Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
2012/02/24 06:19:27
Subject: A new way to look at taxation and spending.
Let's take GM, for a while they were making gak cars that no one wants to buy, and they went broke, now here is where it changes,
Under the freemarket if you produce gak and no one buys it you go broke and you disappear your not bailed out at the cost of everyone else. Gm should be gone for making those stupid hybrid cars nobody wanted to buy. And replaced with the next car Company.
So it's abstract to believe that the market will regulate itself based on the action of the consumer and not by the bureaucrat?
GM is kept alive by the American government as it is a national security and super power protocol. We do this with many industries through subsidies or bailing them out. A requirement to be a super power is to be able to be 100% self sufficient. To that end, we keep certain companies afloat. Steel mills, automotive construction lines, rubber plants, any number of things that should gak hit the fan, we don't have to rely on someone else.
(╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻
RAGE
Be sure to use logic! Avoid fallacies whenever possible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
2012/02/24 06:27:42
Subject: A new way to look at taxation and spending.
Let's take GM, for a while they were making gak cars that no one wants to buy, and they went broke, now here is where it changes,
Under the freemarket if you produce gak and no one buys it you go broke and you disappear your not bailed out at the cost of everyone else. Gm should be gone for making those stupid hybrid cars nobody wanted to buy. And replaced with the next car Company.
So it's abstract to believe that the market will regulate itself based on the action of the consumer and not by the bureaucrat?
GM is kept alive by the American government as it is a national security and super power protocol. We do this with many industries through subsidies or bailing them out. A requirement to be a super power is to be able to be 100% self sufficient. To that end, we keep certain companies afloat. Steel mills, automotive construction lines, rubber plants, any number of things that should gak hit the fan, we don't have to rely on someone else.
The united states isn't even close to self sufficient.
----------------
Do you remember that time that thing happened?
This is a bad thread and you should all feel bad
2012/02/24 06:29:17
Subject: A new way to look at taxation and spending.
broodstar wrote:
1.And that my friend is class warfare.
Explain to me how anything I said is tantamount to class warfare.
broodstar wrote:
2.Read "The Letters of Confederation" It's the letters the founding father wrote to each other when they where discussing how the country should be setup, you actually see what they were thinking about when they wrote and signed the constitution. (And this country is far away from the way it was setup.)
I'm aware of what they are, and I've likely spent more time reading than you have. I'm shocked, though, absolutely shocked, that a country that was originally composed of 13 states, and is now composed of 50, might have a few more administrative challenges than it did in the past. The Letters are interesting reading, and useful for interpreting the Constitution, but that's about the only weight they actually have. In all other matters they're no more or less authoritative than anything else.
broodstar wrote:
3.Everybody having equal portions.
Ok, but equal portions of what? Equal portions of tax rate? Equal portion of burden? How do we assess whether or not a burden is equal?
Your tax proposal would be pretty awesome for me, financially, as I spend a good deal more than 3600 USD on month on food, rent, parking, internet access, etc. It would effectively make my year ~13 months long, instead of 12, and be effectively meaningless to me on a financial level. I could probably by a house, though, which would be a good extra source of income by rental.
Someone who makes 16k a year, however, is suddenly hit with an extra grand in tax burden, or a 50% increase in tax burden by rate (much higher if you factor in deductions). This burden is obviously much more significant to him, then it is to me.
broodstar wrote:
4.yes, In flat gross dollars. The percentage represents the burden on each person financially.
That's about the worst idea I've ever heard proposed
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
2012/02/24 06:31:22
Subject: A new way to look at taxation and spending.
broodstar wrote:Do you mean to tell me that you can not survive without the government. You can not choose what you watch without the Federal Communication Commission telling you what programming is safe? You still use the Post Office? Why when the private sector can do it faster and cheaper? You need Social Security? That's what retirement savings is for! If there are no economic regulation then you can go out and start working for yourself. There is something called the freemarket and if you allow it to work, it works. The economy won't be destroyed it will revert back to the way it is supposed to be.
