DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site
General => Archive => Political and Religious => Topic started by: Riceball on August 16, 2011, 07:20:43 PM
-
https://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/stop-coddling-the-super-rich.html
Quick summary: Warren Buffet, rich guy and nerd-glasses-aficionado says "tax me, bitches, I want to help out the economy". OK, there's a bit more to it than that, but he argues that he and his cohort of mega millionares and billionares should pay a heap more in taxes than they do now in order to spare lower and middle income earners from any increases resulting from the 'deficit reduction' process.
I like the sentiment, but I don't know whether its that simple. Any thoughts?
-
I think little wrong could come from that. My history teacher last year said that during the Great Depression, the super rich gave their fair share to improve things for the rest, why shouldn't it happen now?
-
I think little wrong could come from that. My history teacher last year said that during the Great Depression, the super rich gave their fair share to improve things for the rest, why shouldn't it happen now?
Yes, but giving is different than being taxed. If he wants to give money, he could just donate it.
-
I'm not pretending to know anything about politics, but why would this be a bad idea?
In fact, why doesn't the government do it? I ask from complete ignorance on the subject
-
I'm pretty sure the reason the gov doesn't tax the rich people is because they get paid by said rich people not to tax them, unfortunately.
-
Warren Buffett should feel free to donate all the money he wants to the government, but his plan to have the government forcibly extract more wealth from the so-called wealthy amounts to advocating robbery from a sector that is a major contributor to economic growth. In general, he is getting worse and worse, and he is living proof that investor billionaires wouldn't make good political leaders.
I'm not pretending to know anything about politics, but why would this be a bad idea?
In fact, why doesn't the government do it? I ask from complete ignorance on the subject
Taxation is theft, purely and simply, even though it is theft on a grand and colossal scale which no acknowledged criminals could hope to match. It is a compulsory seizure of the property of the State's inhabitants, or subjects.
-
Warren Buffett should feel free to donate all the money he wants to the government, but his plan to have the government forcibly extract more wealth from the so-called wealthy amounts to advocating robbery from a sector that is a major contributor to economic growth. In general, he is getting worse and worse, and he is living proof that investor billionaires wouldn't make good political leaders.
Seriously? The mega-rich pay ~20%, the miuddle-class and poor pay ~40%. The idea that closing some of the loopholes is "robbery" is laughable.
-
Warren Buffett should feel free to donate all the money he wants to the government, but his plan to have the government forcibly extract more wealth from the so-called wealthy amounts to advocating robbery from a sector that is a major contributor to economic growth. In general, he is getting worse and worse, and he is living proof that investor billionaires wouldn't make good political leaders.
Seriously? The mega-rich pay ~20%, the miuddle-class and poor pay ~40%. The idea that closing some of the loopholes is "robbery" is laughable.
Haven't you read the libertarians posts here? 51% of the population (the poor) don't pay any taxes, the rich pay everything!
-
Please consider that Tucker is basing himself on the last quote I posted. So it's not laughable by any margin. Paying more taxes will never benefit the economy.
-
Wow there are some real right wing nutcases in the world; why does taxation of the rich amount to theft but taxing the poor not?
Further, the only reason rich people "drove" economic growth is because they control the money. Arguing that real economic growth is created by investment in financial assets is like saying I'll build a fire out of hay and then cry when the flames burn it all to ashes. Wow, that was melodramatic of me...
EDIT: millahh has hit the nail on the head, although I'm pretty sure this point has been laboured in countless other threads. My aim was to discuss the relative merits of what he is proposing, not creating another Government vs anti-Government clusterfuck. This is getting old...
EDIT2: I just realise I said investment in assets doesn't drive growth (which, ummm, yeah); I meant financial assets.
-
Warren Buffett should feel free to donate all the money he wants to the government, but his plan to have the government forcibly extract more wealth from the so-called wealthy amounts to advocating robbery from a sector that is a major contributor to economic growth. In general, he is getting worse and worse, and he is living proof that investor billionaires wouldn't make good political leaders.
Seriously? The mega-rich pay ~20%, the miuddle-class and poor pay ~40%. The idea that closing some of the loopholes is "robbery" is laughable.
The mega-rich 20% >> the middle class/poor 40% money wise.
-
I think he meant tax rate not the percentage of total taxation paid by the particular group.
I've always been an advocate for a progressive tax scale, so you pay more at the margin the more income that you earn so that your effective tax rate continuously increases. The way the US system is set up at the moment, from what I've read and from that article, its seems its a mildly regressive system.
To me, this doesn't make a lot of sense, as the US has the highest concentration of megarich people in the world (thats a totally unsubstantiated statement btw). If you are the Government, why wouldn't you leverage that? Like Buffet says in the article, he paid ~6m in taxes last year, which equates to only 17 per cent of his taxable income. Right now, although I acknowledge I'm in Australia, I pay about 28 per cent of my taxable income in taxes. It just doesn't make sense to me.
If the tax scales were set appropriately, and exemptions and loopholes were fixed or tightened, I would expect that richer people would pay at least the same level of effective tax, not less.
-
The top 1% pay 40%. If Buffet wants to lead an example, he can cut a huge check to the IRS any time he wants.
-
That itself wouldn't really solve anything.
-
The top 1% pay 40%. If Buffet wants to lead an example, he can cut a huge check to the IRS any time he wants.
Yes, thats the what the headline rate is, but I think hes talking about investment earnings also. There's also a shit-tonne of loopholes and exemptions that benefit those with large asset pools (depreciation tax shields, for one) which also bring down the effective rate. Keep in mind, Buffet is the world's third richest person, so he would be in this "top 1 per cent" bracket.
I don't think Buffet was even talking about the top 1 per cent, he makes mention in his article about the top 0.3 per cent paying more. And ofcourse he could, but as Orcus said what would that solve? Legislating a tax change would help the budget into the future, not just right now.
Also, when you say 40 per cent, do you mean of total taxation or their effective marginal tax rate?
-
I'm only talking federal income taxes:
Top 1% pay 40%
Top 49% pay 100%
Bottom 51% pay 0%.
There are many loopholes (i.e. deductions) and these must be closed, but the rates need to be lowered after that... the tax base has to be broadened.
Each state has its own thing (as it should be)..i.e. people flocking to a state like TX (no state income tax and lower regulations) in droves.
As for capital gains, the rate is 15% and that's how most of the top 10% make their money (rather than through a salary) but if you raise capital gains taxes, the gov't ciphers more investment capital... either a flat tax or the FairTax are needed.
-
Tax the mega rich. In our capitalist system the large multi-billion dollar companies are extremely powerful, hindering the very Democratic process. Tax the :censored out of them.
-
Tax the mega rich. In our capitalist system the large multi-billion dollar companies are extremely powerful, hindering the very Democratic process. Tax the :censored out of them.
We already have the highest corporate tax rate in the world. If you raise it, there will be more utilization of loopholes, outsourcing, automation, etc. Gov't needs to get out of the way.
-
Where do you get those stats from? I'd be really interested to check them out. The top 1 per cent paying 40 per cent of total income taxation seems a little farfetched to me, but I've been proven wrong before.
Yeah that's what I thought, thats very low CGT by world standards, and considering all of the tricks you can pull with assets and gains, no wonder they pay less as a percentage of their income than the average joe.
I've been quite interested in the US system of federalism of late (I'm writing a paper for work and my thesis for uni on untied grant equalisation in Australia) and I like the competition model employed in the US.
-
Where do you get those stats from? I'd be really interested to check them out. The top 1 per cent paying 40 per cent of total income taxation seems a little farfetched to me, but I've been proven wrong before.
Yeah that's what I thought, thats very low CGT by world standards, and considering all of the tricks you can pull with assets and gains, no wonder they pay less as a percentage of their income than the average joe.
I've been quite interested in the US system of federalism of late (I'm writing a paper for work and my thesis for uni on untied grant equalisation in Australia) and I like the competition model employed in the US.
Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).
In 2008, it was 53% paying 100% and 47% paying 0%.
In 2009, it was 49% paying 100% and 51% paying 0%.
The 2009 figures are the latest from the BLS... I fear the 2010 and 2011 numbers, but I won't be shocked.
Poke around their site to view stats:
https://www.bls.gov/
-
Buffett is just flat wrong.
https://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2011/08/15/warren-buffetts-fiscal-innumeracy/
His numbers are flawed in two important ways.
1. When Buffett receives dividends and capital gains, it is true that he pays “only” 15 percent of that money on his tax return. But dividends and capital gains are both forms of double taxation. So if he wants honest effective tax rate numbers, he needs to show the 35 percent corporate tax rate.
Moreover, as I noted in a previous post, Buffett completely ignores the impact of the death tax, which will result in the federal government seizing 45 percent of his assets. To be sure, Buffett may be engaging in clever tax planning, so it is hard to know the impact on his effective tax rate, but it will be signficant.
2. Buffett also mischaracterizes the impact of the Social Security payroll tax, which is dedicated for a specific purpose. The law only imposes that tax on income up to about $107,000 per year because the tax is designed so that people “earn” a corresponding retirement benefit (which actually is tilted in favor of low-income workers).
Imposing the tax on multi-millionaire income, however, would mean sending rich people giant checks from Social Security when they retire. But nobody thinks that’s a good idea. Or you could apply the payroll tax to all income and not pay any additional benefits. But this would turn Social Security from an “earned benefit” to a redistribution program, which also is widely rejected (though the left has been warming to the idea in recent years because their hunger for more tax revenue is greater than their support for Social Security).
If we consider these two factors, Buffett’s effective tax rate almost surely is much higher than the burden on any of the people who work for him.
-
Where do you get those stats from? I'd be really interested to check them out. The top 1 per cent paying 40 per cent of total income taxation seems a little farfetched to me, but I've been proven wrong before.
The problem is they just ignore the reasons for why this is so. They pay so much of the income tax becuase they make so much of the income.
-
Yeah it would be interesting to look at that in the context of the Gini curve; although they are probably out of fashion these days.
-
Where do you get those stats from? I'd be really interested to check them out. The top 1 per cent paying 40 per cent of total income taxation seems a little farfetched to me, but I've been proven wrong before.
The problem is they just ignore the reasons for why this is so. They pay so much of the income tax becuase they make so much of the income.
But that argument is usually used in the context of a debate over raising rich people's taxes even more.
-
more buffett smashing:
As most of the media goes gaga over Billionaire Obama fundraiser Warren Buffett calling for tax hikes, (like he did in 2001, and 2004, and plenty of times in between), let’s remember a few things.
Buffett Profits from Taxes He Supports
Buffett regularly lobbies for higher estate taxes. He also has repeatedly bought up family businesses forced to sell because the heirs’ death-tax bill exceeded the business’s liquid assets. He owns life insurance companies that rely on the death tax in order to sell their estate-planning businesses.
Buffett Profits from Government Spending
Buffett made about a billion dollars off of the Wall Street bailout by investing in Goldman Sachs on the assumption Uncle Sam would bail it out. He also is planning investments in ethanol giant ADM and government-contracting leviathan General Dynamics.
If your businesses’ revenue comes from the U.S. Treasury, of course you want more wealth.
Never will understand the prioritization of taxes. We could come up with the most glorious and efficient tax system the world has ever seen and it still wont matter because the spending is where the problem is. Seems like an excuse and delaying tactic to me.
-
Where do you get those stats from? I'd be really interested to check them out. The top 1 per cent paying 40 per cent of total income taxation seems a little farfetched to me, but I've been proven wrong before.
The problem is they just ignore the reasons for why this is so. They pay so much of the income tax becuase they make so much of the income.
But that argument is usually used in the context of a debate over raising rich people's taxes even more.
So? Because, as a rich person just attested to (I think trying to say that Warrant Buffet, a financial tycoon, isn't aware of how much he is paying in taxes is ludicrous), the percentage each rich person pays is primarily relevant. There's corruption in our tax code.
-
So? Because, as a rich person just attested to (I think trying to say that Warrant Buffet, a financial tycoon, isn't aware of how much he is paying in taxes is ludicrous), the percentage each rich person pays is primarily relevant. There's corruption in our tax code.
Mr. Buffet is offering us additional statism, collectivism, and socialism with his recommendation of higher taxation on the rich. He has therefore disqualified himself from being a serious advisor on national economic policy. His pronouncements illustrate the old saw to the effect that there is no fool like an old fool.
-
The biggest problem is that most of the super rich have their money tied up in stocks. They bought off congress and had legislation passed that only taxes them 15% on money generated by stocks. That should at last be the same as other income tax rates.
-
Taxation is theft, purely and simply, even though it is theft on a grand and colossal scale which no acknowledged criminals could hope to match. It is a compulsory seizure of the property of the State's inhabitants, or subjects.
Where does the state get the funds to build and maintain roads, for example? Or to maintain a viable national defense? Or do private enterprises have the stability and safety of a nation as their prime interest...?
-
Wow there are some real right wing nutcases in the world; why does taxation of the rich amount to theft but taxing the poor not?
Because you like strawman arguments? I'm not sure.
People arguing that taxation is theft are arguing that it's theft for all, including the poor.
-
Taxation is theft, purely and simply, even though it is theft on a grand and colossal scale which no acknowledged criminals could hope to match. It is a compulsory seizure of the property of the State's inhabitants, or subjects.
Where does the state get the funds to build and maintain roads, for example? Or to maintain a viable national defense? Or do private enterprises have the stability and safety of a nation as their prime interest...?
Not speaking for him but generally that position is not that taxes are all bad no matter what, but that taxes are necessary to a point, and if we were still at that point when our tax money went to only required services like fire fighting, roads, and national defense, I do not believe anyone would have a problem. But when you reach the level the United States is now with the number of social programs and fees and is still increasing, then it amounts of highway robbery because they can and will forcefully take things from you if you do not agree and are otherwise a model citizen.
-
Where do you get those stats from? I'd be really interested to check them out. The top 1 per cent paying 40 per cent of total income taxation seems a little farfetched to me, but I've been proven wrong before.
The problem is they just ignore the reasons for why this is so. They pay so much of the income tax becuase they make so much of the income.
But that argument is usually used in the context of a debate over raising rich people's taxes even more.
So? Because, as a rich person just attested to (I think trying to say that Warrant Buffet, a financial tycoon, isn't aware of how much he is paying in taxes is ludicrous), the percentage each rich person pays is primarily relevant. There's corruption in our tax code.
I'm sure he knows what he pays in taxes; that's not the point. He's framing the numbers to make a political point, as the article I linked to pointed out. His op-ed may make the advocates of "social justice" swoon, but don't doubt for a minute that he has something to gain (https://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/stop-coddling-warren-buffett) from defending the tax code. That brings me to another observation. The rich are typically understood as a greedy class of people, coddled by the state thanks to their ability to buy influence. But as soon as one wealthy individual comes in favor of higher taxes, he's a sober minded citizen of the world.
-
You're switching your points and and avoiding the facts that Warren Buffet get's taxed at a lower rate than his Secretary, and he's calling out the blatant injustice of that. So far, all the libertarians have ignored this simple mathematical fact, and have brought up nothing but red herrings and straw mans about higher taxes and how it's "theft." Warren Buffet and his secretary should be pay the same percentage of tax on applicable income - anything else is corruption.
Estate tax? Ignore his positition on that, I thought we were talking about income tax anyways? That he invested in Goldman Sacchs? A horrible problem with our banking system that I think neither of us likes.
Also, you display how little you understand liberals thinking. Not all rich people are greedy, not all business men are greedy, hell, probably a majority of them aren't... but they are out there, and we need protection from them. Are all humans murderers? Nope, but that doesn't stop us from having laws against murder.
-
Taxes in the US right now are a joke. Also the fact that people believe we can go on without raises taxes (even on a general level, not just for one bracket) scares me. I can't comprehend how that thought process even works.
-
Taxes in the US right now are a joke. Also the fact that people believe we can go on without raises taxes (even on a general level, not just for one bracket) scares me. I can't comprehend how that thought process even works.
The people that don't advocate raises in taxes typically advocate reductions in spending. I don't think it's all that incomprehensible.
-
Reduction plus reallocating funds for broken programs might actually help. Raising taxes seems to be more of an after effect of how screwed up what's already in place is more than some necessity. Surely there's some way to restructure how the money pits are swallowing the most money to make them swallow it less quickly? Raising taxes constantly seems way more of "oh well that's just the way it is I suppose" response.
-
Raises haven't' been raised 'constantly," in fact, they've been lowered steadily for a while....
-
Well, I suppose the most damning statistic is that the US tax burden is just 14 per cent of GDP; OECD average is about 27-30 and in Europe its more like 40.
Now, the US also spends less as a percentage of GDP than most of the world, but it still spends more than it earns. I know GDP isn't a great comparison to make, as a high US GDP is caused by all kinds of things (including Government spending), but the fact that its about half of the average shows that these nutcases who think taxes are too high are just that, nutcases.
Back to the point, no doubt Buffet has self-interest in keeping the US tax code in its current form, as does anyone who doesn't pay much tax does, but I think he quite rightly makes a point that as a percentage of income rich people get off quite lightly under the current regime. And, quite rightly so, he points out that not only do the mega rich have the capacity to pay more taxes, its more equitable to raise more tax from this group than lower and middle income earners who are struggling with rising prices and weak wages growth.
-
Taxes in the US right now are a joke. Also the fact that people believe we can go on without raises taxes (even on a general level, not just for one bracket) scares me. I can't comprehend how that thought process even works.
