particular law or be sent to court. If any type of court system was in existence, it would have to be communised, and then, you'd be breaching into the category of communism. You seem to have the view that anarchy would solve problems, when really you want a theoretical ideology that could benefit society as a whole, supply basic needs, eliminate class structure, still have some type of laws and ethics to abide to, and equality above everyone. I would recommend you to switch views on anarchy over to Karl Marx's actual version of Communism, since it was never actually implemented in any society.Quote:
Why would there be no private court systems?
Whilst I can agree that the management of the political bureaucrats was incompetent, whether or not it was appropriately managed would have still produced people to induce into higher amounts of crime. The reason WHY it was militarized was because of the amount of chaos that was happening in the first place. They sent thousands of military personnel into the area to secure it. That's why martial law was declared.Quote:
But why did New Orleans end up in the condition that it did? Could it have been the government-owned levees, maintained by the Army Corp. of Engineers? Maybe the drainage system, operated by the New Orleans Sewerage and Water Board? Note that I'm not saying that private ownership would've guaranteed 100% efficiency when it comes to drainage and levees. Could private ownership have done it better? Most likely. There would've been a profit/loss initiative to build stronger levees and a better drainage system.
Don't forget that New Orleans was militarized shortly after the hurricane hit. Citizens were disarmed, which almost certainly led to more looting.
And remember FEMA and its...less than acceptable response to the disaster.
It would still be considered anarchy since only parts of the country are under direct influence of the warlord, whilst other regions are rampant with other factions or gangs that do as they please, and the warlords have a difficult time at controling it.Quote:
And as far as I know, most African "anarchist" countries are run by warlords or just corrupt warlord-influence governments (so basically, they're not anarchist).
You couldn't have an anarcho-capitalist society because a corporation would acquire monopolizationt through dominion in the free market, whether its the production of a necessary resource or a product that someone always desires. Without any type of centralized monitoring in a free market system, a company like Shell Oil could have eventually bought out the United States in the last century, or would use it as a puppet government. Regulatory measures need to be put into play, otherwise if I were evil, I could turn a company into a conglomerate that also is based on some form of military and I could do whatever I want, pay whatever minimum wage, and anything else. With any sense of capitalism in an anarchist based economy, people would still be slaves to the dollar and it would only be a matter of time until people would round together under the leadership of someone who promises them something, or just did as they told for their money.Quote:
Possibly, but again, where would these factions get their power? In an Anarcho-Capitalist society they would have to monopolize, and free markets make monopolies impossible.
Meh, it's just a spur of the moment thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hercuflea
Lol! I posted one minute before you. You probably didn't notice my post. Let me know what you think of my responses. =)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Absolute
Where are you getting the implication that I'm advocating no law? I'm advocating no government. The two are different.
People would defend themselves, which is a basic ability to be honest, or hire companies to protect them. There would be police, obviously, but not the kind of ones we have now. The company employing them has a profit/loss incentive to do well to their clients, or else, you know...They wouldn't get paid and go out of business.
Again, there would be law enforcement, but not the kind we have now that just does whatever it wants because it can't go out of business (because it's supported by the government). And why would private court systems be communized? Do you even have any idea of what I'm advocating? Do you know nothing of libertarianism/anarcho-capitalism? You're making baseless assertions.Quote:
Because there would be no justification of jurisdiction within distances and communities, nor would there be any type of law enforcement for someone to abide to a particular law or be sent to court. If any type of court system was in existence, it would have to be communised, and then, you'd be breaching into the category of communism. You seem to have the view that anarchy would solve problems, when really you want a theoretical ideology that could benefit society as a whole, supply basic needs, eliminate class structure, still have some type of laws and ethics to abide to, and equality above everyone. I would recommend you to switch views on anarchy over to Karl Marx's actual version of Communism, since it was never actually implemented in any society.