And I'll tell you if you can't live without the government in your life, congratulations you are a sheep.
Ahh, so the economy is supposed to consist of agrarian farming and roving bands of barbarians. Or is it supposed to be some sort of laissez faire bs controlled by titannic international conglomerates? Did you know that any centralized authority with power over a populace (as private business would become if totally freed from any form of oversight) is a government? Do you have any idea what you're talking about at even a bare level?
Yeah, I'm the sheep. Have fun with your ron paul blimps and gold standards. I'm gonna live out here in reality.
Titanic international conglomerates, you mean like BP? or McDonald's? or Zales? or Honda? those titanic international Company? Can I ask you something, how does a business force the customer to buy a produce? it's allowing capitalism to take it's coarse, it's not communism or fascism.
The way they did it in the 1800s. They way they do it in Indonesia, china, and Mexico today. You think companies can't buy guns? Just who do you think it is that keeps them from putting a gun to your head and telling you to buy their product? Guess who it is that makes sure that when you want to say "this job sucks, I quit!" you actually get to leave the building without being beaten to death. It sure as hell isn't the free market.
It's not who, it's what? And that would be my gun.
I think your confusing corporation with cartel.
Tyranids 3000 points
Dark Angels 500 points
2012/02/24 06:33:59
Subject: Re:A new way to look at taxation and spending.
Chongara wrote:One should always PAY for what one GETS . This is the most basic and fair fact that even every smallest child knows. If you get something you PAY for it and if you don't PAY if you're not NOT GETTING ANYTHING . This is simple, understand even a simpleton can grasp this.
I'd much rather just steal it, or extort someone into giving it to me. That way I have what I want, and my money.
Sadly, big government had go and make those things illegal.
Chongara wrote:
Taxes should come from those that GET the most from them. If you're using public schools, taking food stamps, taking buses you should PAY MORE because you GET MORE .
What possible logic is there in taxing someone who is on food stamps more than someone who is not?
And public transport? Where do you live that public transit is free?
broodstar wrote:
It's not who, it's what? And that would be my gun.
I think your confusing corporation with cartel.
Theoretically, its only cost and law that prevent corporations from using force to seize assets. Though, arguably, once they start doing that they're de facto governments. I doubt they would go around forcing people to buy things, though. It would be much easier to simply take their money.
Either way, I'm glad you have a gun, but any possible organization of people has more of them than you do, and certainly more hands with which to use them.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/02/24 06:45:42
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
2012/02/24 06:39:24
Subject: Re:A new way to look at taxation and spending.
broodstar wrote:(sigh) finally someone who halfway understands what I'm getting at.
There's a lot of people who think something quite close to what you think. Just like a lot of the left fall into the trap of just thinking it's enough to hate the rich and blame them for everything, you and Chongara think it's enough to just hate the poor and blame them for everything.
Actually studying how things work is too much effort for most people.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
broodstar wrote:It's not who, it's what? And that would be my gun. I think your confusing corporation with cartel.
What stops a corporation, or any organised group from acting like a mob out to take whatever they can is the law. The law is, believe it or not, formed and enforced by government.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/02/24 06:40:43
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2012/02/24 06:43:39
Subject: A new way to look at taxation and spending.
broodstar wrote:Do you mean to tell me that you can not survive without the government. You can not choose what you watch without the Federal Communication Commission telling you what programming is safe? You still use the Post Office? Why when the private sector can do it faster and cheaper? You need Social Security? That's what retirement savings is for! If there are no economic regulation then you can go out and start working for yourself. There is something called the freemarket and if you allow it to work, it works. The economy won't be destroyed it will revert back to the way it is supposed to be.
And I'll tell you if you can't live without the government in your life, congratulations you are a sheep.
Ahh, so the economy is supposed to consist of agrarian farming and roving bands of barbarians. Or is it supposed to be some sort of laissez faire bs controlled by titannic international conglomerates? Did you know that any centralized authority with power over a populace (as private business would become if totally freed from any form of oversight) is a government? Do you have any idea what you're talking about at even a bare level?