The people that don't advocate raises in taxes typically advocate reductions in spending. I don't think it's all that incomprehensible.
I just don't see how they are mutually exclusive. If I notice that my budget is out of whack, I do two things - try to work more hours to increase the money I'm bringing it and limit my extra spending.
-
I just don't see how they are mutually exclusive. If I notice that my budget is out of whack, I do two things - try to work more hours to increase the money I'm bringing it and limit my extra spending.
Without addressing the problems with the majority of most state and federal social programs first, you are adding water to a leaky pale that is slowly opening more and more with each new budget. Not to mention your money has you to regulate its use, a government committee spends its budget, requests more, spend that, requests more, then finally gets shutdown or cut into a fraction of its original scale because its wasted its allotted amount ten fold.
-
Exactly, the whole system needs to be revisited, rather than just tinkering around the edges here, raising the borrowing limit there. Unfortunately, I don't think the US has either the cultural or political will to make any wholesale changes to their system, despite the economic imperative.
-
The first page of this thread is hilarious.
-
Taxes in the US right now are a joke. Also the fact that people believe we can go on without raises taxes (even on a general level, not just for one bracket) scares me. I can't comprehend how that thought process even works.
The people that don't advocate raises in taxes typically advocate reductions in spending. I don't think it's all that incomprehensible.
I really don't care how other countries tax their citizens. If they tax higher than us, it's damnation for their citizens, whether they know it or not. I only care about taxation in my country. And in my country, taxes need to be cut 70%. Roads are good. Post offices are fine. Lots of neat weapons so we can destroy the world a few thousand times is good. Court system to adjudicate disputes and prosecute criminals? I'm good with that.
What needs to be done away with?
1) All redistribution
No person has a right to the property of another without his consent.
2) All entitlements
No person has a right to the property of another without his consent.
3) All medical care
Medical care is a service. No need for government involvement.
4) All programs for the "poor"
Poverty is an individual problem. Poor people who cannot or will not act to mitigate their poverty can ask others for help, seek charity through religious institutions, or die.
5) All cultural and related programs (NEA? Gone.)
Cultural programs are PURE theft.
6) All space and science programs (publicly funded NASA? Gone.)
Yes, I love space exploration and scientific research as much as the next guy. When it is funded by private institutions. It's immoral to tax citizens into poverty to pay for a space program or the NSF.
7) Social security? Gone.
Individuals are responsible for saving for their old age. Those that don't can seek help from others, charities, or die.
8) Foreign aid to "developing" countries? Gone.
It is ludicrous to piss away money by transferring our hard earned wealth to two-bit "impoverished" countries who refuse to institute freedom and capitalism (which would solve every problem of every "developing" country.)
9) Publicly funded environmentalists and all others of their ilk? Gone.
Environmentalists can do their studies using their own money. Then pay for media time to persuade us as to whether we are behaving responsibly. In short, they cannot coerce anyone, they can use rational persuasion to cause others to behave in an environmentally responsible manner.
10) Roads, bridges, tunnels, sidewalks, infrastructure, national parks? I'll allow it. Certain edifices legitimately serve the public good and are not in anyone's individual interest to create. But we must be very strict in defining these. They should be minimal.
11) Public education? Gone.
Educating children is the responsibility of individual parents. No one has a right to have children. It is a choice. A choice which needs to be made at the right time when there is sufficent money and time to do the job correctly.
Get the picture? We need more freedom and individual initiative. That is what drives the country, nothing else. But aside from what works, we need to consider morality in all decisions of this type. And it is essentially immoral to take from one person for the unearned and undeserved benefit of another. So all public policy making must recognize that essential rule and not violate it.
-
Though I agree that spending is far tOo high, the balance of the budget would benefit greatly from higher taxation upon citizens who have enough money to be unaffected by it.
Also, it sEems you have a great deal of trust and confidence in private institutions and the private market? Are you positive that the private institutions are Innantly good and would not do wrong, even it doing wrong would produce a greater profit?
I understand not having a great deal of faith in the gov's competence or motivations, but I don't believe that private institutions would have much more success in providing services that our gov currently covers.
-
_____ people who cannot or will not act to mitigate their poverty can ask others for help, seek charity through religious institutions, or die.
Gotta love that American spirit.
-
Hey M13, since you view poverty as so inherently easy to get out of, why isn't living in a country consent to be taxed? No one is forcing the rich people to live here, or do business here.
Also, people do pay into their own social security; social security isn't asking anyone else for help, it's in fact forcing people to provide for themselves in the future.
I won't bother with everything else I think is wrong with your post.
-
Taxes in the US right now are a joke. Also the fact that people believe we can go on without raises taxes (even on a general level, not just for one bracket) scares me. I can't comprehend how that thought process even works.
The people that don't advocate raises in taxes typically advocate reductions in spending. I don't think it's all that incomprehensible.
I really don't care how other countries tax their citizens. If they tax higher than us, it's damnation for their citizens, whether they know it or not. I only care about taxation in my country. And in my country, taxes need to be cut 70%. Roads are good. Post offices are fine. Lots of neat weapons so we can destroy the world a few thousand times is good. Court system to adjudicate disputes and prosecute criminals? I'm good with that.
What needs to be done away with?
1) All redistribution
No person has a right to the property of another without his consent.
2) All entitlements
No person has a right to the property of another without his consent.
3) All medical care
Medical care is a service. No need for government involvement.
4) All programs for the "poor"
Poverty is an individual problem. Poor people who cannot or will not act to mitigate their poverty can ask others for help, seek charity through religious institutions, or die.
5) All cultural and related programs (NEA? Gone.)
Cultural programs are PURE theft.
6) All space and science programs (publicly funded NASA? Gone.)
Yes, I love space exploration and scientific research as much as the next guy. When it is funded by private institutions. It's immoral to tax citizens into poverty to pay for a space program or the NSF.
7) Social security? Gone.
Individuals are responsible for saving for their old age. Those that don't can seek help from others, charities, or die.
8) Foreign aid to "developing" countries? Gone.
It is ludicrous to piss away money by transferring our hard earned wealth to two-bit "impoverished" countries who refuse to institute freedom and capitalism (which would solve every problem of every "developing" country.)
9) Publicly funded environmentalists and all others of their ilk? Gone.
Environmentalists can do their studies using their own money. Then pay for media time to persuade us as to whether we are behaving responsibly. In short, they cannot coerce anyone, they can use rational persuasion to cause others to behave in an environmentally responsible manner.
10) Roads, bridges, tunnels, sidewalks, infrastructure, national parks? I'll allow it. Certain edifices legitimately serve the public good and are not in anyone's individual interest to create. But we must be very strict in defining these. They should be minimal.
11) Public education? Gone.
Educating children is the responsibility of individual parents. No one has a right to have children. It is a choice. A choice which needs to be made at the right time when there is sufficent money and time to do the job correctly.
Get the picture? We need more freedom and individual initiative. That is what drives the country, nothing else. But aside from what works, we need to consider morality in all decisions of this type. And it is essentially immoral to take from one person for the unearned and undeserved benefit of another. So all public policy making must recognize that essential rule and not violate it.
You have a very interesting way of viewing the world. I look forward to seeing more of what you have to say on similar topics. :)
-
I find it interesting, actually. They all follow the common theme of freedom and individuality, the people subscribing to this philosophy of economics and property. Not saying it's a bad thing, but it does neglect other American values such as equality, and human values such as responsibility. I believe that civilization works because we are morally and practically bound to one another; we depend upon each other to survive.
-
Taxes in the US right now are a joke. Also the fact that people believe we can go on without raises taxes (even on a general level, not just for one bracket) scares me. I can't comprehend how that thought process even works.
The people that don't advocate raises in taxes typically advocate reductions in spending. I don't think it's all that incomprehensible.
I really don't care how other countries tax their citizens. If they tax higher than us, it's damnation for their citizens, whether they know it or not. I only care about taxation in my country. And in my country, taxes need to be cut 70%. Roads are good. Post offices are fine. Lots of neat weapons so we can destroy the world a few thousand times is good. Court system to adjudicate disputes and prosecute criminals? I'm good with that.
What needs to be done away with?
1) All redistribution
No person has a right to the property of another without his consent.
2) All entitlements
No person has a right to the property of another without his consent.
3) All medical care
Medical care is a service. No need for government involvement.
4) All programs for the "poor"
Poverty is an individual problem. Poor people who cannot or will not act to mitigate their poverty can ask others for help, seek charity through religious institutions, or die.
5) All cultural and related programs (NEA? Gone.)
Cultural programs are PURE theft.
6) All space and science programs (publicly funded NASA? Gone.)
Yes, I love space exploration and scientific research as much as the next guy. When it is funded by private institutions. It's immoral to tax citizens into poverty to pay for a space program or the NSF.
7) Social security? Gone.
Individuals are responsible for saving for their old age. Those that don't can seek help from others, charities, or die.
8) Foreign aid to "developing" countries? Gone.
It is ludicrous to piss away money by transferring our hard earned wealth to two-bit "impoverished" countries who refuse to institute freedom and capitalism (which would solve every problem of every "developing" country.)
9) Publicly funded environmentalists and all others of their ilk? Gone.
Environmentalists can do their studies using their own money. Then pay for media time to persuade us as to whether we are behaving responsibly. In short, they cannot coerce anyone, they can use rational persuasion to cause others to behave in an environmentally responsible manner.
10) Roads, bridges, tunnels, sidewalks, infrastructure, national parks? I'll allow it. Certain edifices legitimately serve the public good and are not in anyone's individual interest to create. But we must be very strict in defining these. They should be minimal.
11) Public education? Gone.
Educating children is the responsibility of individual parents. No one has a right to have children. It is a choice. A choice which needs to be made at the right time when there is sufficent money and time to do the job correctly.
Get the picture? We need more freedom and individual initiative. That is what drives the country, nothing else. But aside from what works, we need to consider morality in all decisions of this type. And it is essentially immoral to take from one person for the unearned and undeserved benefit of another. So all public policy making must recognize that essential rule and not violate it.
First of all, our infrastructure is pure shit. Need I remind you what happened in the twin cities a few years ago? While it's true that projects like the "bridge to nowhere" that happened in Alaska and was media fodder during the '08 election are a perfect example of the wastes that libertarians often complain about, we can't afford to ignore our nation's infrastructure for obvious reasons that all benefit business in this country.
The rest of your ideas are completely worthless unless we move back in time and become a farming based society. I have a strong feeling that I'm one of few (if not the only person that posts frequently in this part of the forum) that works in a factory setting. I couldn't imagine working side by side with people that are in their late 60's, 70's or beyond. Considering the cost of living and the costs of healthcare in this country, what you're advocating would force people to work well beyond the point that they should be allowed to retire. That's not even mentioning the unsafe conditions that would be created for everyone working in the vacinity.
I share many ideas with many of the libertarians in this forum but, sometimes I'm honestly at a loss at where some of you guys get your extreme ideas. Often times they aren't thought through very well and it's obvious. Instead of advocating some of these extremes I think you guys would be better served by supporting reforms to these programs that would ultimately benefit all of us.
-
but it does neglect other American values such as equality, and human values such as responsibility
For me at least, its not a neglect of character, discouragement of equal treatment, or a lack of important values like responsibility and compassion. It is an understanding that what is needed cannot be provided for everyone that claims to need it, least of all by the state in its current form. Doing so wastes the most money and causes the most problems in the long run.
I share many ideas with many of the libertarians in this forum but, sometimes I'm honestly at a loss at where some of you guys get your extreme ideas.
Try not to lump us together.
-
but it does neglect other American values such as equality, and human values such as responsibility
For me at least, its not a neglect of character, discouragement of equal treatment, or a lack of important values like responsibility and compassion. It is an understanding that what is needed cannot be provided for everyone that claims to need it, least of all by the state in its current form. Doing so wastes the most money and causes the most problems in the long run.
I share many ideas with many of the libertarians in this forum but, sometimes I'm honestly at a loss at where some of you guys get your extreme ideas.
Try not to lump us together.
That's why I used the word "some" instead of saying "all".
-
I'm only talking federal income taxes:
Top 1% pay 40%
Top 49% pay 100%
Bottom 51% pay 0%.
There are many loopholes (i.e. deductions) and these must be closed, but the rates need to be lowered after that... the tax base has to be broadened.
It's difficult to pay income tax when you don't have a job.
Also, most of those in the 51% who have jobs but aren't paying income tax aren't because they're barely scraping by as is. You really think a family of 4 bringing in $22,000 per year needs to 'pay their fair share', but returning the top income tax rate to what it was in the '90s is unacceptable?
By the way, that bottom 51% controls about 2.5% of the wealth in the United States. That's taking into account all of their worldly possessions. Taxing every member of that group at 50% of their income would bring in less tax revenue than taxing the top group an extra couple percentage points (which would still only be about 37-38%).
-
By the way, that bottom 51% controls about 2.5% of the wealth in the United States. That's taking into account all of their worldly possessions. Taxing every member of that group at 50% of their income would bring in less tax revenue than taxing the top group an extra couple percentage points (which would still only be about 37-38%).
That's why we need to take everything the bottom 51% own, remember?
-
Hey M13, since you view poverty as so inherently easy to get out of, why isn't living in a country consent to be taxed? No one is forcing the rich people to live here, or do business here.
You totally asked for this. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nT0OqHr3wHQ)
But seriously, what's with the presumption that being part of society is a privilege provided by our overlords? You want the wealthiest, most productive people to underwrite the whole shitty social experiment and shut the fuck up - or leave.
By the way, expatriating in order to protect wealth is rather difficult; The IRS is wise to the tactic and jumps up the ass of anybody who does attempt to go. So you're not even entirely correct to say that you're not forced to stay.
-
I don't actually accept that as a line of thinking, I'm pionting out a discrepancy is how idealistic pure libertarian thought is. As you allude to, the reality on the ground often makes it difficult to actually do what you want to do. Systemic and structural issues in society can help keep people in their place, and where they are at.
But seriously, what's with the presumption that being part of society is a privilege provided by our overlords? You want the wealthiest, most productive people to underwrite the whole shitty social experiment and shut the fuck up - or leave.
Being part of society is a privileged provided by the other members of that society. Why do you presume ourselves to be individuals? That is a hypothesis which has never really been tried out, and in fact, seems to be scientifically wrong. We are members of a group as much or more so than we are some monadistic "individual." For any "individual" to become wealthy requires a huge network of other people, and their interests, their work, to actually come together. What I want is for the wealthiest people to work with the society they benefit from, to acknowledge that they are not an individual, that their achievements are not solely their own, and that they would be nobody without society. Furthermore, why do you assume that the wealthiest people are the most productive people? If CEO are so productive, why can laborers strike and, ya know, end production?*
Wealth is not an indicator of some virtue, or a sign of productivity. Think it was Ghandi who called wealth without work one of the seven greatest blunders of the world, and that's exactly what we have with a lot of the rich people today.
*edit. Okay, somewhat of a stupid question; it implies I think managers do nothing, and are invaluable, which is wrong. I just think their value is much more equal with their employees (and in some caes, I think the employee's are much more valuable than the CEO or the manager).
-
I don't actually accept that as a line of thinking, I'm pionting out a discrepancy is how idealistic pure libertarian thought is. As you allude to, the reality on the ground often makes it difficult to actually do what you want to do. Systemic and structural issues in society can help keep people in their place, and where they are at.
But seriously, what's with the presumption that being part of society is a privilege provided by our overlords? You want the wealthiest, most productive people to underwrite the whole shitty social experiment and shut the fuck up - or leave.
Being part of society is a privileged provided by the other members of that society. Why do you presume ourselves to be individuals? That is a hypothesis which has never really been tried out, and in fact, seems to be scientifically wrong. We are members of a group as much or more so than we are some monadistic "individual." For any "individual" to become wealthy requires a huge network of other people, and their interests, their work, to actually come together. What I want is for the wealthiest people to work with the society they benefit from, to acknowledge that they are not an individual, that their achievements are not solely their own, and that they would be nobody without society. Furthermore, why do you assume that the wealthiest people are the most productive people? If CEO are so productive, why can laborers strike and, ya know, end production?*
Wealth is not an indicator of some virtue, or a sign of productivity. Think it was Ghandi who called wealth without work one of the seven greatest blunders of the world, and that's exactly what we have with a lot of the rich people today.
*edit. Okay, somewhat of a stupid question; it implies I think managers do nothing, and are invaluable, which is wrong. I just think their value is much more equal with their employees (and in some caes, I think the employee's are much more valuable than the CEO or the manager).
Pretty much this entire thing. It's not for nothing that a national economy is healthiest when there is a large, strong middle class.
-
*edit. Okay, somewhat of a stupid question; it implies I think managers do nothing, and are invaluable, which is wrong. I just think their value is much more equal with their employees (and in some caes, I think the employee's are much more valuable than the CEO or the manager).
BTW, if you were trying to say "I don't mean to imply CEOs/managers have no value", invaluable doesn't mean "having no value." It means having such a great value that it's not possible to calculate how valuable the thing in question is.
-
Hmm... that's true from the dictionary, but the logical make-up of that word seems to imply that it can either be beyond value, or below value. It simply means that they are "non" valuable.
So I admit I technically used the word wrong, I just think that the technical use of the word is illogical.