What do you think the causes of said chaos were? The hurricane itself, the poorly maintained levees and drainage systems that caused massive flooding, overpopulation in an area that normally wouldn't be as populated due to government subsidies (that got people to work/live there), etc.Quote:
Whilst I can agree that the management of the political bureaucrats was incompetent, whether or not it was appropriately managed would have still produced people to induce into higher amounts of crime. The reason WHY it was militarized was because of the amount of chaos that was happening in the first place. They sent thousands of military personnel into the area to secure it. That's why martial law was declared.
And realize what you are saying. "Under government, there would be little to no chaos." And yet, during Katrina, we had government, and there was lots of chaos.
Let's take a look at Somalia: http://mises.org/story/2066. Movements to install central governments are causing these warlords/clans to do power grabs and fight each other.Quote:
It would still be considered anarchy since only parts of the country are under direct influence of the warlord, whilst other regions are rampant with other factions or gangs that do as they please, and the warlords have a difficult time at controling it.
For the ump-teenth time, monopolies could not exist in the free market.Quote:
You couldn't have an anarcho-capitalist society because a corporation would acquire monopolizationt through dominion in the free market, whether its the production of a necessary resource or a product that someone always desires. Without any type of centralized monitoring in a free market system, a company like Shell Oil could have eventually bought out the United States in the last century, or would use it as a puppet government. Regulatory measures need to be put into play, otherwise if I were evil, I could turn a company into a conglomerate that also is based on some form of military and I could do whatever I want, pay whatever minimum wage, and anything else. With any sense of capitalism in an anarchist based economy, people would still be slaves to the dollar and it would only be a matter of time until people would round together under the leadership of someone who promises them something, or just did as they told for their money.
Well this is about just economic theories. To quote Murray Rothbard:Quote:
Originally Posted by Hercuflea
'Anarchism is Capitalism and Capitalism is anarchism' meaning that the full extent of what capitalism implies [ private property ] also afford certain rights towards such things that cannot be violated by outside actors such as the government. The only ruler is yourself. Therefore the fullest extent of individual sovereignty is where you can actually acquire the fruits of your labor and be able to freely trade and buy and sell. I noticed that there are some Ron Paul fans here and one of the things that Ron Paul wants to do is end legal tender laws. What this would mean is the belief that the free-market is capable of providing a sound medium of exchange such as gold and silver. Now it is strange to say that the market can provide all these services including money yet somehow defense and legal services alludes the capabilities of the market. The government isn't some mystical force that can actually provide something that the market can't. It is a question of which system can provide it better, not necessarily which one can or can't. Now being Austrian economists, for the most part, in the Ron Paul movement or other 'liberty-minded' units, it is inconsistent to say that a monopoly can provide an efficient, cost-effect service.
Yes, but without some form of governance to regulate the credibility of a law enforcement agency or company is the problem. If no one is there to keep an eye on them, they could control the community versus protecting them.Quote:
Where are you getting the implication that I'm advocating no law? I'm advocating no government. The two are different.
What about a pair of young females being overrun by a bunch of horny raiders? What about a careless psycho who has a gun and wants to take someone's house, and the family ends up getting murdered because all they had was knifes and pitch forks on a farm? The point is that not everyone can defend oneself when there is no order.Quote:
People would defend themselves, which is a basic ability to be honest, or hire companies to protect them. There would be police, obviously, but not the kind of ones we have now. The company employing them has a profit/loss incentive to do well to their clients, or else, you know...They wouldn't get paid and go out of business.
As for an enforcement agency, the problem returns into play where what regulates a company from growing too large, manufacturing powerful technology & services, then expanding beyond their own community/communities?