Yeah, I'm the sheep. Have fun with your ron paul blimps and gold standards. I'm gonna live out here in reality.
Titanic international conglomerates, you mean like BP? or McDonald's? or Zales? or Honda? those titanic international Company? Can I ask you something, how does a business force the customer to buy a produce? it's allowing capitalism to take it's coarse, it's not communism or fascism.
The way they did it in the 1800s. They way they do it in Indonesia, china, and Mexico today. You think companies can't buy guns? Just who do you think it is that keeps them from putting a gun to your head and telling you to buy their product? Guess who it is that makes sure that when you want to say "this job sucks, I quit!" you actually get to leave the building without being beaten to death. It sure as hell isn't the free market.
It's not who, it's what? And that would be my gun. I think your confusing corporation with cartel.
I don't think you understand what constitutes a government or how societies actually work. Cartels are nothing if not massive global corporations with a lot of guns functioning on a free market and you're not going to stop them from killing you if they have reason to. Your wee little six shooters not going to do you any good when 11 ak47s are fired into your house because you didn't play ball. Welcome to the free economy, we don't have one because free economies are aren't physically possible.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2012/02/24 06:46:00
----------------
Do you remember that time that thing happened?
This is a bad thread and you should all feel bad
2012/02/24 07:05:35
Subject: A new way to look at taxation and spending.
Let's take GM, for a while they were making gak cars that no one wants to buy, and they went broke, now here is where it changes,
Under the freemarket if you produce gak and no one buys it you go broke and you disappear your not bailed out at the cost of everyone else. Gm should be gone for making those stupid hybrid cars nobody wanted to buy. And replaced with the next car Company.
So it's abstract to believe that the market will regulate itself based on the action of the consumer and not by the bureaucrat?
GM is kept alive by the American government as it is a national security and super power protocol. We do this with many industries through subsidies or bailing them out. A requirement to be a super power is to be able to be 100% self sufficient. To that end, we keep certain companies afloat. Steel mills, automotive construction lines, rubber plants, any number of things that should gak hit the fan, we don't have to rely on someone else.
The united states isn't even close to self sufficient.
Not total economically self sufficient, but in terms of national defense. There is very little that we could not produce for a war effort if confined to our borders and holdings. The US still has vast amounts of natural resources that are untapped.
(╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻
RAGE
Be sure to use logic! Avoid fallacies whenever possible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
2012/02/24 07:09:05
Subject: A new way to look at taxation and spending.
Surtur wrote:Not total economically self sufficient, but in terms of national defense. There is very little that we could not produce for a war effort if confined to our borders and holdings. The US still has vast amounts of natural resources that are untapped.
But you wouldn't produce anywhere the quantities needed to sustain your present living standards.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2012/02/24 07:09:14
Subject: A new way to look at taxation and spending.
Let's take GM, for a while they were making gak cars that no one wants to buy, and they went broke, now here is where it changes,
Under the freemarket if you produce gak and no one buys it you go broke and you disappear your not bailed out at the cost of everyone else. Gm should be gone for making those stupid hybrid cars nobody wanted to buy. And replaced with the next car Company.
So it's abstract to believe that the market will regulate itself based on the action of the consumer and not by the bureaucrat?
GM is kept alive by the American government as it is a national security and super power protocol. We do this with many industries through subsidies or bailing them out. A requirement to be a super power is to be able to be 100% self sufficient. To that end, we keep certain companies afloat. Steel mills, automotive construction lines, rubber plants, any number of things that should gak hit the fan, we don't have to rely on someone else.
The united states isn't even close to self sufficient.
Not total economically self sufficient, but in terms of national defense. There is very little that we could not produce for a war effort if confined to our borders and holdings. The US still has vast amounts of natural resources that are untapped.