-
Valueable == able to be valued. In+valuable == not able to be valued. That's not the same as "being valued at zero." :)
-
Okay, I'll admit that in the sentence I used it, it's logically wrong.
Still, I think to say that invaluable implies "great" value is still wrong. For starters, to say that something is great is giving that thing a value, so if you say that something invaluable because it is beyond value, and so great, you just contradicted yourself. Why cannot the thing be enigmatic, so that you simply are not able to value it appropriately? The thing could be of no value, litttle value, great value, etc.
Pretty much this entire thing. It's not for nothing that a national economy is healthiest when there is a large, strong middle class.
One thing that always annoys me about conservative tax ideology (i.e. dont' tax the rich) is that the people saying this always seems to be ignorant of the fact that that money is going to go right back to those rich people.
-
I never said don't tax the rich. In fact, not taxing the rich is why the American middle class is shrinking.
-
I never said don't tax the rich. In fact, not taxing the rich is why the American middle class is shrinking.
I'm not disagreeing with your statement but, could you be a bit more specific?
-
I never said don't tax the rich. In fact, not taxing the rich is why the American middle class is shrinking.
Sorry, didn't mean to imply you did. I'm chiming in.
-
I never said don't tax the rich. In fact, not taxing the rich is why the American middle class is shrinking.
I'm not disagreeing with your statement but, could you be a bit more specific?
I just meant that a strong economy relies on a strong middle class, i.e. a middle class with a lot of purchasing power that can keep the money flowing. I don't personally believe in the trickle-down system, and I think that the economic woes we've been seeing the last few years are a sign that it doesn't work, because we've been doing that and it hasn't made things better but worse. The divide between rich and poor is growing wider and ever wider and the economies of the world continue to struggle, maybe not as a consequence, but certainly not in spite of it.
-
I never said don't tax the rich. In fact, not taxing the rich is why the American middle class is shrinking.
I'm not disagreeing with your statement but, could you be a bit more specific?
I just meant that a strong economy relies on a strong middle class, i.e. a middle class with a lot of purchasing power that can keep the money flowing. I don't personally believe in the trickle-down system, and I think that the economic woes we've been seeing the last few years are a sign that it doesn't work, because we've been doing that and it hasn't made things better but worse. The divide between rich and poor is growing wider and ever wider and the economies of the world continue to struggle, maybe not as a consequence, but certainly not in spite of it.
I'm more of the opinion that before we consider raising anyone's taxes we should refocus where the taxes that are already paid are spent. That's not to say that I think you're wrong but, in my opinion there are so many issues with our tax code and spending that need to be addressed first and foremost.
-
we should refocus where the taxes that are already paid are spent.
This is the biggest problem, is the way the tax money is spent. The US federal government has proven itself over the years to be horribly bloated, wasteful, and inefficient, and is a complete and total failure at running the social programs which many of us would otherwise support. There are several reasons for this, but that discussion is probably beyond the scope of this thread.
As for some of the shit on page 1, I was under the impression that Buffett and some wall street fat cats pay less taxes in total because the majority of their income comes from capital gains, not because of the income tax rate in their bracket.
-J
-
Being part of society is a privileged provided by the other members of that society.
We've debated the content of the rest of your post to death, but I would like some justification for this line of reasoning, or at least the argument that stems from it. It's fair to say that people form societies because there is a mutual benefit to be gained by everybody involved. That being said, you use that to justify well redistribution, which I think is unwarranted. Am I missing something?
-
Being part of society is a privileged provided by the other members of that society.
We've debated the content of the rest of your post to death, but I would like some justification for this line of reasoning, or at least the argument that stems from it. It's fair to say that people form societies because there is a mutual benefit to be gained by everybody involved. That being said, you use that to justify well redistribution, which I think is unwarranted. Am I missing something?
Ya, try and piss off your fellow members of society, and see how well that works out. Try a small scale experiment, piss off your friends, and see how long you still have them as friends. A democratic Athens killed Socrates.
Looking at the issue over a period of time, a country with a strong middle class is more stable, democratic, and the people in the society enjoy a higher quality of life. When there's a big gap between the rich and the poor, eventually there's revolutions, civil unrest, and so many other problems that come along with it. The wealthy don't benefit, it's against their interest as well - even theoretically against their actual well-being. A good book detailing this would be Political Order in Changing Societies by Hunnington.
-
Being part of society is a privileged provided by the other members of that society.
We've debated the content of the rest of your post to death, but I would like some justification for this line of reasoning, or at least the argument that stems from it. It's fair to say that people form societies because there is a mutual benefit to be gained by everybody involved. That being said, you use that to justify well redistribution, which I think is unwarranted. Am I missing something?
Ya, try and piss off your fellow members of society, and see how well that works out. Try a small scale experiment, piss off your friends, and see how long you still have them as friends. A democratic Athens killed Socrates.
Looking at the issue over a period of time, a country with a strong middle class is more stable, democratic, and the people in the society enjoy a higher quality of life. When there's a big gap between the rich and the poor, eventually there's revolutions, civil unrest, and so many other problems that come along with it. The wealthy don't benefit, it's against their interest as well - even theoretically against their actual well-being. A good book detailing this would be Political Order in Changing Societies by Hunnington.
That's not an answer. A generally wealthier society is obviously a happier society. But that doesn't explain why existing in a community entitles some people to the income of others. Also worth noting: endorsing a libertarian view of public assistance isn't synonymous with causing social upheaval. That's a bullshit assumption existing in the minds of academics and nowhere else in the world.
If I sound like a bigger dick than usual it's because I read We the Living this week.
-
But that doesn't explain why existing in a community entitles some people to the income of others.
Because without living in that community, or using that community in some way, there would be no income to be taxed. You can't sell nobody anything to make a profit, you can't sell nobody a service. I don't know where the line is, but there is a point where someone is getting rich off of the community, or at least isn't being fair in how they dole out the money they have control over. Do you honestly think some people deserve hundreds of millions of dollars for investing well in the stock market? What kind of work was accomplished? All the work would be done by other people, by the members of the companies they invested in, by the workers hired, etc. Yes, it's a valuable service that we need, but it is not so valuable to deserve hundreds and thousands of times as much money as the common worker. Do you think the corrupt bankers who have exploited the US government, bet against the stock market, etc, deserve their money?
Why is a member of a community entitled to more than his fair share of the wealth created by the community?
And are you still disagreeing that being a member of society is a privilege, or just how I use that to defend my position?
-
But that doesn't explain why existing in a community entitles some people to the income of others.
Because without living in that community, or using that community in some way, there would be no income to be taxed. You can't sell nobody anything to make a profit, you can't sell nobody a service.
But making a profit requires a voluntary exchange. Nobody is being used. One party sells a product or service to another party in exchange for money, because both see that they will benefit from the transaction.
Do you honestly think some people deserve hundreds of millions of dollars for investing well in the stock market?
Provided they didn't behave unethically, yes, every penny.
What kind of work was accomplished?
The necessary capital was provided so the work could be carried out. Quite an accomplishment I'd say.
All the work would be done by other people, by the members of the companies they invested in, by the workers hired, etc. Yes, it's a valuable service that we need, but it is not so valuable to deserve hundreds and thousands of times as much money as the common worker.
Yes, it is worth much more than the common worker. If investors risk their own money to fund an enterprise, they should get the biggest return, having made the whole thing possible. Can you provide a logical explanation for why Joe factory worker deserves as much as the individual who forwent consumption to save money and wisely invest it? Of course this doesn't mean that the guy who drives a forklift around the factory is a loser, but the services he provides are not worth as much in economic terms as the guy who fronted $50 million to build the factory.
Do you think the corrupt bankers who have exploited the US government, bet against the stock market, etc, deserve their money?
You've admitted in this thread that most rich people don't fit this description, so why dwell on it? But, no, I don't. If they're corrupt, like break-the-law corrupt, they deserve a lengthy jail sentence.
And are you still disagreeing that being a member of society is a privilege, or just how I use that to defend my position?
The former. It's a sucky premise, so however you attempt to defend it will suck equally.
-
we should refocus where the taxes that are already paid are spent.
This is the biggest problem, is the way the tax money is spent. The US federal government has proven itself over the years to be horribly bloated, wasteful, and inefficient, and is a complete and total failure at running the social programs which many of us would otherwise support. There are several reasons for this, but that discussion is probably beyond the scope of this thread.
You're correct that it's somewhat off topic but, ultimately it all ties in together. My argument is that by refocusing the way the tax money is spent would partially be stream lining the services that are provided. Another example would be getting rid of certain subsidies that benefit nobody. I read recently that we pay an overseas cotton operation several millions of dollars each year because of some law that has been in the books since the 1920's/30's. (I can't remember the article but, I can try to track it down if you're curious) I realize that's a drop in the bucket in the grand scheme of things but, it's just one example.
Somebody is getting rich off of this shit. All the money isn't going to the poor "moochers" that the right likes to focus on. No-bid government contracts, wastefull military programs like the jet engine that's being built in my home state that the pentegon wants nothing to do with and bank/corporate bail-outs all need to take a hike. The money is being taken from the people that earned it and need it the most (the ever shrinking middle class) and landing in some fuck's wallet that did nothing to earn it.
I should also mention the foriegn aid that we piss away in this country just so we can maintain our empire. Mean while, we piss in our own citizenry's face and allow our children's educations to go down the shitter. It gets old watching this shit going on and knowing that there's nothing you can do about it.
-
Scheavo, are we like soulmates or something? Because we agree on everything. :lol
-
But that doesn't explain why existing in a community entitles some people to the income of others.
Because without living in that community, or using that community in some way, there would be no income to be taxed. You can't sell nobody anything to make a profit, you can't sell nobody a service.
But making a profit requires a voluntary exchange. Nobody is being used. One party sells a product or service to another party in exchange for money, because both see that they will benefit from the transaction.
So? I really don't see why the fact that no one forced someone to actually buy a product means that the person who profited doesn't do so becuase of society at large. Remember, I'm not saying they aren't entitled to a large portion of what they do make; I'm saying what they do make is only possible becuase society exists, becuase individuals come together and work together. My daily life is constantly effected by the decisions other people make; large unemployment in a society effects everyone, because in order for me to be able to buy the things I want, I need a large group than just myself demanding it. In order for me to sell anything and stay afloat requires me to have customers with jobs, who are educated, who have access to roads and transportation, etc,etc, etc. Even you implicitly use this logic to support your argument. At the most minimum and basic level, you have to be thankful to society for giving you the language to make it possible for you to communicate with other members of society so that you can even sell anything at all. Society is what makes it possible for two people to come together and perform an economic activity.
More than that, I challenge your assumption that it is always a voluntary exchange. No one person may be forcing someone to buy a product, but reality certainly does. I don't control the fact that I get hungry and thirsty, I don't control the fact that without shelter I'm more likely to die. It's pretty hard for me not to support Monsanto, I don't voluntarily support them... according to your argument, then, they are not entitled to all of that wealth becuase it's not voluntary.
Do you honestly think some people deserve hundreds of millions of dollars for investing well in the stock market?
Provided they didn't behave unethically, yes, every penny.
What kind of work was accomplished?
The necessary capital was provided so the work could be carried out. Quite an accomplishment I'd say.
The fallacy is to think that the necessary capital is purely monetary, a number of a ledgerbook, or that the necessary capital has to be found in that one investor. Imagine a rich person who can't hire anybody; their capital would mean absolutely nothing. Capital and money have the power to direct human labor, and it's the human labor that actually do all the work involved. I mean seriously, the work can't be carried about by nobody.
To entertain an analogy; it's like a driver and a car. Without the driver, the car goes nowhere, and the work of going from point A to point B would not be possible (no one to start the engine, no one to direct it, etc). What you would be doing is taking this fact to then say that the car doesn't matter, that somehow the engine doesn't matter. Obviously, you need the car and the driver - and for any enterprise to be undertaken, you need someone with the idea as well as the workers who actually make that idea happen.
All the work would be done by other people, by the members of the companies they invested in, by the workers hired, etc. Yes, it's a valuable service that we need, but it is not so valuable to deserve hundreds and thousands of times as much money as the common worker.
Yes, it is worth much more than the common worker. If investors risk their own money to fund an enterprise, they should get the biggest return, having made the whole thing possible. Can you provide a logical explanation for why Joe factory worker deserves as much as the individual who forwent consumption to save money and wisely invest it? Of course this doesn't mean that the guy who drives a forklift around the factory is a loser, but the services he provides are not worth as much in economic terms as the guy who fronted $50 million to build the factory.
The people and the workers make the whole thing possible as well. Employees someimtes risk their own well-being, and their own happiness, to make an enterprise actually happen. Why isn't that worthy of a return? Seems to me someone who sacrificed 8 hours a day to a job he doesn't want to do, for food and shelter to feed his loved ones, is sacrificing a hell of a lot more than the rich person sitting in an office coming up with an idea of how to spend his extra income. Investors invest because they have the opportunity to do so, becuase they've accumulated enough wealth to do so; it is not something special to themselves as a person, only indicative of the place they hold in society.
Without the workers and the employee's, an investors idea is nothing more than an idea. We need idea's, but we also need people to produce those idea's into actuality.
One reason you say that the forklift driver's work is not as economically important is because he's replaceable, yes? Two things: the capital wouldn't be destroyed if we taxed the person, it would simply change hands; more importantly though, the fact that he's replaceable is becuase of society, becuase there are plenty of other people who could do that work. You can only make the claim that the forklift operator isn't vitally important becuase of society; imagine a replacement isn't so easily attainable, becuase society isn't as well-functioning as our own.
Do you think the corrupt bankers who have exploited the US government, bet against the stock market, etc, deserve their money?
You've admitted in this thread that most rich people don't fit this description, so why dwell on it? But, no, I don't. If they're corrupt, like break-the-law corrupt, they deserve a lengthy jail sentence.
Most people don't fit the description of a murderer, does that mean I should ignore their existence? Also, a lot of the people who are getting rich today, the same people I want to tax, are people who have profited from such corrupt action. Warren Buffet invested in Goldman Sachs, didn't he? And we all know what Goldman Sachs is. If you ask me, the unevenness to our wealth distribution if a sign of just how corrupt things are. There are systemic problems with our system and how we compensate people for their work.
I'm also using this to show that just becuase someone earns money does not mean that the money is fairly earned. Isn't that important in why we shouldn't tax people?
And are you still disagreeing that being a member of society is a privilege, or just how I use that to defend my position?
The former. It's a sucky premise, so however you attempt to defend it will suck equally.
It's not a premise, it's a verifiable fact. If you don't think being a member of society is a privilege, go murder someone, then get back to me when you're on death row.
-
Scheavo, are we like soulmates or something? Because we agree on everything. :lol
Unless you're being very misleading with your name and you have a vagina, I'm gonna go ahead and say no.
-
You mean the first part of that, I assume? :P
-
You mean the first part of that, I assume? :P
You mean the question?
-
Ayep, and I can see why that bit was probably a little weird. :lol
-
Sorry to let you down, I have a rather all encompassing prejudice against men :P
-
Damn, worth a try.
(You know I'm jk, right?)
-
Yar.
-
https://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/08/29/warren-buffetts-company-hasnt-paid-taxes-years-media-mum
:rollin
Buffett is such a douche.
-
1. That doesn't negate what he said
2. "liberal media"
-
Do you honestly think some people deserve hundreds of millions of dollars for investing well in the stock market?
Provided they didn't behave unethically, yes, every penny.
But do you think the tax rate on money made in the stock market should be as low as it is?
-
Do you honestly think some people deserve hundreds of millions of dollars for investing well in the stock market?
Provided they didn't behave unethically, yes, every penny.
But do you think the tax rate on money made in the stock market should be as low as it is?
It should be 0%. It's not just the mega rich that make money through investments. There are many people that take annuities from their IRAs, especially after the death of a spouse. For example, my uncle worked at a company for almost 30 years and then passed away in his late 40s. He had saved and invested wisely in his 401k where it was at about $400k+.. it went to his wife and she was under 59 1/2, so she could roll it over into an IRA and get a monthly check until she turns 59 1/2. She's taxed on that income the same percentage as the rich are on their dividends.
I don't believe in a progressive tax structure. Either FairTax (consumption that replaces the entire federal tax structure) or a flat tax.
Btw, the capital gains tax rate expires in a year or two... that will explain the craziness in the stock markets.
Gov't ruins everything.
-
You're right, government does ruin everything! We should do away with all governed society, go back to pre-state tribalism and whatnot, it'd be a blast.
-
Not all, just the useless agencies like the Department of Education. Our kids were doing better when it was left to the states.
The Department of Energy's mission of making us less dependent on foreign fuel has also failed... there's too much redundancy in gov't... agencies never go away, just more layers of bureaucracy.. hell even look at the ATF scandal going on... the head wasn't fired.. he was moved to another gov't dept!
-
Advocating the 'Fair' Tax only makes sense if you hate poor people.
-
Advocating the 'Fair' Tax only makes sense if you hate poor people.
How so? They get a monthly pre-bate, so that they never pay taxes on basic necessities, only luxuries. It would immediately force people to become more responsible. You are only taxed on what you consume.