From what I was reading, correct me if I'm wrong, I thought you were arguing for complete Anarchy entirely with just a free market in place. I did some research into anarcho-capitalism and it sounds very intriguing, but the problem is, again, regulation to keep the agencies in check. Since these companies are also financed through insurance companies, we'd also be running into a problem of the insurance companies having power over the defense of a community or area, which in turn could produce illegitimate enforcement.Quote:
Again, there would be law enforcement, but not the kind we have now that just does whatever it wants because it can't go out of business (because it's supported by the government). And why would private court systems be communized? Do you even have any idea of what I'm advocating? Do you know nothing of libertarianism/anarcho-capitalism? You're making baseless assertions.
The hurricane itself, exactly that. Something that removes the sense of law enforcement and order in a community or society is going to produce chaos. Although they may have mismanaged everything, if it were not for the martial law set into place and thousands of troops, it would have taken a much longer to bring order back into the area.Quote:
What do you think the causes of said chaos were? The hurricane itself, the poorly maintained levees and drainage systems that caused massive flooding, overpopulation in an area that normally wouldn't be as populated due to government subsidies (that got people to work/live there), etc.
And realize what you are saying. "Under government, there would be little to no chaos." And yet, during Katrina, we had government, and there was lots of chaos.
Of course, because illegitimate people are placed into these positions. If the right people were there in the appropriate office, and if power was in my opinion decentralized, more power would be in the people's hands. I do not agree with centralized power unless if it is toward the management of a corporation.Quote:
Let's take a look at Somalia: http://mises.org/story/2066. Movements to install central governments are causing these warlords/clans to do power grabs and fight each other.
This, in itself, is contradicting the free market.Quote:
For the ump-teenth time, monopolies could not exist in the free market.
An example of how a corporation can become a monopoly is through joint ventures and acquisitions of its competing companies. In other cases, they can provide their product or service completely better and put their competitor out of business, too. When they become so very large, they have an immense level of control. While, I will say that the order in an anarcho-capitalist society would rest in the executive board of companies (which I like greatly), it still leaves room for a power-hungry madman.Quote:
A free market describes a market without economic intervention and regulation by government except to regulate against force or fraud.
I just personally think that a different economic system would be more suitable, just maybe with a little more regulation to make sure that it does not grow too large.
I like this, though. Should we start a new topic on Anarcho-capitalism? I really like the idea. It's fucking cool. I love it.
Why not let the consumers decide the credibility of a law enforcement company? If a company is doing practices that the consumers think are unethical or just wrong, the company won't get any clients.Quote:
Originally Posted by Absolute
This kind of stuff happens now, even with our current police system. They can't be everywhere and stop all crimes in their tracks. I'm not saying private companies will be omni-present, but they'll have a contractual and profit/loss incentive to protect their clients.Quote:
What about a pair of young females being overrun by a bunch of horny raiders? What about a careless psycho who has a gun and wants to take someone's house, and the family ends up getting murdered because all they had was knifes and pitch forks on a farm? The point is that not everyone can defend oneself when there is no order.
And why will the farmers (in this case) only have knives and pitch forks? Did we jump to the middle ages?
Again, this is about no government, not no order.
What is wrong with them growing large, manufacturing powerful tech./services and expanding? This sounds like economic growth to me. If anything, the company will be able to take in and protect more clients. That isn't really even an anarcho-capitalist issue, it's a basic economics/business issue.Quote:
As for an enforcement agency, the problem returns into play where what regulates a company from growing too large, manufacturing powerful technology & services, then expanding beyond their own community/communities?
I am arguing for anarchy with a free market.Quote:
From what I was reading, correct me if I'm wrong, I thought you were arguing for complete Anarchy entirely with just a free market in place. I did some research into anarcho-capitalism and it sounds very intriguing, but the problem is, again, regulation to keep the agencies in check. Since these companies are also financed through insurance companies, we'd also be running into a problem of the insurance companies having power over the defense of a community or area, which in turn could produce illegitimate enforcement.
I explained the regulation-to-keep-agencies-in-check issue above. As for insurance companies controlling defense agencies, what incentive would they have? And I doubt the defense agency would just allow the insurance company to have control over them. They'd change insurance companies if they did so. That, or the consumers would be unsatisfied with the agency due to the insurance company's actions and both the defense agency and insurance company wouldn't get business.