An embargo on rare earth metals alone would make it virtually impossible to prosecute any sort of long term war engagement. We're also severely lacking in any sort of electronics manufacturing base and we don't have the trained personnel to have one. It's not something we could really do as a country. The united states has a lot of mineral wealth, but we're really not particularly close to being capable of sustaining ourselves by ourselves. We're not geared that way as an economy anymore and it would take decades of concerted effort to get back to being capable of such.
----------------
Do you remember that time that thing happened?
This is a bad thread and you should all feel bad
2012/02/24 07:10:01
Subject: A new way to look at taxation and spending.
broodstar wrote:
1.And that my friend is class warfare.
Explain to me how anything I said is tantamount to class warfare.
broodstar wrote:
2.Read "The Letters of Confederation" It's the letters the founding father wrote to each other when they where discussing how the country should be setup, you actually see what they were thinking about when they wrote and signed the constitution. (And this country is far away from the way it was setup.)
I'm aware of what they are, and I've likely spent more time reading than you have. I'm shocked, though, absolutely shocked, that a country that was originally composed of 13 states, and is now composed of 50, might have a few more administrative challenges than it did in the past. The Letters are interesting reading, and useful for interpreting the Constitution, but that's about the only weight they actually have. In all other matters they're no more or less authoritative than anything else.
broodstar wrote:
3.Everybody having equal portions.
Ok, but equal portions of what? Equal portions of tax rate? Equal portion of burden? How do we assess whether or not a burden is equal?
Your tax proposal would be pretty awesome for me, financially, as I spend a good deal more than 3600 USD on month on food, rent, parking, internet access, etc. It would effectively make my year ~13 months long, instead of 12, and be effectively meaningless to me on a financial level. I could probably by a house, though, which would be a good extra source of income by rental.
Someone who makes 16k a year, however, is suddenly hit with an extra grand in tax burden, or a 50% increase in tax burden by rate (much higher if you factor in deductions). This burden is obviously much more significant to him, then it is to me.
broodstar wrote:
4.yes, In flat gross dollars. The percentage represents the burden on each person financially.
That's about the worst idea I've ever heard proposed
1. You said why should you pay when they can pay. as I said in original post, that like saying don't take my blood for the blood god, take twice as much from the fat guy because he's fat he can afford to give up more blood.
2. tushae.
3. Equal payment. I think it's funny how everyone wants equality between the races, between the sexes etc until it comes to taxation. somehow when we start about taxes 1 and 5 are equal yet you ask any mathematician and 1 does not equal 5.
4. Yes, it has lesser impact on you, which is a good thing the original came to me when I was busting my ass trying to get by, and one of my co-worker was on foodstamps and disability and this program and that program and didn't want to work (and why, she didn't need to work her benefits were way more than her actual pay, she was gaming the system.) and why by the time we go through all the taxes am I giving up half my income so you can sit on your ass and make way more than me. And then the customer I had that was didn't let her kid get a Hershey's bar but demanded that I let her buy her beer on foodstamps. so the original concept was a means of lighting a fire under the ass of entitlers to get their ass and make a contribution
5. well I'm sorry you see it that way, but all I can do is make a proposal and defend my position. Which I think I'm doing pretty well.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ShumaGorath wrote:
broodstar wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:
broodstar wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:
broodstar wrote:Do you mean to tell me that you can not survive without the government. You can not choose what you watch without the Federal Communication Commission telling you what programming is safe? You still use the Post Office? Why when the private sector can do it faster and cheaper? You need Social Security? That's what retirement savings is for! If there are no economic regulation then you can go out and start working for yourself. There is something called the freemarket and if you allow it to work, it works. The economy won't be destroyed it will revert back to the way it is supposed to be.
And I'll tell you if you can't live without the government in your life, congratulations you are a sheep.
Ahh, so the economy is supposed to consist of agrarian farming and roving bands of barbarians. Or is it supposed to be some sort of laissez faire bs controlled by titannic international conglomerates? Did you know that any centralized authority with power over a populace (as private business would become if totally freed from any form of oversight) is a government? Do you have any idea what you're talking about at even a bare level?