-
It should be 0%. It's not just the mega rich that make money through investments. There are many people that take annuities from their IRAs, especially after the death of a spouse. For example, my uncle worked at a company for almost 30 years and then passed away in his late 40s. He had saved and invested wisely in his 401k where it was at about $400k+.. it went to his wife and she was under 59 1/2, so she could roll it over into an IRA and get a monthly check until she turns 59 1/2. She's taxed on that income the same percentage as the rich are on their dividends.
Not correct.
Withdrawls from qualified retirement accounts are taxed as income, therefore they are not taxed a specific rate, but the amount withdrawn is added to income and that income is taxed according to their efective tax rate.
Interest from all annuities are taxed as income, as are all withdrawls from tax qualified accounts (all retirement accounts like 401k, Trad IRA, 403b, 475b, etc). Annuities can be in an IRA, and are therefore all taxable as income.
My point is that dividends are taxed differently than IRA's and annuities...and should be. Dividend tax rates come into play on earnings from non-retirement investmnts...as the principal has already been taxed. Retirement accounts (IRAs, annutiies, etc) should be taxed as income as they are funded with income that is tax deferred.
Als, Im not sure how yo can say it shouldnt be taxed....the 401k was funded with salary deferrals....wages that were not taxed... he/she eventually has to pay the taxes on that money...the retirement account gives the tax break so it can grow more;./
-
https://www.thestreet.com/story/11234829/1/report-ceos-rewarded-for-avoiding-taxes.html
For those that might be interested...
-
Advocating the 'Fair' Tax only makes sense if you hate poor people.
How so? They get a monthly pre-bate, so that they never pay taxes on basic necessities, only luxuries. It would immediately force people to become more responsible. You are only taxed on what you consume.
No matter how it was arranged, there would be people with low incomes buying more essentials and basic things that a 'pre-bate' wouldn't cover. Not to mention, how long until some of the rich start complaining about that pre-bate as a handout?
Also, on a sidenote, tourist spending would see a sharp decline.
-
Also, on a sidenote, tourist spending would see a sharp decline.
I assume you must mean spending from foreign tourists because with domestic ones at least you could possibly see more spending because now they have less of a burden from the income tax. And with that in mind, that could offset any decrease in foreign tourists that are spending more money due to the sales tax increase.
And in the end, the majority of people coming as foreign tourists are fairly well off and so I think the money brought in from them wouldn't really decrease all that much.
-
I didn't see this previously and would like to chime in. I posted this in the "Filthy Rich" thread.
https://www.dreamtheaterforums.org/boards/index.php?topic=27321.0
"These are the same people who usually cry to "Tax the rich!" I've had people who have said to my face, "You have so much money because you don't pay any taxes." What....the fuck? First off, for the most part the government doesnt tax the rich, it taxes high earners. Warren Buffet (who recently advocated for higher taxes for "wealthy Americans") is already rich, so higher taxes will do nothing to take his money away. To accumulate a million dollars requires earning about two million dollars, but once accumulated, the million dollars can sit around for free. Higher taxes do not make it harder to be rich; they make it harder to become rich. Also, high taxes do not impact the lifestyle of extremely high earners. Those successful families earning, say $250K (President Obama’s definition of rich) still have to worry about procuring luxuries like private schools, a home in a good neighborhood, and saving for retirement. On the other hand, someone earning tens of millions per year is well beyond such concerns, regardless of taxes. Higher taxes may hurt the balance sheet of extremely high earners, but not enough to hurt the old pocket book too much; in other words, the pain of higher taxes recedes as wealth increases.
Now I'm no billionaire, but I'd be willing to bet that billionaires work becasue they are highly driven and competitive people, and this drives them to dominate. Since absolute wealth is not important beyond some high net worth, high taxes give billionaires a competitive advantage. Especially since most millionaires in the U.S. are "self made". Ayn Rand realized, socialism is really about keeping things the same. Somehow socialism never achieves the equality in conditions to which it aspires, but it does cement the powerful class’s status by reducing the innovation and change that constantly seek to elevate newcomers. From that point of view, high taxes on "the rich" are a means of maintaining the elite’s dominance in the face of competition."
-
Warren Buffett should feel free to donate all the money he wants to the government, but his plan to have the government forcibly extract more wealth from the so-called wealthy amounts to advocating robbery from a sector that is a major contributor to economic growth. In general, he is getting worse and worse, and he is living proof that investor billionaires wouldn't make good political leaders.
Seriously? The mega-rich pay ~20%, the miuddle-class and poor pay ~40%. The idea that closing some of the loopholes is "robbery" is laughable.
Actually your figures are off by a little bit.
Of those in America that actually pay income tax (excluding illegal immigrants who pay none) I offer you the following facts and figures from 2008.
The top 1% of taxpayers are defined as those whose AGI (Adjusted Gross Income) is greater than $380,354.00 paid 38.02% of the Tax Revenue
Look at the top 5% with an AGI greater than $159,619.00 and that percentage climbs to 58.72%
Look at the top 10% with an AGI greater than $113,799 and the percentage jumps to 69.94%
Look at the top 25% with an AGI greater than $67,280.00 and you see the percentage climb to 86.34%
Look at thet top 50% with an AGI greater than $33,048.00 and you see that 97.3% of all tazes paid are paid by the top 50% of wage earners.
The "poor" lets call them those who make less than $33,048 AGI per year paid a whopping total of 2.7% of the US Tax burden.
Yeah the poor are really over taxed arent they?
I understand that "poor" is a relative term based upon personal perspectives but to break those figures out into percentages paid by dollar amount, with a little math you can determine that the following holds true:
AGI = $380,354+ paid 38.02% of the Taxes
AGI = $159,619 to $380,353 paid 20.7% of the Taxes
AGI = $113,799 to $159,618 paid 11.22% of the Taxes
AGI = $67,280 to $113,798 paid 16.4% of the Taxes (This is where I think most people fall and the PERCEPTION is they pay more than anyone else)
AGI = $33,048 to $67,279 paid 10.96% of the Taxes
AGI = <$33,048 paid a WHOPPING 2.7% of the Taxes.
source of data: https://ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html (https://ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html)
-
Ayn Rand realized, socialism is really about keeping things the same. Somehow socialism never achieves the equality in conditions to which it aspires, but it does cement the powerful class’s status by reducing the innovation and change that constantly seek to elevate newcomers. From that point of view, high taxes on "the rich" are a means of maintaining the elite’s dominance in the face of competition."
First all, I just want to state that you make some good points about taxing income versus taxing wealth. But to say that "socialism is about keeping things the same," is just plain fucking ridiculous, and shows a clear lack of any understanding of what socialism is or is about. And "socialism" is, thanks to Ayn Rand, such a broad, blanket term to designate, well, anything done by society. I think the fact that Ayn Rand was a recluse with few friends should tell us a little bit about the philosophy she spewed, and how inappropriate it is in the large sense. If everyone lived like Ayn Rand, there wouldn't be a society.
Orion: how do you think people are going to pay a large amount of tax revenues when they don't have a large about of taxable revenue? Look at the gap between teh rich and the poor, look at the actual demographics, and then the reasons for the disparity in the tax revenues by income become obvious.
-
You know what really amazes me is how no matter how many times it's said, proponents of heaping more taxes on the poor somehow forget that the problem with that is the poor have less money to pay with in the first place.
-
Tell me about it, it annoys me enough that regardless of how many times people say it, I'm going to remind them of why it is. It's the most ill-used statistic I can think of.
Because if you actually look at the data on context, poor people are paying a higher share of their income than richer people. That's simply the facts. To use Orions numbers, Those making 33k a year pay 2.7% of the taxes - but they don't make anywhere near 2.7% of the total income. 380k+ pay 38% of the taxes, which is lower than the percentage of total income they make.
-
Numbers, is there anything they can't do...
-
Numbers, is there anything they can't do...
Give proper context?
-
Why does anyone care about what Buffet thinks. It's one opinion. Just because he is a brilliant investor and shrewd businessman doesn't mean he knows jack about monetary or fiscal policy. It's like Apple telling Intel/AMD how to build a better CPU. He says tax the mega rich, yet he donates the lions share of his wealth to charity. If he really means what he says, he should hand it all over to the US treasury and allow them to appropriate his fortune.
-
Warren Buffet could give everything he owns and not have a significant impact on our debt. Whereas taxing the mega-rich a few extra percentage points would raise billions and have an actual impact on reducing our debt. I don't see how it's hypocritical in the least, as he's not asking anyone, anyone, to hand over everything they own.
-
Ayn Rand realized, socialism is really about keeping things the same. Somehow socialism never achieves the equality in conditions to which it aspires, but it does cement the powerful class’s status by reducing the innovation and change that constantly seek to elevate newcomers. From that point of view, high taxes on "the rich" are a means of maintaining the elite’s dominance in the face of competition."
First all, I just want to state that you make some good points about taxing income versus taxing wealth. But to say that "socialism is about keeping things the same," is just plain fucking ridiculous, and shows a clear lack of any understanding of what socialism is or is about. And "socialism" is, thanks to Ayn Rand, such a broad, blanket term to designate, well, anything done by society. I think the fact that Ayn Rand was a recluse with few friends should tell us a little bit about the philosophy she spewed, and how inappropriate it is in the large sense. If everyone lived like Ayn Rand, there wouldn't be a society.
Really, Scheavo. Four years and you still, somehow, think Socialism is just a political/economical system with just a "bad rep". Knock it off.
And your dismissive conclusion as to why Ayn Rand "was wrong" is not only pathetical, but fallacious.
-
Emin, I...wow. :facepalm: No one is advocating socialism, at least to my knowledge; all he was saying is that people nowadays like to call anything they fear or don't like socialism, like how people used terrorism in the last decade.
-
Want me to rectify? Gladly. Saying that somehow one of the consequences of Socialism is not what TV said is ignorant on what this political/economical system does.
-
Ayn Rand realized, socialism is really about keeping things the same. Somehow socialism never achieves the equality in conditions to which it aspires, but it does cement the powerful class’s status by reducing the innovation and change that constantly seek to elevate newcomers. From that point of view, high taxes on "the rich" are a means of maintaining the elite’s dominance in the face of competition."
First all, I just want to state that you make some good points about taxing income versus taxing wealth. But to say that "socialism is about keeping things the same," is just plain fucking ridiculous, and shows a clear lack of any understanding of what socialism is or is about. And "socialism" is, thanks to Ayn Rand, such a broad, blanket term to designate, well, anything done by society. I think the fact that Ayn Rand was a recluse with few friends should tell us a little bit about the philosophy she spewed, and how inappropriate it is in the large sense. If everyone lived like Ayn Rand, there wouldn't be a society.
Really, Scheavo. Four years and you still, somehow, think Socialism is just a political/economical system with just a "bad rep". Knock it off.
Want me to rectify? Gladly. Saying that somehow one of the consequences of Socialism is not what TV said is ignorant on what this political/economical system does.
Really, for someone who seems so affluent, you should really be aware of Sweden and Finland. Hello "socialism," hello great standards of living, a happy populace, almost no violence (which is why the recent shooting was able to be so horrible - the police had to arm themselves. Funny how "capitalism" and "freedom" in America is leading towards more and more authoritarianism, and "socialism" and "tyranny" in Scandinavia is leading towards more and more personal freedom and happiness); oh, and they have a great fucking economy to boot.
You want to know a good fallacy? The false dichotomy. As in, the false dichotomy that it's either capitalism or socialism, or that capitalism is about "freedom" and socialism is about "control." When people like Ayn Rand draw the word in such black and white terms, they reduce the world to something childish and wrong. Humans are not the individuals Ayn Rand requires us to be, she is wrong on the most fundamental and basic level.
And your dismissive conclusion as to why Ayn Rand "was wrong" is not only pathetical, but fallacious.
That's not why I think Ayn Rand is wrong. All philosophy is autobiographical, and it's not fallacious to point out how such a philosophy performed in the real world. I'll object in the same way to any die-hard skeptic, who think the world doesn't exist, or that only they exist.
-
Really, for someone who seems so affluent, you should really be aware of Sweden and Finland. Hello "socialism," hello great standards of living, a happy populace, almost no violence (which is why the recent shooting was able to be so horrible - the police had to arm themselves. Funny how "capitalism" and "freedom" in America is leading towards more and more authoritarianism, and "socialism" and "tyranny" in Scandinavia is leading towards more and more personal freedom and happiness); oh, and they have a great fucking economy to boot.
You want to know a good fallacy? The false dichotomy. As in, the false dichotomy that it's either capitalism or socialism, or that capitalism is about "freedom" and socialism is about "control." When people like Ayn Rand draw the word in such black and white terms, they reduce the world to something childish and wrong. Humans are not the individuals Ayn Rand requires us to be, she is wrong on the most fundamental and basic level.
A couple of things I'd like to address without taking this too far off-topic since it is somewhat related.
One, all countries you listed above are "Capitalist" nations. In fact, there isn't a single one that isn't. True Capitalism is the natural state of economics independent of any political system. Political systems are different methods of controlling capital. The U.S. is a Mercantilist economic system, sometimes called corporatist. The U.S. is certainly not the bastion of "Freedom" many of it's people would like to think it is. Finland and Sweden are a blend of mercantilism with a lot of socialist domestic policies.
Also, just because Finland and Sweden seem to be doing better than the U.S. on certain econometrics, doesn't mean that their brand of political capital control is necessarily "better". They most certainly do have a significant authoritarian control on the economy, which may lead to relatively better gains than what the U.S. has seen, but the entire comparison amounts to squat since it ignores opportunity costs and other sacrifices not seen in the Swedish and Finnish economies.
-
Really, for someone who seems so affluent, you should really be aware of Sweden and Finland. Hello "socialism," hello great standards of living, a happy populace, almost no violence (which is why the recent shooting was able to be so horrible - the police had to arm themselves. Funny how "capitalism" and "freedom" in America is leading towards more and more authoritarianism, and "socialism" and "tyranny" in Scandinavia is leading towards more and more personal freedom and happiness); oh, and they have a great fucking economy to boot.
You want to know a good fallacy? The false dichotomy. As in, the false dichotomy that it's either capitalism or socialism, or that capitalism is about "freedom" and socialism is about "control." When people like Ayn Rand draw the word in such black and white terms, they reduce the world to something childish and wrong. Humans are not the individuals Ayn Rand requires us to be, she is wrong on the most fundamental and basic level.
A couple of things I'd like to address without taking this too far off-topic since it is somewhat related.
One, all countries you listed above are "Capitalist" nations. In fact, there isn't a single one that isn't. True Capitalism is the natural state of economics independent of any political system. Political systems are different methods of controlling capital. The U.S. is a Mercantilist economic system, sometimes called corporatist. The U.S. is certainly not the bastion of "Freedom" many of it's people would like to think it is. Finland and Sweden are a blend of mercantilism with a lot of socialist domestic policies.
Also, just because Finland and Sweden seem to be doing better than the U.S. on certain econometrics, doesn't mean that their brand of political capital control is necessarily "better". They most certainly do have a significant authoritarian control on the economy, which may lead to relatively better gains than what the U.S. has seen, but the entire comparison amounts to squat since it ignores opportunity costs and other sacrifices not seen in the Swedish and Finnish economies.
The countries listed above are social democracies. Your argument is invalid.
-
......econometrics........
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH my head.
But yes, I don't think you quite understand the dichotomy fully, while having capatilist tendencies (ie free enterprise); pretty much every scandanavian nation is a socialist democracy. Contrast this to the US, which would be considered a capitalist democracy. It gets confusing (and, IMO, is a bit redundant now that dem Russians have been defeated).
BTW, econometrics isn't an economic metric; its a scary, evil sub-discipline within economics that turns good economists into monsters...
-
Really, for someone who seems so affluent, you should really be aware of Sweden and Finland. Hello "socialism," hello great standards of living, a happy populace, almost no violence (which is why the recent shooting was able to be so horrible - the police had to arm themselves. Funny how "capitalism" and "freedom" in America is leading towards more and more authoritarianism, and "socialism" and "tyranny" in Scandinavia is leading towards more and more personal freedom and happiness); oh, and they have a great fucking economy to boot.
You want to know a good fallacy? The false dichotomy. As in, the false dichotomy that it's either capitalism or socialism, or that capitalism is about "freedom" and socialism is about "control." When people like Ayn Rand draw the word in such black and white terms, they reduce the world to something childish and wrong. Humans are not the individuals Ayn Rand requires us to be, she is wrong on the most fundamental and basic level.
A couple of things I'd like to address without taking this too far off-topic since it is somewhat related.
One, all countries you listed above are "Capitalist" nations. In fact, there isn't a single one that isn't. True Capitalism is the natural state of economics independent of any political system. Political systems are different methods of controlling capital. The U.S. is a Mercantilist economic system, sometimes called corporatist. The U.S. is certainly not the bastion of "Freedom" many of it's people would like to think it is. Finland and Sweden are a blend of mercantilism with a lot of socialist domestic policies.
All you're doing is more or less proving my point, that capitalism is not incompatible with the social programs we see in Europe. Also, as SD points out, they are certaintly classifiable as socialist.
As a side note, do you know that one working definition of socialism is employee-owned businesses? As in, all of them.
Also, just because Finland and Sweden seem to be doing better than the U.S. on certain econometrics, doesn't mean that their brand of political capital control is necessarily "better". They most certainly do have a significant authoritarian control on the economy, which may lead to relatively better gains than what the U.S. has seen, but the entire comparison amounts to squat since it ignores opportunity costs and other sacrifices not seen in the Swedish and Finnish economies.