So the only way to restore order is to disarm citizens and have the military running around? The poor property rights.Quote:
The hurricane itself, exactly that. Something that removes the sense of law enforcement and order in a community or society is going to produce chaos. Although they may have mismanaged everything, if it were not for the martial law set into place and thousands of troops, it would have taken a much longer to bring order back into the area.
But the power is in the people's hands there, sort of. It gets more removed once the centralized government movements start up and the warlords/clans start fighting,Quote:
Of course, because illegitimate people are placed into these positions. If the right people were there in the appropriate office, and if power was in my opinion decentralized, more power would be in the people's hands. I do not agree with centralized power unless if it is toward the management of a corporation.
Where the heck did you get that definition?Quote:
This, in itself, is contradicting the free market.
Quote:
Originally Posted by http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/free%20market
Quote:
Originally Posted by http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/free%20market
http://mises.org/rothbard/mes/chap10a.aspQuote:
An example of how a corporation can become a monopoly is through joint ventures and acquisitions of its competing companies. In other cases, they can provide their product or service completely better and put their competitor out of business, too. When they become so very large, they have an immense level of control. While, I will say that the order in an anarcho-capitalist society would rest in the executive board of companies (which I like greatly), it still leaves room for a power-hungry madman.
Chapter 10 of Murray Rothbard's book, "Man, Economy, and State."
No need to create a new thread. Laughing Man made two great topics about it. I'm glad you've taken an interest, though.Quote:
I just personally think that a different economic system would be more suitable, just maybe with a little more regulation to make sure that it does not grow too large.
I like this, though. Should we start a new topic on Anarcho-capitalism? I really like the idea. It's fucking cool. I love it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Absolute
Actually all 3 of the options presented are simply variants of capitalism. What you mean by "socialism" is not socialism at all but state-run capitalism - state capitalism. Socialism in its traditional (i.e. pre-Leninist) sense was widely regarded as more or less synonymous with communism - a moneyless stateless commonwealth in which individuals would freely take from the common stores and voluntarily contribute their labour. The question of "global trade" would be meaningless in this sense since goods would not be traded. In the Communist Manifesto Marx and Engels talked lucidly of the "communistic abolition of buying and selling" - they might just as well have said the socialistic abolition of buying and selling.
The poll basically betrays a defective and limited understanding of the nature of capitalism by pretending that a mixed economy and what it calls "socialism" (state capitalism) are alternatives to capitalism. They are not. They are simply variants of capitalism and so called "free market" capitalism does not exhaust the meaning of the term capitalism
Actually, socialism is a transitioning step after capitalism prior to evolving into a communism-based society. But yes, I should have been more accurate since there is a modernized definition of socialism that people now commonly apply, so I apologize. Socialism today is not used in a way of removing buying and selling, but having direct government involvement in the trade of the free market as well as any other ownership and regulatory procedures.
That is a Stalianist interpretation of Marxism [ Capitalism - Socialism - Communism ] and if there is government involvement in the market, in any fashion then it ceases to be 'free' in fact I would argue it ceases to be capitalism according to the very definition proposed by Marx himself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Absolute
Marx himself stated that the period after the revolution against capitalism is known as 'crude communism' according to his 1844 manuscripts. It can also be referred to by the 'dictatorship of the proletariat.' Applying this definition to countries such as the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, etc. means that these countries achieved a lesser form of communism. Crude communism. Full communism can not be achieved due to the fact it involves a post-scarcity super abundance which is common for utopian thinkers such as Marx.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Absolute
Actually, it was Lenin who distorted the original meaning of socialism calling it state capitalism run in the interests of the whole people. IN the 19th century socialism and communism were widely regarded as synonyms standing for a moneyeless wageless stateless commonwealth in which individuals gave acccording to their ability and took according to their self determined needs.