Yeah, I'm the sheep. Have fun with your ron paul blimps and gold standards. I'm gonna live out here in reality.
Titanic international conglomerates, you mean like BP? or McDonald's? or Zales? or Honda? those titanic international Company? Can I ask you something, how does a business force the customer to buy a produce? it's allowing capitalism to take it's coarse, it's not communism or fascism.
The way they did it in the 1800s. They way they do it in Indonesia, china, and Mexico today. You think companies can't buy guns? Just who do you think it is that keeps them from putting a gun to your head and telling you to buy their product? Guess who it is that makes sure that when you want to say "this job sucks, I quit!" you actually get to leave the building without being beaten to death. It sure as hell isn't the free market.
It's not who, it's what? And that would be my gun.
I think your confusing corporation with cartel.
I don't think you understand what constitutes a government or how societies actually work. Cartels are nothing if not massive global corporations with a lot of guns functioning on a free market and you're not going to stop them from killing you if they have reason to. Your wee little six shooters not going to do you any good when 11 ak47s are fired into your house because you didn't play ball. Welcome to the free economy, we don't have one because free economies are aren't physically possible.
1. I know how societies work I've seen the darkest parts of society, hell I've been part of the darkest part of society.
2. THEY are not six shooters.
3. The AK47 is absolute gak nothing Russian made is any good.
4. You know how to defeat a cartel army? and even bigger army.
5. Free market is not black market there are social laws.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/02/24 07:33:16
Tyranids 3000 points
Dark Angels 500 points
2012/02/24 07:34:53
Subject: A new way to look at taxation and spending.
broodstar wrote:
1. You said why should you pay when they can pay. as I said in original post, that like saying don't take my blood for the blood god, take twice as much from the fat guy because he's fat he can afford to give up more blood.
Ah, I see how you might have interpreted it that way. It was more a personal statement than a comment on policy, I'm well outside the tax brackets that receive government aid.
I'm really only interested in the policy aspect of taxation, regarding how to develop enough revenue to provide the services most people want, and the ones that are conducive to a stable government.
broodstar wrote:
3. Equal payment. I think it's funny how everyone wants equality between the races, between the sexes etc until it comes to taxation. somehow when we start about taxes 1 and 5 are equal yet you ask any mathematician and 1 does not equal 5.
Not many people will them equal, lots of people will them fair, or necessary.
Either way, while we might talk about equality between the races or the sexes, that doesn't imply a general interest in equality. After all, how many talk about equality of income? Communists, sure, but not very many other people.
broodstar wrote:
4. Yes, it has lesser impact on you, which is a good thing the original came to me when I was busting my ass trying to get by, and one of my co-worker was on foodstamps and disability and this program and that program and didn't want to work (and why, she didn't need to work her benefits were way more than her actual pay, she was gaming the system.) and why by the time we go through all the taxes am I giving up half my income so you can sit on your ass and make way more than me.
What job were you doing that involved having a co-worker on food stamps, while you apparently made enough money to pay taxes? Did you simply not want to draw food stamps?
broodstar wrote:
And then the customer I had that was didn't let her kid get a Hershey's bar but demanded that I let her buy her beer on foodstamps. so the original concept was a means of lighting a fire under the ass of entitlers to get their ass and make a contribution
I don't think they're a significant problem, except in the sense that people seem to believe that they are.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
broodstar wrote:
4. You know how to defeat a cartel army? and even bigger army.
Well, a better one, but I'm not sure where you're going to find it if the dispute is premised on "not government".
broodstar wrote:
5. Free market is not black market there are social laws.
No there aren't. There is morality, but it tends to vary, and be highly flexible under duress.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/02/24 07:38:46
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
2012/02/24 07:50:05
Subject: A new way to look at taxation and spending.
broodstar wrote:1. I know how societies work I've seen the darkest parts of society, hell I've been part of the darkest part of society.
Really? You've been a Somali warlord, feeding disobediant civilians to your pet lion?