Oh, I think the issue is far more complex than simply what system you want to have, or which you espouse. Democracy is great, but it doesn't work everywhere. My use of those examples is to show that "socialism" does not lead to stagnation and freezing of social mobility, as was the claim.
Also, one simple fact: they're happy. Happiness is a pretty good sign that people are not* being oppressed, that people are able to do what they want to do. Say everything else you want, obviously the Fins and Swedes are doing something a hell of a lot better than we are - and what they're doing would be labeled socialism in America, and then ignored.
*edit* well that was certainly a doozy of a word to forget
-
BTW, econometrics isn't an economic metric; its a scary, evil sub-discipline within economics that turns good economists into monsters...
:lol What is econometrics exactly?
-
BTW, econometrics isn't an economic metric; its a scary, evil sub-discipline within economics that turns good economists into monsters...
:lol What is econometrics exactly?
Its just bad. I try not to think about it. It keeps me up at night.
Basically, its the synthesis of economic theory with hardcore statistical analysis and modelling; so you have to be a math nerd and a social studies nerd to do it well. Seeing as these two things have only occurred in a single human being maybe a dozen times in history, its a very raw and immature form of economic analysis at the moment; but its treated like gospel. Efficient Market Hypothesis? Econometrician. Other bad economic ideas? Econometricians. They are evil, I hate them.
Oh, but you get paid a shittonne if you can do it.
-
Econometrics is just one of the sad legacies that economists in the 30s left us: you can run the economy on some specific statistical and mathematical models.
And YES!!!! I got Scheavo an elaborate answer (though obviously wrong) that didn't just stay on "Ayn Rand died alone, her Philosophy is invalid."
-
The only objection I raised was that we are not individuals, which is simply a true statement. Just to be clear, I'm not saying there are not aspects of "individualism," which we have - most importantly, we do all have our own perspective, but this does not alone make us an individual. To say that humans are "individuals" completely ignores the massive role society and other people play in our own consciousness. The very words I am using right now testify to this simple fact, as is the way the language shapes my conception of myself and the world around me. I am a member, a member of society, a member of a group, not an "individual."
https://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/david_brooks_the_social_animal.html
-
@Riceball, That's actually a really good tongue-in-cheek definition of econometrics.
@Sheavo, All you're doing is more or less proving my point, that capitalism is not incompatible with the social programs we see in Europe. Also, as SD points out, they are certaintly classifiable as socialist.
I think my main point was largely missed. You could have someone from either side of the argument show data that shows one side is comparatively better than the other for a particular issue, but that is not the point. However, these are only relative differences and miss the big picture. It was best stated in Frederic Bastiat's seminal work "That which is seen, and that which is not seen". https://bastiat.org/en/twisatwins.html (https://bastiat.org/en/twisatwins.html)
Most everyone agrees that governments should cut down on waste, or special interests and corruption, but what about social program's the a lot of people deem "good" or "necessary". Generally if you speak ill of a social program that helps the poor, or children etc. you are lambasted as heartless crank or something else undesirable, but this is missing the mark. The problem is that decisions from the top are unilateral and monocentric and results in mis-allocations of capital and increased opportunity costs.
Just as an example. A politician or bureuacrat pushes public project X to help the handicapped or needy. The recipients of this money are helped and better off and a lot of people end up praising the results and pat themselves on the backs for all the good they've done. Lets say it cost tax payer's an average $1000 to achieve. This is what was seen. Now, lets analyze what was not seen. In order to achieve this result, numerous other things had to be sacrificed, namely all the things that would have been purchased by people with their $1000 had it not been taxed away. Numerous business ventures will be compromised, some products and services that would have been viable are now defunct. Jobs may be lost or never created. Of course, some of it may be squandered and lost as well. Everyone has an individual preference scale and different values so it is impossible to say which of these things is more important than the other, but what can be known for certain is that everyone had to give up something that they would have desired in exchange for something that they desire less and may ore may not have wanted. This means that society on the whole is less satisfied or well off regardless of what public project the money was spent on.
Yes, Sweden and Finland may be doing swimmingly in your opinion, but no one will know how much better things could have been had politicians not unilateraly decided what should be done for everyone else.
-
Yes, Sweden and Finland may be doing swimmingly in your opinion, but no one will know how much better things could have been had politicians not unilateraly decided what should be done for everyone else.
And again, as I already mentioned, explain to me why people in Finland and Sweden are happier than in America? As a society, they are more satisfied and better off than us here in America. That's not cherry picking any data, it's not distorting any data, it's pointing to the simple fact that Finland and Sweden have happier populations in every measurable survey, enjoy greater access to education and health care by every measurable means, and are a perfect counter example to everything you just said.
Socialism is not equatable to authoritarianism. Can socialist theories be authoritarian? Yes, but they can also be libertarian! Most of what your argument has done is combated the idea of authoritarianism, which is a red herring when we're discussing socialism. You ignored that I brought up a definition of socialism which means democratization of the private sector. How, exactly, is that a unilateral, mono centric decision? Providing UHC does not mean there has to be a monocentric, unilateral decision, only that there is a central funding for health care, or that there are regulations and changes made to the health care market.
Also, I'd say your example misses a lot of points, and is somewhat unrealistic. For example, regarding health care: here is something we can all agree we desire, yes? Everyone wants quality health care, so the issue isn't "do people want it," it's how to achieve the best possible end-solution to the problem. The market does provide health care, but the market, as is the case with the market, is after profits, and health care is not always profitable! Now, the collective buying and bargaining power of the entire American people is a powerful force, and it's a very powerful tool to control costs. You know that Medicare costs are rising at a lower rate than the rest of the market? Do you know that us Americans spend way more money as a percentage of our GDP than any other country, and we see less bang for the buck (of course, this issue get's complicated)? Realistically, the question is more: how much do you want to pay for health care? Personally, I'd rather have more money in my pocket, which I can then spend on other things I want, which then goes on to have the positive effects you describe of free-market functions. Universal Health Care, in any possible form, is demonstrably feasible, efficient and better than what we have now.
-
democratization of the private sector
...administered by a legislature that can't possibly represent the entire country, who empowers enormous bureaucracies to provide all the benefits you mentioned.
Can socialist theories be authoritarian? Yes, but they can also be libertarian!
No. They. Can't. The basis for a libertarian society is private property and voluntary exchange of it. What do you forcefully take from individuals and businesses to make your utopia a reality? Their property.
-
democratization of the private sector
...administered by a legislature that can't possibly represent the entire country, who empowers enormous bureaucracies to provide all the benefits you mentioned.
When you say "administered," do you mean "enforced"? Because those are not the same, not even close. A legislature wouldn't tell those companies what they do, what they invest in, what they pay their workers, etc. It would just require employee-participation in a business, nothing more. The same thing could be achieved without government, as really it would become a social contract of sorts, between people, agreeing that business are employee-owned. That the government enforces this is almost irrelevant, because it would come down the the people and popular sovereignty in any case. Can people not freely give up some liberties to achieve other, greater, liberties?
Can socialist theories be authoritarian? Yes, but they can also be libertarian!
No. They. Can't. The basis for a libertarian society is private property and voluntary exchange of it. What do you forcefully take from individuals and businesses to make your utopia a reality? Their property.
Yes. They. Can. Libertarian also more generally means a decentralized power structure, and the idea of individual liberty. Liberal theory, and I'm talking Locke, Rousseau, Kant, Madison, and democratic theory here, is very much anti-authoritarian. Like any theory, there's idealistic versions of that theory, and there's realistic versions of that theory. Realistically, government and collective / centered action can lead to greater liberty than individual action. Our Founders we're very liberal, but their position was not no taxes.
Again, you're drawing a false dichotomy, a black and white world, where a society is either completely centralized or completely decentralized. Taxing people a portion of their income to effect positive change those people directly benefit from, and are better off for having, is NOT some violent intrusion upon someone's person hood.
-
Socialism is not equatable to authoritarianism. Can socialist theories be authoritarian? Yes, but they can also be libertarian! Most of what your argument has done is combated the idea of authoritarianism, which is a red herring when we're discussing socialism.
My main point wasn't about combating socialism in and of itself, but you are right, it does not have to be strictly authoritarian. Voluntary socialist communities are perfectly acceptable to libertarian theory. The smallest social unit of society, the family, is very much a socialist institution.
However, I think you are missing the main point I was trying to convey and it is illustrated in your other comments.
You ignored that I brought up a definition of socialism which means democratization of the private sector. How, exactly, is that a unilateral, mono centric decision? Providing UHC does not mean there has to be a monocentric, unilateral decision, only that there is a central funding for health care, or that there are regulations and changes made to the health care market.
Central funding is monocentric and regulations are by definition unilateral decisions.
Taxing people a portion of their income to effect positive change those people directly benefit from, and are better off for having, is NOT some violent intrusion upon someone's person hood.
This is a baseless assertion on many levels. Just because someone may be on the receiving end of a social "benefit" from their taxation does not mean that they are better off. Everyone has individual preferences which cannot be directly compared. You cannot say that some one is better off with whatever "benefit" was provided to them when you don't what they would have purchased themselves with the money that was taxed. They may be much happier or better off making their own decision. Valuation and utility are subjective to every individual, so it is impossible to say that they are better off.
I'd go into taxes "not being a violent intrusion", but that is probably more than we need to get into at this time ;)
-
You ignored that I brought up a definition of socialism which means democratization of the private sector. How, exactly, is that a unilateral, mono centric decision? Providing UHC does not mean there has to be a monocentric, unilateral decision, only that there is a central funding for health care, or that there are regulations and changes made to the health care market.
Central funding is monocentric and regulations are by definition unilateral decisions.
How is it unilateral when it's a group of people making the decision? Forgetting our government (because nothing I say will be true of our government), democracy is rule by the people, which is essentially opposed to authoritarian and mono centrism. What about the unilateral decision made by a company to use a toxic chemical, and keep that fact hidden? I'd say I have a right to clean drinking water, and clean air (luckily, the state I live in, this right is recognized), and other peoples liberties stop at my rights.
Also, so what if they are mono centric and unilateral... Their end means greater liberty and greater quality of life, which what we're all after anyways. If the end result is more liberty, and less authority in our lives, isn't that better? Anarchy does not lead to maximum liberty, some monocentrism, some authority, is necessary to have a free society. At the very least, there needs to be someone to protect our rights from our fellow man.
Taxing people a portion of their income to effect positive change those people directly benefit from, and are better off for having, is NOT some violent intrusion upon someone's person hood.
This is a baseless assertion on many levels. Just because someone may be on the receiving end of a social "benefit" from their taxation does not mean that they are better off. Everyone has individual preferences which cannot be directly compared.
I'd say this is true for a lot of cases, but I don't support collective action for everything, only the things where it makes sense to. Like education, health care, and infrastructure. We can measure these things, we can measure how satisfied people are. "Social" health care is better, in every measurable way, people prefer it, it's cheaper, and more effective. This isn't my opinion, this is verifiable fact, backed up by data and surveys. The same is true for public education, even with the horrible fucking system we have now, kids - on average - are better educated than they would be. And does it really need to be shown that public roads, highways, etc, are better than the alternative?
You're once again assuming those would be gone with public funding, or "socialist" programs. Take a look at Germany (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_in_Germany), their health care system has tons of choices and options to fit your own desire. But this also ignores the fact that a healthy person is a health person - it is not a matter of subjectivity. If I break my leg, I'm satisfied when it's properly set, and in a cast. There is no "preference" here. It's like saying people prefer clean water, clean air, food, or shelter.
-
Also, so what if they are mono centric and unilateral... Their end means greater liberty and greater quality of life, which what we're all after anyways. If the end result is more liberty, and less authority in our lives, isn't that better?
Ok, I can see this discussion is going no where. First you say that it doesn't exist. I point out to you that it is mono-centric and unilateral, and you return with a so what. I'm not going to continue to waste my time responding if legitimate points that clearly demonstrate a problem are just dismissed.
I'd say this is true for a lot of cases, but I don't support collective action for everything, only the things where it makes sense to. Like education, health care, and infrastructure.
Again, this only further demonstrates our disconnect. Who decides what makes sense? It is entirely subjective. What about food, clothing, transportation etc... the list can go on and on and on until everything is collectivized.
-
Ok, I can see this discussion is going no where. First you say that it doesn't exist. I point out to you that it is mono-centric and unilateral, and you return with a so what. I'm not going to continue to waste my time responding if legitimate points that clearly demonstrate a problem are just dismissed.
Welcome to scheavo land.
democratization of the private sector
...administered by a legislature that can't possibly represent the entire country, who empowers enormous bureaucracies to provide all the benefits you mentioned.
When you say "administered," do you mean "enforced"? Because those are not the same, not even close. A legislature wouldn't tell those companies what they do, what they invest in, what they pay their workers, etc. It would just require employee-participation in a business, nothing more.
You seem to think that you can allow small, isolated interventions without any significant consequence. But an economy doesn't work that way. Requiring "employee participation" would have a great impact on how a business functions.
The same thing could be achieved without government[/QUOTE]
Then why mandate the change? Why not just let it happen, quit trying to force the inevitable...unless you don't believe what you're saying.
Can people not freely give up some liberties to achieve other, greater, liberties?
Sure. But not other people's liberties. That's the problem with your scheme: it requires at some level that someone be forced to behave a certain way for the good of others.
Can socialist theories be authoritarian? Yes, but they can also be libertarian!
No. They. Can't. The basis for a libertarian society is private property and voluntary exchange of it. What do you forcefully take from individuals and businesses to make your utopia a reality? Their property.
Yes. They. Can. Libertarian also more generally means a decentralized power structure, and the idea of individual liberty. Liberal theory, and I'm talking Locke, Rousseau, Kant, Madison, and democratic theory here, is very much anti-authoritarian. Like any theory, there's idealistic versions of that theory, and there's realistic versions of that theory. Realistically, government and collective / centered action can lead to greater liberty than individual action. Our Founders we're very liberal, but their position was not no taxes.
I'm kind of at a loss. You conflate so many ideas to make your point that it astounds me. Libertarianism as a political philosophy (originally called classical liberalism) describes a very specific set of principles that contradict most of the things you want to see the government do, fund universal health care and regulate an entire economy.
And quit claiming that "our founders" thought this or that, like they were a coherent group of political allies. They represented fragmented groups with different ideas, the one you identify most closely with losing in the long run.
-
Can people not freely give up some liberties to achieve other, greater, liberties?
Sure. But not other people's liberties. That's the problem with your scheme: it requires at some level that someone be forced to behave a certain way for the good of others.
If everyone is giving up the same liberties, I don't see the problem. It doesn't work if one person doesn't buy into it. And it seems stupid to discredit greater liberties for all just for the problems of one individual.
-
If everyone is giving up the same liberties, I don't see the problem. It doesn't work if one person doesn't buy into it. And it seems stupid to discredit greater liberties for all just for the problems of one individual.
Words have meaning, and it seems Liberties and Entitlements keep getting conflated in this topic making it difficult to discuss. If everyone voluntarily gave up a "liberty" then, that is fine, but if someone doesn't buy into it, why are they forced to support others if they don't want to. Your statement would have made more sense if you said:
"it seems stupid to discredit greater liberties entitlements for all just for the problems of one individual."
This statement makes sense now. I would still argue against it, but at least we'd be on the same page.
Think of it this way. Do you support the wars over sea's? If you do, then you probably have no problem with your tax dollars supporting it, but if you don't support the war, what recourse do you have? You must still pay money to kill people in a foreign land despite your reservations. Someone could say "But you are benefited much greater liberty because the military is protecting you from foreign enemies". Yet, many who oppose the war say it is unjustified and fear it only antagonizes further aggression against us making us much less protected and vulnerable to future attacks. Does that make sense? What if instead, people could opt out of supporting the war by getting a tax credit proportional to the amount of taxes that would support the war effort.
-
Also, so what if they are mono centric and unilateral... Their end means greater liberty and greater quality of life, which what we're all after anyways. If the end result is more liberty, and less authority in our lives, isn't that better?
Ok, I can see this discussion is going no where. First you say that it doesn't exist. I point out to you that it is mono-centric and unilateral, and you return with a so what. I'm not going to continue to waste my time responding if legitimate points that clearly demonstrate a problem are just dismissed.
Well if you're going to ignore my arguments, ya, this is going to go nowhere. I didn't just say "so what," I gave a full drawn out argument as to why it's not mono-centric or unilateral. What you quoted is the pragmatic argument at the end, which you also seem to want to ignore.
I'd say this is true for a lot of cases, but I don't support collective action for everything, only the things where it makes sense to. Like education, health care, and infrastructure.
Again, this only further demonstrates our disconnect. Who decides what makes sense? It is entirely subjective. What about food, clothing, transportation etc... the list can go on and on and on until everything is collectivized.
Who decides? We all decide. Again, it's called democracy for a reason, a point you seem to have ignored. I can enumerate them, make them as clear as possible, and then hope for the best. What our Founders did. Additionally, you ignored my arguments as to where it makes sense, and why. My taste in clothing and food is waaay different then your taste, and doubly so our metabolism and what is healthy for us in this regards. Health care is the exact same. A broken leg is a broken leg is a broken leg. The same, mostly, in regards to education, public infrastructure, military defense, public water, and public air (I really cant' think of anything else).