2. THEY are not six shooters.
So make it a .50 cal. Hell, have your very own Abrams. You're still one guy, and you're up against very many. And they will keep coming back. Seriously, we have societies and laws because 'I can look after myself' is fantasy.
4. You know how to defeat a cartel army? and even bigger army.
And when you've won? Well then you go about building a system that doesn't require raising an army and fighting a bloody war every time you want some kind of order in town.
And that means writing laws, and forming a government to enforce those laws, and having an elected body to oversee those government officials. And oh look, now you've got a representative democracy. And then, as all representative democracies have done, you'll focus a large number of those laws on encouraging open trade, and investment to expand the economy. And oh look, now you've got a free, capitalist economy.
And then some people will start pretending they're Randian supermen who are entirely self made, and completely ignore that the value they can draw from society is a result of their interaction with society. And other people will think they're being silly.
5. Free market is not black market there are social laws.
And when those social laws are ignored? "People will mostly obey the unenforced expectations of society" is pretty delusional.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/02/24 07:56:15
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2012/02/24 07:56:58
Subject: A new way to look at taxation and spending.
I was a convenience store clerk and I could have draw, housing assistance and foodstamps and medicaid, but it's just against my moral and political beliefs. I wanted to stand on my own two feet.
Tyranids 3000 points
Dark Angels 500 points
2012/02/24 07:59:40
Subject: A new way to look at taxation and spending.
I was a convenience store clerk and I could have draw, housing assistance and foodstamps and medicaid, but it's just against my moral and political beliefs. I wanted to stand on my own two feet.
Ah, you have scruples. People shouldn't have scruples.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
2012/02/24 08:02:10
Subject: A new way to look at taxation and spending.
I was a convenience store clerk and I could have draw, housing assistance and foodstamps and medicaid, but it's just against my moral and political beliefs. I wanted to stand on my own two feet.
Did you attend public school? Do you walk on pavements laid by local council? If you were attacked, would you rely on police employed by your state or commonwealth to track down and prosecute the perpetrator? Did your place of employment rely on conducting a business only made possible by the enforcement of property laws enforced by all levels of government?
You are not an island. You can't be. It's okay.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/02/24 08:02:43
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2012/02/24 08:10:48
Subject: A new way to look at taxation and spending.
broodstar wrote:1. I know how societies work I've seen the darkest parts of society, hell I've been part of the darkest part of society.
Really? You've been a Somali warlord, feeding disobediant civilians to your pet lion?
2. THEY are not six shooters.
So make it a .50 cal. Hell, have your very own Abrams. You're still one guy, and you're up against very many. And they will keep coming back. Seriously, we have societies and laws because 'I can look after myself' is fantasy.
4. You know how to defeat a cartel army? and even bigger army.
And when you've won? Well then you go about building a system that doesn't require raising an army and fighting a bloody war every time you want some kind of order in town.
And that means writing laws, and forming a government to enforce those laws, and having an elected body to oversee those government officials. And oh look, now you've got a representative democracy. And then, as all representative democracies have done, you'll focus a large number of those laws on encouraging open trade, and investment to expand the economy. And oh look, now you've got a free, capitalist economy.
And then some people will start pretending they're Randian supermen who are entirely self made, and completely ignore that the value they can draw from society is a result of their interaction with society. And other people will think they're being silly.
5. Free market is not black market there are social laws.
And when those social laws are ignored? "People will mostly obey the unenforced expectations of society" is pretty delusional.
1. I've been evolved in gang activity, I've dealt drugs to get by.
2. You know what it that doesn't deserve an answer.
3. OMG, freemarket is not anarchy! The government still exists, there is still an army. freemarket just mean that whenever you try to do something there isn't some bureaucrat breathing down your neck.
4. And when those social laws are ignored, you call the law.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote:
broodstar wrote:
Ahtman wrote:
broodstar wrote:like saying don't take my blood for the blood god
Blut und boden, amirght?
Dude, I'm tired I've debated like 8 guys, leave me alone.
When you are done debating those 8 guys you might want to start debating the ones in this thread.
I'm sorry what are you talking about?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sebster wrote:
broodstar wrote:@dogma
I was a convenience store clerk and I could have draw, housing assistance and foodstamps and medicaid, but it's just against my moral and political beliefs. I wanted to stand on my own two feet.
Did you attend public school? Do you walk on pavements laid by local council? If you were attacked, would you rely on police employed by your state or commonwealth to track down and prosecute the perpetrator? Did your place of employment rely on conducting a business only made possible by the enforcement of property laws enforced by all levels of government?
You are not an island. You can't be. It's okay.
Dude you're starting to annoy me.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/02/24 08:17:34
Tyranids 3000 points
Dark Angels 500 points
2012/02/24 08:21:34
Subject: A new way to look at taxation and spending.
broodstar wrote:
3. OMG, freemarket is not anarchy! The government still exists, there is still an army. freemarket just mean that whenever you try to do something there isn't some bureaucrat breathing down your neck.
You can't have one without the other, as raison d'Etat immediately comes into play.
You can have less bureaucratic interference, but not none.
broodstar wrote:
4. And when those social laws are ignored, you call the law.
The they're just laws, not social "laws".
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/02/24 08:22:13
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
2012/02/24 08:27:58
Subject: A new way to look at taxation and spending.
I was a convenience store clerk and I could have draw, housing assistance and foodstamps and medicaid, but it's just against my moral and political beliefs. I wanted to stand on my own two feet.
Ah, you have scruples. People shouldn't have scruples.
People should have morals? why not?
Tyranids 3000 points
Dark Angels 500 points
2012/02/24 08:28:55
Subject: A new way to look at taxation and spending.
The whole idea of "a free market left alone will regulate itself" is just as viable as the idea of communism.
Communism works great on paper, and if everybody played ball it would be a very viable system. The reason it fails is because of coruption and greed.
The same corruption and greed is the downfall of unregulated capitalism. If you want to believe that humans are good and will keep the interests of society in mind, then more power to you. But I think we have pretty much all of human history to show us that a world without regulation, control, and enforcement will not work.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also: What are these "letters of confederation" people are talking about?
I know of the "Articles of Confederation", and I guess the fact that they were replaced by the Constitution shows how viable they turned out to be.
Are we talking about the Federalist Papers? I think anybody that has read them also needs to read the Anti-Federalist Papers to get a complete idea of what the people founding this country were thinking.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/02/24 08:31:35
2012/02/24 08:33:47
Subject: A new way to look at taxation and spending.
broodstar wrote:3. OMG, freemarket is not anarchy! The government still exists, there is still an army. freemarket just mean that whenever you try to do something there isn't some bureaucrat breathing down your neck.
I can only conclude that you must eat everything fresh, be it meat, fruit or veg, nothing prepackaged and preprocessed, because in a free market you would have to do just that if you wanted any sort of quality. Want to know why? Because the 'big government' you hate so much regulates what goes in that prepackaged and preprocessed food, 50ish + years ago you could never truly know if that tinned tuna you were eating really was tuna and not cat food, you had to take it in good faith that the manufacturer was actually selling you tuna, you may find this surprising, but the introducing of labelling laws in many countries by 'big governments' did 1 thing, that thing was increase the quality of all products (not just food) by alot.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/02/24 08:35:16
Horst wrote:This is how trolling happens. A few cheeky posts are made. Then they get more insulting. Eventually, we revert to our primal animal state, hurling feces at each other while shreeking with glee.
2012/02/24 08:39:58
Subject: Re:A new way to look at taxation and spending.
it will regulate itself. because everyone is greed and well let's face it capitalism is about screwing each other. I'll sell you that overpriced piece of crap if you sell me that overpriced piece of crap. And how it regulates itself is the consumer, when they feel they're being ripped off they go to another guy. The business either changes it's way or it goes broke, that simple.
Whenever I think of regulation and bureaucracy, I think of the scene from "Andy Griffith" where Barney Fief is measuring the tire to make sure it is no more than x inches from the curb.