-
democratization of the private sector
...administered by a legislature that can't possibly represent the entire country, who empowers enormous bureaucracies to provide all the benefits you mentioned.
When you say "administered," do you mean "enforced"? Because those are not the same, not even close. A legislature wouldn't tell those companies what they do, what they invest in, what they pay their workers, etc. It would just require employee-participation in a business, nothing more.
You seem to think that you can allow small, isolated interventions without any significant consequence. But an economy doesn't work that way. Requiring "employee participation" would have a great impact on how a business functions.
No, I think they have consequences - what you seem to think is that all consequences are bad, when in fact they are not. And yes, employee participation WOULD ahve a great impact on how a business functions, namely, a massive amount of money wouldn't be unfairly going to an exective. In a lot of cases, it would actually save the consumer money in the end, freeing up resources. There's a macroeconomic effect that is good for everyone, and rising tides raise all boats.
The same thing could be achieved without government
Then why mandate the change? Why not just let it happen, quit trying to force the inevitable...unless you don't believe what you're saying.
Yikes man, you just can't accept that I'm not a commy, huh? I never said we should mandate the change, ever. Just because I know enough about a different position than my own to explain it doesn't mean I support it. I mentioned how we don't need the government, didn't I?
Can people not freely give up some liberties to achieve other, greater, liberties?
Sure. But not other people's liberties. That's the problem with your scheme: it requires at some level that someone be forced to behave a certain way for the good of others.
Welcome to to society! You do realize that rights and liberties require someone else to behave in a certain way for the good of others, ya? My right to live means you don't have the liberty to kill me; that is not behavior you are allowed to have, and if you have it, you'll be imprisoned and possibility killed.
It's a social arrangement for a reason, and if there was land, and if people didn't die and have children, maybe this point would be valid - as it is, it's just unrealistic.
Can socialist theories be authoritarian? Yes, but they can also be libertarian!
No. They. Can't. The basis for a libertarian society is private property and voluntary exchange of it. What do you forcefully take from individuals and businesses to make your utopia a reality? Their property.
Yes. They. Can. Libertarian also more generally means a decentralized power structure, and the idea of individual liberty. Liberal theory, and I'm talking Locke, Rousseau, Kant, Madison, and democratic theory here, is very much anti-authoritarian. Like any theory, there's idealistic versions of that theory, and there's realistic versions of that theory. Realistically, government and collective / centered action can lead to greater liberty than individual action. Our Founders we're very liberal, but their position was not no taxes.
I'm kind of at a loss. You conflate so many ideas to make your point that it astounds me. Libertarianism as a political philosophy (originally called classical liberalism) describes a very specific set of principles that contradict most of the things you want to see the government do, fund universal health care and regulate an entire economy.
I'm quite aware of classical liberalism, did you notice how I pointed to three of the most famous classic liberals? The problem is libertarianism ignores major parts of classic liberal thought, just ignores them. There was also one fundamental aspect of classical liberalism: the social contract. These thinker's were liberal (which also means open to new idea's and change), so they were completely accepting of the fact that times would change, people would come to new conclusions, and that those people were free to do so.
I don't think I have ever said I want to regulate the entire economy, because I don't. If taxation is regulation, then the founders are just as guilty as I. Also, there is the commerce clause, so obviously regulation isn't evil to the founders (or can I not use the constitution as source of what the founders wanted?).
-
Who decides? We all decide. Again, it's called democracy for a reason, a point you seem to have ignored. I can enumerate them, make them as clear as possible, and then hope for the best. What our Founders did. Additionally, you ignored my arguments as to where it makes sense, and why. My taste in clothing and food is waaay different then your taste, and doubly so our metabolism and what is healthy for us in this regards. Health care is the exact same. A broken leg is a broken leg is a broken leg. The same, mostly, in regards to education, public infrastructure, military defense, public water, and public air (I really cant' think of anything else).
We all decide? Really? We don't all decide in a democracy, only a minimum of 51% decide, it is then rounded up to 100% and you must accept it unconditionally. This is what I mean by mono-centric. In a free market, a broad range of products and services are developed to satiate the numerous and varied desires of man. Everything from big-bucket generic services to specialized niche ones. This is a poly-centric solution, one that is graded and diverse to serve all. You get stuck on just the end solution "Health Care" provision, but completely ignore the huge complex structure of production built to provide it. Just saying "everyone now gets health care" to fix a broken leg is woefully deficient and naive. It destroys the dynamic feedback of prices and adjusting of resource allocation making economic calculation impossible.
Again, your choices of publicly provided goods that "make sense" are completely arbitrary.
-
Who decides? We all decide. Again, it's called democracy for a reason, a point you seem to have ignored. I can enumerate them, make them as clear as possible, and then hope for the best. What our Founders did. Additionally, you ignored my arguments as to where it makes sense, and why. My taste in clothing and food is waaay different then your taste, and doubly so our metabolism and what is healthy for us in this regards. Health care is the exact same. A broken leg is a broken leg is a broken leg. The same, mostly, in regards to education, public infrastructure, military defense, public water, and public air (I really cant' think of anything else).
We all decide? Really? We don't all decide in a democracy, only a minimum of 51% decide, it is then rounded up to 100% and you must accept it unconditionally. This is what I mean by mono-centric. In a free market, a broad range of products and services are developed to satiate the numerous and varied desires of man. Everything from big-bucket generic services to specialized niche ones. This is a poly-centric solution, one that is graded and diverse to serve all. You get stuck on just the end solution "Health Care" provision, but completely ignore the huge complex structure of production built to provide it. Just saying "everyone now gets health care" to fix a broken leg is woefully deficient and naive. It destroys the dynamic feedback of prices and adjusting of resource allocation making economic calculation impossible.
Fine, you all have your say, your input, your ability to disagree, and the ability to leave if you so choose. Besides, the problem is the alternative that you suggest is anarchy is everything but name, and anarchy leads to some douche bag taking over, either cornering the monopoly or becoming a monarch. So really, the alternative is live in a world where 51% decide, or live in a world where even a fewer percentage decide.
Besides, that's also ignoring that the percentage of your life where 51% of the people would decide the norm is extremely small, and out of necessity.
Again, your choices of publicly provided goods that "make sense" are completely arbitrary.
They're not arbitrary when I gave you the logic I"m using to make a distinction.
-
They're not arbitrary when I gave you the logic I"m using to make a distinction.
Ok then, lets pick an easy one to drive home the point.
Health care is the exact same. A broken leg is a broken leg is a broken leg. The same, mostly, in regards to education, public infrastructure, military defense, public water, and public air (I really cant' think of anything else).
Pretty much everyone prefers clean water. Clean potable water is something that all governments have taken upon themselves to provide and most people don't think twice about it. Virtually every person in the first world has water provided by the public works. The quality of the water is sufficient to sustain all basic human needs. Clean potable water is clean potable water is clean potable water, right? Yet, in spite of that fact, billions of dollars are spent every year on after market private water filtration systems, water softeners and pre-packaged filtered water. Please explain this conundrum.
Perhaps clean water doesn't mean the same thing to everyone? Everyone's subjective value of what acceptable clean potable water is different. Hence a graded market in water delivery despite its socialization.
-
No, it's because water treatment doesn't get everything the latest in public health research calls for, and maybe at that scale it can't. Hence further filtration at the home level.
-
Thanks for making my point. If it isn't possible on that scale, then it's clearly ludicrous to have the government be solely responsible for it. If something as simple as water filtration is this difficult to collectivize, just imagine how much worse it gets with health care. :omg:
-
No, it just means further standardization down the line. Like how instead of simply relying on a nuclear power plant or a solar power grid to supply all the power for a city, installing solar panels on homes and commercial buildings, and other such measures.
-
No, it just means further standardization down the line.
And if someone is perfectly fine with the current quality and price of water, why should they have to pay more to have it cleaned beyond what they want?
-
Health care is the exact same. A broken leg is a broken leg is a broken leg. The same, mostly, in regards to education, public infrastructure, military defense, public water, and public air (I really cant' think of anything else).
Pretty much everyone prefers clean water. Clean potable water is something that all governments have taken upon themselves to provide and most people don't think twice about it. Virtually every person in the first world has water provided by the public works. The quality of the water is sufficient to sustain all basic human needs. Clean potable water is clean potable water is clean potable water, right? Yet, in spite of that fact, billions of dollars are spent every year on after market private water filtration systems, water softeners and pre-packaged filtered water. Please explain this conundrum.
Perhaps clean water doesn't mean the same thing to everyone? Everyone's subjective value of what acceptable clean potable water is different. Hence a graded market in water delivery despite its socialization.
What conundrum?
Look up what has happened around the world when private companies have taken over water works. It's not good. (I cant remember the documentary, but it shouldn't be too hard to look up).
Also, ask yourself, why is the water polluted in the first place? Private Industry. Proper regulation, occurring at the right location and time, would prevent this, or at least mitigate it. Ya, there may still be problems, but they're less than what private industries and the free-market have proven time and time again to cause.
Also, no one ever said that the government has to regulate every aspect of water, but that it is safe for the general public. This doesn't mean absent of all minerals and impurities which someone may not like as a matter of preference and taste. Perhaps this should be my main point, but you ask why people should have to pay to have water cleaned more than they want... but you're objection was around people filter and cleaning it more.
One last thing, "the government" doesn't mean the federal government, it could mean a locality as much as a state or the full country. Water works are generally local, meaning even more that the regulation / execution of public water isn't centralized or unilateral. Seeing as how water is going to be specific to an area, I think the most local government is going to work best. It depends upon the kind of issue: someone needs to mediate when a company up river is polluting the water for people down river, as well as the ocean. The problem with the environment can be that it's, well, everywhere and connected; and chemicals used in Nigeria will eventually end up over here in America, and so on.
-
No, it just means further standardization down the line.
And if someone is perfectly fine with the current quality and price of water, why should they have to pay more to have it cleaned beyond what they want?
Interesting you mention that, because it actually saves significant sums of money in the long run, because greater public health equals fewer trips to the hospital and whatnot.
-
Also, ask yourself, why is the water polluted in the first place? Private Industry. Proper regulation, occurring at the right location and time, would prevent this, or at least mitigate it. Ya, there may still be problems, but they're less than what private industries and the free-market have proven time and time again to cause.
The government is typically the largest polluter, but the reason a Private Company can pollute and destroy the environment is not due to a lack of regulation, but usually directly because of regulation. Pollution is only a problem because of a lack of clearly defined property rights. The government muddies this up since the ones controlling in power are lobbied by private companies to grant them exceptions. Special interests and political favors are what allow environmental destruction to occur from private business with little or no consequences. End regulation and clearly define property rights and tort is all you need to ensure clean environments and well behaved private companies.
-
Interesting you mention that, because it actually saves significant sums of money in the long run, because greater public health equals fewer trips to the hospital and whatnot.
Strawman argument, accepting a lower grade of water doesn't necessarily mean it is disease carrying or a health problem.
Think Denny's vs. Ruth's Chris.
-
I've never been to the former and never even heard of the latter until you mentioned it, so that analogy is totally useless. And it doesn't necessarily, but what if it does? I believe in erring on the side of caution in low risk, high cost situations. As in you could be right, maybe the lower grade won't carry diseases or other undesirables and so there's no reason to have government regulation. But what if you're wrong?
-
I'm not saying you are wrong, just that just because government isn't regulating the industry, doesn't mean it is something to fear. People prefer clean, healthy food and water, so if there is no government to take care of it, there is no reason a private rating service wouldn't be created to fill the void.
-
Scheavo, your arguments are bloated and and not supported by fact.
Look up what has happened around the world when private companies have taken over water works. It's not good. (I cant remember the documentary, but it shouldn't be too hard to look up).
England and Wales (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_supply_and_sanitation_in_England_and_Wales) water is completely privatized
Also:
https://reason.com/archives/2005/08/17/water-is-a-human-right
Segerfeldt shows that even imperfect privatization efforts have already successfully connected millions of poor people to relatively inexpensive water where government-funded efforts have failed. For example, before privatization in 1989, only 20 percent of urban dwellers the African nation of Guinea had access to safe drinking water; by 2001 70 percent did. The price of piped water increased from 15 cents per cubic meter to almost $1, but as Segerfeldt correctly notes, "before privatization the majority of Guineans had no access to mains water at all. They do now. And for these people, the cost of water has fallen drastically. The moral issue, then, is whether it was worth raising the price for the minority of people already connected before privatization in order to reach the 70 percent connected today." In Cartagena, Colombia privatization boosted the number of people receiving piped water by 27 percent. Even the conflicted privatization in Buenos Aires saw the number of households connected to piped water rise by 3 million and 85 percent of the new customers lived in the poor suburbs of the city. Segerfeldt cites other successful privatizations in Gabon, Cambodia, Indonesia, and Morocco.
https://www.ppiaf.org/ppiaf/sites/ppiaf.org/files/FINAL-PPPsforUrbanWaterUtilities-PhMarin.pdf - page 36 under conclusions and trend analysis.
setbacks in Latin America, other regions have been gradually adopting it.
In many countries, water PPPs seem to have withstood the test of time.
By the end of 2007, 44 developing and emerging countries had active urban
water PPP projects. In Armenia, Cameroon, Chile, Côte d’Ivoire, the Czech
Republic, Gabon, Ghana, Malaysia, Niger, and Senegal, the majority of the
urban population is now served by private operators. In several other countries, private operators serve close to or more than a third of the urban
population; those countries include Algeria, Colombia, Cuba, Ecuador,
Hungary, Morocco, and Mozambique. Even Argentina still has more than
10 water concessions serving 20 percent of the urban population.
https://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4462
The little research I did suggested that in under developed countries, public water was poorly maintained, poorly filtered, and the service was intermittent at best and that privatization led to water being available with drastically improved service.
-
Also, ask yourself, why is the water polluted in the first place? Private Industry. Proper regulation, occurring at the right location and time, would prevent this, or at least mitigate it. Ya, there may still be problems, but they're less than what private industries and the free-market have proven time and time again to cause.
The government is typically the largest polluter, but the reason a Private Company can pollute and destroy the environment is not due to a lack of regulation, but usually directly because of regulation. Pollution is only a problem because of a lack of clearly defined property rights. The government muddies this up since the ones controlling in power are lobbied by private companies to grant them exceptions. Special interests and political favors are what allow environmental destruction to occur from private business with little or no consequences. End regulation and clearly define property rights and tort is all you need to ensure clean environments and well behaved private companies.
LOL. It's not just a lack of clearly defining property rights, it's even being able to notice the effects. If a plant across town starts to use certain chemicals, that will directly affect me - and the only way I will end up finding about this, sans government or some sort of oversight, is when I get sick, and possibly die.
Who exactly does the tort reform? Who ensures the property rights? The government! Why do you want a unilateral, mono centric decisions?
Pollution happens because consumers demand products which require polluting manufacturing processes, because of free-market principles.
I'm not saying you are wrong, just that just because government isn't regulating the industry, doesn't mean it is something to fear. People prefer clean, healthy food and water, so if there is no government to take care of it, there is no reason a private rating service wouldn't be created to fill the void.
The problem is that private companies also do many things for the sake of profit - which does not always mean better quality product. McDonalds does amazingly well, but their food is absolute shit. It's about marketing, creating and imagine, and getting people to believe that as much as it is actually delivering a good product. No, I don't think this applies to most companies, but I do think it applies to a lot of the powerful ones, and I think their effect is greater than their number. Simple, sane, regulations can go a long way - which, by the way, probably doesn't include a lot of things you might be thinking of.
-
I'll have to look more into that again NR, thanks. As what you point to mentions, there were set backs, and it talks about how there are recent improvements. I'll have to get back to you on that.
-
McDonalds does amazingly well, but their food is absolute shit
You are so wrong, is funny to me! Mcdonalds is actually well known for their high quality food (https://www.mcdonalds.com/us/en/food/food_quality/see_what_we_are_made_of.html) and cheap prices. That combined with the transparency of their ingredients and cooking processes, is what brings people to them over and over again in droves for every meal, not aggressive and manipulative marketing.
The complaints I imagine you draw are talking about how the food effects the body and is wrongly blamed on the quality of food or cooking process because of the bastardization of saturated fat and the fast food industry in general instead of insane amounts of carbohydrates in almost every menu item.
I'll have to look more into that again NR, thanks. As what you point to mentions, there were set backs, and it talks about how there are recent improvements. I'll have to get back to you on that.
Please do. It isn't a perfect solution to every problem due to the complexity of most of the systems before reform, but often times when the system has failed, it is due to reasons other than or combined with failure of market forces. It also is responsible for providing areas with previously no water, with water.
Also take note, in instances where the system hasn't failed, prices went up compared to the public option, but quality always did as well in nearly every area.
-
Mcdonalds high quality food (https://www.mcdonalds.com/us/en/food/food_quality/see_what_we_are_made_of.html)
lol
-
Mcdonalds high quality food (https://www.mcdonalds.com/us/en/food/food_quality/see_what_we_are_made_of.html)
lol
Ah yes, good point. Hadn't thought of that.
-
Oh, and quality doesn't necessarily mean that it's healthy or have good nutritional standards .
-
The complaints I imagine you draw are talking about how the food effects the body and is wrongly blamed on the quality of food or cooking process because of the bastardization of saturated fat and the fast food industry in general instead of insane amounts of carbohydrates in almost every menu item.
McDonalds fries all of their foods in omega-6 and trans-fat laden vegetable oil, so their food is unhealthy regardless of the carbohydrate content.
-
No, they use trans fat free canola and soybean oil. Also, lets not get off topic.
-
McDonalds does amazingly well, but their food is absolute shit
You are so wrong, is funny to me! Mcdonalds is actually well known for their high quality food (https://www.mcdonalds.com/us/en/food/food_quality/see_what_we_are_made_of.html) and cheap prices. That combined with the transparency of their ingredients and cooking processes, is what brings people to them over and over again in droves for every meal, not aggressive and manipulative marketing.
The complaints I imagine you draw are talking about how the food effects the body and is wrongly blamed on the quality of food or cooking process because of the bastardization of saturated fat and the fast food industry in general instead of insane amounts of carbohydrates in almost every menu item.
My complaint is drawn upon trying to eat the fucking shit. It's horrible, disgusting, and tastes like pure shit. They have to ammonia-wash their meat (which is technically poisoning it) to kill the bacteria, then they add flavoring to make it better. I mean, Burger King is bad (and also ammonia-washed their meat), but I'd almost rather re-eat Burger King after I've shat it out than try and eat McDonalds.
If commercials weren't so successful, why would companies put money into them? If they didn't work, companies would have stopped advertising a lot ass time ago, ya?
Though, it's not as if I want to do anything about McDonalds. My point was simply that the market does not always produce quality,
I'll have to look more into that again NR, thanks. As what you point to mentions, there were set backs, and it talks about how there are recent improvements. I'll have to get back to you on that.
Please do. It isn't a perfect solution to every problem due to the complexity of most of the systems before reform, but often times when the system has failed, it is due to reasons other than or combined with failure of market forces. It also is responsible for providing areas with previously no water, with water.
Also take note, in instances where the system hasn't failed, prices went up compared to the public option, but quality always did as well in nearly every area.
Wait, am I understanding this right, that you amid that ere can be failure of market forces? And that privatization of water isn't the best answer everywhere? Because that's the most reasonable thing I've ever heard you say, and something I can agree to.
It really does come down the issue of liberty for me. I think private businesses can take away my liberty just as much as "the government" can, they're social force and effect is much the same. I don't like it when government does it, and I don't like it when private business does it.
-
My complaint is drawn upon trying to eat the fucking shit. It's horrible, disgusting, and tastes like pure shit. They have to ammonia-wash their meat (which is technically poisoning it) to kill the bacteria, then they add flavoring to make it better. I mean, Burger King is bad (and also ammonia-washed their meat), but I'd almost rather re-eat Burger King after I've shat it out than try and eat McDonalds.
That's great, but also anecdotal. People eat the food and enjoy it and keep doing it, I do the same. The ammonia thing came under scrutiny, but fell off because even though you can talk up the method to eating e coli and pink slime, its perfectly safe (https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jan/1/fast-food-chains-back-ammonia-to-treat-beef/). So you not preferring Mcdonalds doesn't change the quality or taste of the food, or that millions of people visit one regularly.
From that article:
No illnesses have been linked to Beef Products’ meat.
If commercials weren't so successful, why would companies put money into them? If they didn't work, companies would have stopped advertising a lot ass time ago, ya?
Because companies that invest in marketing before making sure they have a good product, fail. Which is why Mcdonalds spends millions of dollars advertising new products to more people, and not investing in psychological rape messages that get you addicted to their food and drinks.
Though, it's not as if I want to do anything about McDonalds. My point was simply that the market does not always produce quality,
Mcdonalds is a beacon of quality.
It really does come down the issue of liberty for me. I think private businesses can take away my liberty just as much as "the government" can, they're social force and effect is much the same. I don't like it when government does it, and I don't like it when private business does it.
There is no comparable example where a corporation can or has wronged someone on the scale that the federal government can and has in the past. Think of every documented privacy violation, service or product legislated away, regulation into private industry, failed government program, tax and fee, and wrongful arrest and prosecution case. How is it as bad as something a private corporation can do to you? How does that make sense?
Wait, am I understanding this right, that you amid that ere can be failure of market forces? And that privatization of water isn't the best answer everywhere? Because that's the most reasonable thing I've ever heard you say, and something I can agree to.
All I am saying is that if you go to a war torn, under developed nation with no infrastructure and a huge population, I am not surprised radical reform to privatized water doesn't always work.
-
I never said the ammonia-wash was going to kill you, I said it severely harms the taste and the quality of the food. McDonalds is an amazing company, that has found a way to corner a portion of the market, and get a loyal customer base. They have some quality control, but I can easily make you a better tasting meal for the same price by going to the grocery store. It's quick, and it gives customers what they want - but it is not quality food.
Ya know, the last McDonalds commercial I saw didn't even mention their food, at all? IT was all about the guy coming up with some shit nickname for his girlfriend, and about how he's so smart because he buys off the value meal. Go look up the history of marketing, go look up what techniques they use, what kind of knowledge they use, then come back to me. Commercials often work on a basic level, beyond direction consciousness - they can trick your body into being hungry, thinking about food, or wanting something, which people then react to. It's a purpose of their tools, and it's successful for the very same reasons you always use to show how great companies are.
I'm sorry, but private companies are taking away my freedom and my privacy at a far greater rate right now than the federal government. If the government put a tracking device on you at all times, you'd be up in harms. Yet, you probably carry a cell phone around with you that is just that (A friend of mine has an iPhone app, he typed in my phone number, and pinpointed my exact position on Google maps. If the government released a face-recognition program like Facebook, people would have been in the streets (actually, maybe American's are too stupid to care anymore). Private companies amass data on people to figure out how to sell to them, how to market to them, and they sell that data to whoever wants it. Guess who that can be? The government - who, in our case, is so highly corrupted, that it's sorta hard to distinguish them at times.
And once again, you fail to miss the point. Government does shitty things, but it's better than the alternative. The trick is to have a democracy, pay attention, and have control over what your government is and does, so that you can limit it. You ignore what private corporations could do to me if there wasn't the government protecting me. I'm sure there's someone out there who loves the idea of enslaving people (slavery DOES exist in America still, just so ya know); so in a theoretical world where I don't have the government protecting me in any way, what recourse do I have if someone comes to my house, kidnaps me, and forces me into slavery? I just gotta hope that someone out there knows about it, and that they'll come risk their own life to ensure my own rights? Ya, highly theoretical, but it highlights my huge contention with the kind of libertarianism I see around here, because the ideology doesn't accept that humans are assholes, and that humans want things that aren't theirs. That's why we come together, that's why there's society, and that's why we accept losing some of our rights and our freedoms in order to gain that access. If you don't like it, leave society or find one where they don't agree to give up their right to all the money they make in exchange for protection and mutual benefit.
*edit*
To just expand a little:
Quality is more than "safe for human consumption." I'm not saying McDonalds kills you, or that eating it is going to kill you, only that it tastes bad, and isn't of high quality - it's cheap. It's the best cheap food, which is quality of a sort. But it's like saying someone is the nicest asshole. They're still an asshole.
To make a much better, and more defensible, example of how non-government defense can end up being just as bad or worse, and leaving you with no recourse. Business can become entrenched, thanks to it's efficiency and money making ability. This allows them to force out competitors, and if the kind of business we're talking about is defense related, this means a private army. Now, power does a funny thing to people, and I don't think for a second that a CEO/owner/executive board of a militia company wouldn't think about establishing himself /themselves as a monarch / plutocracy, especially once they get powerful enough. Since this wouldn't be primarily obvious by anyone, I don't see how there could be market-forces to force them out. Plus, if they tried, then who's going to protect them from said company? What you end up with is something far worse than the situation we're in right now. Look up Blackwater / Xi, and think about how easy it would be for a company like this to start a war, and the CEO is crazy fucking enough to do that. Government can easily turn into the same thing, and in many ways, our government is guilty of this. Pragmatically, it's probably not much different than there being a huge company. Companies and Governments both last too long, outlive their meaningful existence, and die far too late. The same is true of people.
-
Quality is more than "safe for human consumption." I'm not saying McDonalds kills you, or that eating it is going to kill you, only that it tastes bad, and isn't of high quality - it's cheap. It's the best cheap food, which is quality of a sort. But it's like saying someone is the nicest asshole. They're still an asshole.
It sure beats a subsistence living. The division of labor and capital acquisition necessary to provide cheap food came in spite of any government involvement. You know what happens when the government has total control of food production and distribution? Mass starvation. There are numerous historical examples.
Look up Blackwater / Xi, and think about how easy it would be for a company like this to start a war, and the CEO is crazy fucking enough to do that. Government can easily turn into the same thing, and in many ways, our government is guilty of this.
War is super expensive, how is a private company going to fund it without a civilian population to fleece for taxes like the State? The truth is, a company like Blackwater isn't really a private company at all. When it's revenue stream comes directly from the government, it is NOT a private company, but more like a subsidiary of the State.
Large scale War is only feasible for a State.
-
They have some quality control, but I can easily make you a better tasting meal for the same price by going to the grocery store. It's quick, and it gives customers what they want - but it is not quality food.
That doesn't lend itself to any argument. The food is good, safe to eat, and cheap, end of story.
Commercials often work on a basic level, beyond direction consciousness - they can trick your body into being hungry, thinking about food, or wanting something, which people then react to. It's a purpose of their tools, and it's successful for the very same reasons you always use to show how great companies are.
Again, that doesnt mean anything to your philosophy. There's nothing wrong with the information they use nor is there anything mysterious or manipulative about it.
Yet, you probably carry a cell phone around with you that is just that (A friend of mine has an iPhone app, he typed in my phone number, and pinpointed my exact position on Google maps.
Every example you have cited is entirely voluntary on the part of the user. When you sign up for service with any cell phone provider, you usually sign a contract or agree to their terms of service or both. When you open a Facebook account, you agree to their terms of service. If you do not like a service or product or how it functions, you can voluntarily opt out without any negative consequences. Unfortunately due to the way cell phones function, trilateration enables non gps devices to be located by the provider as long as they are within a service area. What you mention on the iphone however requires your device to be running the same app and enabled with a unique device code.
You ignore what private corporations could do to me if there wasn't the government protecting me.
You get mad at me when I do this to you, so dont do it to me. I am ot arguing that, and neither is mainstream libertarianism. Even in my dream world, the federal government still has a police force and an army to assist with matters of force.
because the ideology doesn't accept that humans are assholes, and that humans want things that aren't theirs
Its funny you bring that up because I think the same thing about your ideology. You expect people to be given unlimited power, and only use a little bit of it when logically appropriate.
If you don't like it, leave society or find one where they don't agree to give up their right to all the money they make in exchange for protection and mutual benefit.
That's the Scheavo version of "if you dont like America, get out". Because the current status quo is not do everything you agree with and tell everyone else to bite the bullet and give up their rights.
By the way, you still have not elaborated on that concept. How do you give up liberty and somehow get more back at the end of the day? If you lose it you lose it and it only gets worse. Benjamin Franklin had a good quote that applies here: "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
-
Quality is more than "safe for human consumption." I'm not saying McDonalds kills you, or that eating it is going to kill you, only that it tastes bad, and isn't of high quality - it's cheap. It's the best cheap food, which is quality of a sort. But it's like saying someone is the nicest asshole. They're still an asshole.
It sure beats a subsistence living. The division of labor and capital acquisition necessary to provide cheap food came in spite of any government involvement. You know what happens when the government has total control of food production and distribution? Mass starvation. There are numerous historical examples.
I never said I endorse the government controlling food, that's not even close to what I'm arguing. Where have I said anything to favor that? :strawman
Look up Blackwater / Xi, and think about how easy it would be for a company like this to start a war, and the CEO is crazy fucking enough to do that. Government can easily turn into the same thing, and in many ways, our government is guilty of this.
War is super expensive, how is a private company going to fund it without a civilian population to fleece for taxes like the State? The truth is, a company like Blackwater isn't really a private company at all. When it's revenue stream comes directly from the government, it is NOT a private company, but more like a subsidiary of the State.
Large scale War is only feasible for a State.
Quite easy, a rich business owner who wants something, as well as the population which wants protection from an enemy. War is not only feasible for a state, especially not in the world being proposed by free-marketers.
-
They have some quality control, but I can easily make you a better tasting meal for the same price by going to the grocery store. It's quick, and it gives customers what they want - but it is not quality food.
That doesn't lend itself to any argument. The food is good, safe to eat, and cheap, end of story.
If I call something cheap, I'm saying it's not of very high quality. So thanks for agreeing with me, that McDonalds is not quality food, but cheap food. Ther's nothing wrong with that, but it does highlight the fact that the market will not always go towards producing quality.
Commercials often work on a basic level, beyond direction consciousness - they can trick your body into being hungry, thinking about food, or wanting something, which people then react to. It's a purpose of their tools, and it's successful for the very same reasons you always use to show how great companies are.
Again, that doesnt mean anything to your philosophy. There's nothing wrong with the information they use nor is there anything mysterious or manipulative about it.
How does this mean nothing to my philosophy? I very much believe in market forces, and that companies have incentive to improve their product. The difference is, I don't think this is the only incentive they have, nor the only factor in the room.
I mean, seriously, why do companies spend millions of dollars on advertising that has nothing to do with their product, if it doesn't work? And I never said mysterious, and what they do is very much manipulative. They're very scientific about it, and the information is out there that it's done. Selling a product can be (depends upon the product) as much about image, if not more so, than about the actual product.
Yet, you probably carry a cell phone around with you that is just that (A friend of mine has an iPhone app, he typed in my phone number, and pinpointed my exact position on Google maps.
Every example you have cited is entirely voluntary on the part of the user. When you sign up for service with any cell phone provider, you usually sign a contract or agree to their terms of service or both. When you open a Facebook account, you agree to their terms of service. If you do not like a service or product or how it functions, you can voluntarily opt out without any negative consequences. Unfortunately due to the way cell phones function, trilateration enables non gps devices to be located by the provider as long as they are within a service area. What you mention on the iphone however requires your device to be running the same app and enabled with a unique device code.
No, my phone wasn't capable of running an app, and he very much did pinpoint my position.
And you're argument just doesn't add up. When people buy a cell phone, they aren't aware that it tracks them. It may be in the contract, somewhere, but people aren't going to understand the jargon, or quite honestly, probably read it. They're in on the act, but that doesn't mean that private corporations aren't collecting massive amounts of data on the American people, data which can be used by someone with the money, data which can be used to breach your privacy.
You ignore what private corporations could do to me if there wasn't the government protecting me.
You get mad at me when I do this to you, so dont do it to me. I am ot arguing that, and neither is mainstream libertarianism. Even in my dream world, the federal government still has a police force and an army to assist with matters of force.
Mainstream libertarianism makes a hooey about taxes being theft and evil, but if you want to have an army and a federal government, you're going to have taxes. The army is the force behind taxation, so if libertarians want to have the army, they have to swallow the bullet about taxing being theft, so that we can move on with the discussion.
because the ideology doesn't accept that humans are assholes, and that humans want things that aren't theirs
Its funny you bring that up because I think the same thing about your ideology. You expect people to be given unlimited power, and only use a little bit of it when logically appropriate.
Lol, I don't expect people to be given unlimited powers at all. I'm a supporter of democracy, specifically constitutional ones, where power is limited, not only in terms of what can actually be done, but how long that power is held. You know, it's funny, when Jobe was around I remember everyone taking a political compass test, and I came up as more libertarian than Jobe. I don't really like the idea of anyone, whether it's a bureaucrat or a businessman, having power over me. Unfortunately, in order to do so, I have to give up some of my liberties, and accept a higher power over me.
If you don't like it, leave society or find one where they don't agree to give up their right to all the money they make in exchange for protection and mutual benefit.
That's the Scheavo version of "if you dont like America, get out". Because the current status quo is not do everything you agree with and tell everyone else to bite the bullet and give up their rights.
By the way, you still have not elaborated on that concept. How do you give up liberty and somehow get more back at the end of the day? If you lose it you lose it and it only gets worse. Benjamin Franklin had a good quote that applies here: "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Lol, you're quoting that is rather funny and misplaced. The issue isn't "temporary safety," it's social safety, and it's something Benjamin Franklin clearly supported.
And to answer the question, because what I'm at liberty to do is effected by the social environment I find myself in. I am born and thrown into this world, I do not choose when and where to enter, what kind of education is available to me, what kind of economic opportunities are available to me, etc. In the real world, being without government does not lead to maximum liberty.
I theoretically have the liberty to kill anyone I want, but I give up this liberty to gain cooperation, which brings up things which mean I actually can employ my of my liberties.
Giving up my liberty to all of my income leads to things like infrastructure, which actually allows me greater liberty of movement. It also leads to public educatnoi, which opens up my career opportunities, and lets me be who I want to be.
It's the social contract, and it's something libertarians are supposed to believe in.
-
Quite easy, a rich business owner who wants something, as well as the population which wants protection from an enemy. War is not only feasible for a state, especially not in the world being proposed by free-marketers.
A rich person doesn't get to where they are in a free-market with those kind of tendencies. They have money, why do they need to start a war for something that they could buy?!?!
As for a population wanting protection? Nothing wrong with paying for it, but if you don't want it, no reason you should have to pay for it.