Now the only way they can get you to buy a hybrid is if they're subsidized, ie, buy a $5000 car and get a $5000 tax credit.
"To big to fail" is bs!
Tyranids 3000 points
Dark Angels 500 points
2012/02/24 08:49:32
Subject: A new way to look at taxation and spending.
broodstar wrote:1. I've been evolved in gang activity, I've dealt drugs to get by.
So you know how society without the rule of law works. And did you stay in that society, or endeavour to get a place in lawful society?
2. You know what it that doesn't deserve an answer.
Well it was a fairly silly point all around, lol I've got me a gun so I don't have to worry about no stinking bandits.
3. OMG, freemarket is not anarchy! The government still exists, there is still an army.
Good, now we've gotten that far, you'll note that some people in that system make more money than others. And now that you've recognised that the 'freemarket' system has army, police, and other measures to enforce the laws that do exist, it should become immediately obvious that some people benefit more from having that system around (ie the ones making more money are benefitting more).
At which point, complaining that the ones benefitting the most from having the system are the ones expected to pay the most to maintain the system becomes very, very silly. At which point we can move on from this thread, and pretend it never happened.
freemarket just mean that whenever you try to do something there isn't some bureaucrat breathing down your neck.
No, it does not. It's actually a gibberish term invented by people who like to pretend capitalism doesn't have government laws underpinning it. Those people play that pretend game in order to lobby to have only the laws they want as part of the system.
Though I've never seen freemarket as just one word before. That's new.
4. And when those social laws are ignored, you call the law.
That's right. So you need a government to enforce your system. At which point you have to stop pretending that an individual is self-made, and in fact bases his income on his interaction with the system.
Dude you're starting to annoy me.
I really don't care. I do care that you're saying very silly things.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
broodstar wrote:it will regulate itself. because everyone is greed and well let's face it capitalism is about screwing each other. I'll sell you that overpriced piece of crap if you sell me that overpriced piece of crap. And how it regulates itself is the consumer, when they feel they're being ripped off they go to another guy. The business either changes it's way or it goes broke, that simple.
You're approaching this from a position of priviledge, that assumes there is another competitor down the road who will sell you the product. So would you support regulation to stop one company being the only electricity supplier in town?
And do you deal with people being duped into signing dodgy contracts? Just expect everyone to read every single 1,000 page contract to make sure they're not accidentally signing themselves into sex slavery everytime they renew their phone contract?
And what about once we get to serious matters, like employment law? Should an employee who is sexually harrassed just be expected to put up with it or quit?
Whenever I think of regulation and bureaucracy, I think of the scene from "Andy Griffith" where Barney Fief is measuring the tire to make sure it is no more than x inches from the curb.
So... fiction.
Now the only way they can get you to buy a hybrid is if they're subsidized, ie, buy a $5000 car and get a $5000 tax credit.
You need to look up the tragedy of the commons, and consider how that relates to externalities, and why society might do well as a group to agree to policies to reduce those externalities.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote:Evolutionary speaking, if morals place the good of society above your own good then they are not natural.
There's been arguments made that humans would adapt instincts to act in the best interests of the tribe, as it would give that tribe an evolutionary advantage over others. I mean, that's an argument from evolutionary biology, so it's on the more speculative end of science, but it makes some kind of sense.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/02/24 09:02:15
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2012/02/24 09:16:32
Subject: A new way to look at taxation and spending.
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
the original came to me when I was busting my ass trying to get by, and one of my co-worker was on foodstamps and disability and this program and that program and didn't want to work (and why, she didn't need to work her benefits were way more than her actual pay, she was gaming the system.) and why by the time we go through all the taxes am I giving up half my income so you can sit on your ass and make way more than me. And then the customer I had that was didn't let her kid get a Hershey's bar but demanded that I let her buy her beer on foodstamps. so the original concept was a means of lighting a fire under the ass of entitlers to get their ass and make a contribution
it that doesn't deserve an answer.