Quote:
"If I call something cheap (Subjective), I'm saying it's not of very high quality (Subjective). So thanks for agreeing with me, that McDonalds is not quality food (subjective) , but cheap food (subjective). Ther's nothing wrong with that (Nope), but it does highlight the fact that the market will not always go towards producing quality (Baseless assertion). "
I think you get the point. People choose to buy it by the billions which means it is of high enough quality to be worth more to them than the money in their pocket or anything else for that matter. Even though you and I both think it's crap food.
-
Quite easy, a rich business owner who wants something, as well as the population which wants protection from an enemy. War is not only feasible for a state, especially not in the world being proposed by free-marketers.
A rich person doesn't get to where they are in a free-market with those kind of tendencies. They have money, why do they need to start a war for something that they could buy?!?!
Because people suck, and there's something's you can't buy, like a religious state. The founder of Xi is highly religious ; what if he wanted to purge the world of heretics? How are you going to buy that? *edit* maybe he likes a certain lakeside property for it's view, and he wants it, and it's not for sale. Maybe he just wants people to be subjugated to himself, to bow before him, to call him a lord. Money can only buy things which are for sale. They can very easily get to this position, if they're a shrewd businessman. It's not they're goin to go around telling people, "hey, once I have enough money I want to start taking things over." The free-market is not some err-free filter, it's a very good filter which allows for some very bad things to get through, and it's those bad things I want to protect myself from.
Psychopaths are more commonly found as CEO's of companies than the general population.
As for a population wanting protection? Nothing wrong with paying for it, but if you don't want it, no reason you should have to pay for it.
No, there really isn't a reason. But ever heard of protection money?
Quote:
"If I call something cheap (Subjective), I'm saying it's not of very high quality (Subjective). So thanks for agreeing with me, that McDonalds is not quality food (subjective) , but cheap food (subjective). Ther's nothing wrong with that (Nope), but it does highlight the fact that the market will not always go towards producing quality (Baseless assertion). "
I think you get the point. People choose to buy it by the billions which means it is of high enough quality to be worth more to them than the money in their pocket or anything else for that matter. Even though you and I both think it's crap food.
Well, I agree with you on the subject, but that's why I don't support regulations in this area. I'm bringing up an example of what motivates companies, and in the area's where I support regulation, there is often no room for subjective thought. Which is again, what my argument lies upon (a healed leg is a healed leg). Clean air and clean water are not a matter of subjectivity, and it's not something where your free choices don't effect myself. You wanting a product, which leads to harmful chemicals in the air or water, means that my air and water is also tainted, and I didn't choose that in anyway.
Profit changes incentives, it changes what is acceptable, etc. Why do mercenaries have an historic reputation for being bad soldiers, for being more cruel, for being less loyal, etc? Profit! Greed is bad, it's called a sin for a reason.
-
Mcdonalds is a beacon of quality.
That would certainly explain all the fat people.
-
Because people suck, and there's something's you can't buy, like a religious state. The founder of Xi is highly religious ; what if he wanted to purge the world of heretics? How are you going to buy that?
I'm not too familiar with Xi, I'll look it up, but I seriously doubt he obtained his fortune through peaceful/voluntary market means.
As for a population wanting protection? Nothing wrong with paying for it, but if you don't want it, no reason you should have to pay for it.
No, there really isn't a reason. But ever heard of protection money?
Protection money, like the Mafia government? Seems to me you are forced to pay for protection from the government through taxes.
You wanting a product, which leads to harmful chemicals in the air or water, means that my air and water is also tainted, and I didn't choose that in anyway.
Due to the existence of the government, air and water insurance is not a viable business model since it is supposedly "public goods", but it would be viable in a true free society. An air/water insurer would have to pay out huge claims to people if it were dirty, so instead they would monitor any and all startup business's looking for property in the area, if it was a business that had a dirty production process, they would then outbid the property from that company and sale it to a business that ensure's a cleaner production process.
Why do mercenaries have an historic reputation for being bad soldiers, for being more cruel, for being less loyal, etc? Profit! Greed is bad, it's called a sin for a reason.
Don't make me laugh, state soldiers are no saints.
-
If I call something cheap, I'm saying it's not of very high quality. So thanks for agreeing with me, that McDonalds is not quality food, but cheap food. Ther's nothing wrong with that, but it does highlight the fact that the market will not always go towards producing quality.
All you are doing is redefining terms to your own point. Making things cheap (https://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cheap) refers to being made available at a low price. It is in fact, one of the key benefits of capitalism, and the fact that Mcdonalds has made its food so available and cheap for the entirety of this economic roller coaster is an extremely positive thing. Where your original point is, is confusing me as there are no shortage of extremely high quality extremely high cost food available. I also said "good" in that sentence which you seemingly ignored.
I mean, seriously, why do companies spend millions of dollars on advertising that has nothing to do with their product, if it doesn't work? And I never said mysterious, and what they do is very much manipulative. They're very scientific about it, and the information is out there that it's done. Selling a product can be (depends upon the product) as much about image, if not more so, than about the actual product.
There is no evidence that suggests advertising takes it to an extreme. Suggestion and appeal is where it maxes out. And nothing is wrong with that.
No, my phone wasn't capable of running an app, and he very much did pinpoint my position.
I cant find any way to trace a phone using gps or trilateration without some form of consent to a service or application being offered to the phone number registered to that phone. There are apps as I mentioned, but to be legal they need to be consensual, and there are services like google latitude. Try and find the app your friend used. If the government doesnt get involved and demand that your carrier track you, it doesn't usually happen.
When people buy a cell phone, they aren't aware that it tracks them. It may be in the contract, somewhere, but people aren't going to understand the jargon, or quite honestly, probably read it. They're in on the act, but that doesn't mean that private corporations aren't collecting massive amounts of data on the American people, data which can be used by someone with the money, data which can be used to breach your privacy.
Bullshit. You sign contracts when you buy a house, buy a car, rent anything, sell anything and the list goes on. You need to read the fine print and make an effort to understand it because they are such monumental things that affect your entire life so readily. If you don't read it, you are 100% at fault for any behavior that results because its their fault for signing and agreeing to it and any argument to the contrary is a cop out. By the way, if a company collects or sells personal data not stipulated in the terms, they are legally at fault and usually get ripped up and down by consumers interest groups anyway. Your whole line sounds like something out of a conspiracy theory. What precisely is the data they are collecting and how are they doing it, who is going to abuse it, who are they selling it to, and what proof do you have? This whole ominous "They are doing it because they are and they are selling it to everyone because they are" thing holds no weight.
Mainstream libertarianism makes a hooey about taxes being theft and evil, but if you want to have an army and a federal government, you're going to have taxes. The army is the force behind taxation, so if libertarians want to have the army, they have to swallow the bullet about taxing being theft, so that we can move on with the discussion
No, mainstream libertarianism is not anarchy and makes no qualms about taxes at the base. They make qualms about increasing taxes, hidden taxes and fees, and new taxes for things that should not be taxed and the hostile enforcement of those taxes.
Unfortunately, in order to do so, I have to give up some of my liberties, and accept a higher power over me.
Here is where you lose me. The government can and will use brute force to achieve goals to and past the point of abuse. We have modern examples of that. A business, no matter how big or coercive or manipulative, cannot. They can affect general social change, create trends, create culture, influence the market with new products and the list goes on, but they cannot make you do anything like the government can. So how is the reasonable solution to give in to a higher democratic but still highly governmental power? Even in the best conditions, you can wind up with 49% of people opposed to something and in our case a federal government that decides when it has abused the power it gives itself unconditionally.
Mcdonalds is a beacon of quality.
That would certainly explain all the fat people.
Would you stop? You're not contributing anything to the discussion.
-
@Orth
Oh, right, I forgot, the market place could never create a mercenary company... Xi would not have formed, but something like that is guaranteed under the kind of libertarianism you're proposing. You don't think there's enough christian fundamentalists in America to help pay for such an army?
Ya, I agree, you are forced to pay the government for protection. If you got rid of "the government," you'd be left with something which functions just like the government, and which you may not have a say in. I hardly see how this contradicts anything I've ever said, in fact, Ive been saying that this is natural, that this is something you have to deal with, one way or another. Since that's true, the best solution is a liberal democratic government.
Who would force the companies to pay out the fines? Who would do this? Just look at history, and see how much damage companies will knowingly permit for profit.
Also, your degradation of soldiers is rather insulting. I know quite a few, being from Montana, and I can tell you, most of them are amazing fucking people. People become soldiers for a different reason other than profit - the public good. They do it because they want to help their neighbor, because they want to protect our rights. Are they all saints? No, but no population of humans are ever all saints, so what? I'm not sure if you're aware of who Robert Heinlein is, but he's extremely libertarian in his political view point (I believe he coined the term there is no such thing as a free lunch), and even he wrote a whole book extolling the human virtues of soldiers, and those who join up to be a soldier.
-
Also, your degradation of soldiers is rather insulting. I know quite a few, being from Montana, and I can tell you, most of them are amazing fucking people. People become soldiers for a different reason other than profit - the public good. They do it because they want to help their neighbor, because they want to protect our rights. Are they all saints? No, but no population of humans are ever all saints, so what? I'm not sure if you're aware of who Robert Heinlein is, but he's extremely libertarian in his political view point (I believe he coined the term there is no such thing as a free lunch), and even he wrote a whole book extolling the human virtues of soldiers, and those who join up to be a soldier.
To be fair, it was just a generalized statement about soldier's, much like yours was about merc's. I know a lot of people go into the military with the best of intention's and honestly believe they are doing the right thing, but in the end, they, just like the mercenary soldier, are being paid to kill. Just because they wear a different kind of uniform doesn't change the morality of it.
Self defense is fine, aggression is not. I mean, you've heard about what Nazi soldier's have done, right?
-
If I call something cheap, I'm saying it's not of very high quality. So thanks for agreeing with me, that McDonalds is not quality food, but cheap food. Ther's nothing wrong with that, but it does highlight the fact that the market will not always go towards producing quality.
All you are doing is redefining terms to your own point. Making things cheap (https://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cheap) refers to being made available at a low price. It is in fact, one of the key benefits of capitalism, and the fact that Mcdonalds has made its food so available and cheap for the entirety of this economic roller coaster is an extremely positive thing. Where your original point is, is confusing me as there are no shortage of extremely high quality extremely high cost food available. I also said "good" in that sentence which you seemingly ignored.
Do you really think that something which is the lowest cost thing is the highest quality? In my experience, the exact opposite holds true. Rarely is the cheap thing high quality.
I think subjective arguing over the quality of McDonalds only highlights the fact that the free-market will not always create something everyone wants, but there are area's where one person deciding to do something effects everyone else. You complain about 49% being against something later, and being unable to do something about it... what about if its 80% of people are against something, yet have to accept it? 20% of the population could want a product which requires a manufacturing process which pollutes the environment, meaning the other 80% of people are shit out of luck. If you say the issue is with property rights, then you get into the same situation which seems to raise problems in the first place, so we're just back at square one, where some central agency (a judiciary) is going to decide what is and is not allowed. It's pragmatically the same.
I mean, seriously, why do companies spend millions of dollars on advertising that has nothing to do with their product, if it doesn't work? And I never said mysterious, and what they do is very much manipulative. They're very scientific about it, and the information is out there that it's done. Selling a product can be (depends upon the product) as much about image, if not more so, than about the actual product.
There is no evidence that suggests advertising takes it to an extreme. Suggestion and appeal is where it maxes out. And nothing is wrong with that.
But it works, and they're not advertising the quality of the product. The point of me bringing this up isn't to say it's evil and that we should stop it, but that businesses actively engage in trying to distort the market in their favor, through various means, and it's not all rational. You're libertarian theory holds that humans are individuals, and rational, and that is why the free-market should be trusted fully. I'm showing how that is just not true, and how humans are emotional and easily led. There's so much proof on this, I don't even know where to start (though I did link a video).
No, my phone wasn't capable of running an app, and he very much did pinpoint my position.
I cant find any way to trace a phone using gps or trilateration without some form of consent to a service or application being offered to the phone number registered to that phone. There are apps as I mentioned, but to be legal they need to be consensual, and there are services like google latitude. Try and find the app your friend used. If the government doesn't get involved and demand that your carrier track you, it doesn't usually happen.
When people buy a cell phone, they aren't aware that it tracks them. It may be in the contract, somewhere, but people aren't going to understand the jargon, or quite honestly, probably read it. They're in on the act, but that doesn't mean that private corporations aren't collecting massive amounts of data on the American people, data which can be used by someone with the money, data which can be used to breach your privacy.
Bullshit. You sign contracts when you buy a house, buy a car, rent anything, sell anything and the list goes on. You need to read the fine print and make an effort to understand it because they are such monumental things that affect your entire life so readily. If you don't read it, you are 100% at fault for any behavior that results because its their fault for signing and agreeing to it and any argument to the contrary is a cop out. By the way, if a company collects or sells personal data not stipulated in the terms, they are legally at fault and usually get ripped up and down by consumers interest groups anyway. Your whole line sounds like something out of a conspiracy theory. What precisely is the data they are collecting and how are they doing it, who is going to abuse it, who are they selling it to, and what proof do you have? This whole ominous "They are doing it because they are and they are selling it to everyone because they are" thing holds no weight.
https://www.consumerreports.org/cro/money/consumer-protection/big-brother-is-watching/overview/index.htm
I couldn't tell you how he did it, but I saw his phone do it. And who says it needs to be legal? I guess I should say former co-workers, and the guy was cool, but a tad shady.
You're argument sounds a lot to me like some arguments made into why government surveillance isn't a problem - that there is so much data, and that it is so rarely accessed, that it's not a problem. How do you know how this information is being used?
Mainstream libertarianism makes a hooey about taxes being theft and evil, but if you want to have an army and a federal government, you're going to have taxes. The army is the force behind taxation, so if libertarians want to have the army, they have to swallow the bullet about taxing being theft, so that we can move on with the discussion
No, mainstream libertarianism is not anarchy and makes no qualms about taxes at the base. They make qualms about increasing taxes, hidden taxes and fees, and new taxes for things that should not be taxed and the hostile enforcement of those taxes.
I'm sorry, but that is just not the argument you hear, it's not the one I hear. It's about tax money being used for things like Welfare programs.
I'll be honest: your view seems much more moderate than most libertarians I come across. Though, what does hostile enforcement of taxes mean? That taxes are enforced? I don't get your point there, you seem to be sliding back into the problem I'm describing. Seriously, if my political view was established, we wouldn't need taxes for the military, wouldn't have a costly drug war, wouldn't do a lot of the things you probably don't want them to. But apparently, I'm not a libertarian, as evidenced by the long history of debates on this forum.
Unfortunately, in order to do so, I have to give up some of my liberties, and accept a higher power over me.
Here is where you lose me. The government can and will use brute force to achieve goals to and past the point of abuse. We have modern examples of that. A business, no matter how big or coercive or manipulative, cannot. They can affect general social change, create trends, create culture, influence the market with new products and the list goes on, but they cannot make you do anything like the government can. So how is the reasonable solution to give in to a higher democratic but still highly governmental power? Even in the best conditions, you can wind up with 49% of people opposed to something and in our case a federal government that decides when it has abused the power it gives itself unconditionally.
Businesses can use brute force, especially if it wasn't for the government. Once again, you've just labeled all government as bad, even though you just previously said you don't think that.
Our government? Ya, our government is horrible, I've never disagreed with you about that.
-
Who would force the companies to pay out the fines? Who would do this? Just look at history, and see how much damage companies will knowingly permit for profit.
The insurance company pays out the claims. So, you are either protected from the intrusion happening in the first place, or compensated monetarily to pay for necessary filtration/cleaning up to and including moving you to a new location. Considering how expensive that would be, they would employ means to prevent that from happening in the first place.
As a result, the cost of pollution/waste can no longer be externalized to third parties like it is now. The cost of waste processing and cleanup is now fully internalized so it is in the business' best interest to create a cleaner production process to reduce costs. Higher profits now translates to cleaner environment.
-
Also, your degradation of soldiers is rather insulting. I know quite a few, being from Montana, and I can tell you, most of them are amazing fucking people. People become soldiers for a different reason other than profit - the public good. They do it because they want to help their neighbor, because they want to protect our rights. Are they all saints? No, but no population of humans are ever all saints, so what? I'm not sure if you're aware of who Robert Heinlein is, but he's extremely libertarian in his political view point (I believe he coined the term there is no such thing as a free lunch), and even he wrote a whole book extolling the human virtues of soldiers, and those who join up to be a soldier.
To be fair, it was just a generalized statement about soldier's, much like yours was about merc's. I know a lot of people go into the military with the best of intention's and honestly believe they are doing the right thing, but in the end, they, just like the mercenary soldier, are being paid to kill. Just because they wear a different kind of uniform doesn't change the morality of it.
Self defense is fine, aggression is not. I mean, you've heard about what Nazi soldier's have done, right?
Soldiers may get paid, but that's not the reason why they're there. They get paid because we respect their service, and because it's only respectful. We pay our politicians, there was a great debate if we should, but it was eventually agreed that not to would be wrong. Is Ron Paul the same as Charlie Rangel?
Self defense is fine (though I often think self-defeating), but Nazi soldiers is a fallacious follow up to this argument. Fascism is a very ugly side of human nature, and I think more than a little unfair to say that all Nazi soldiers are the same. Beyond that, we know that people follow order to unethical ends, even otherwise good people. But most importantly, regardless of why Nazi soldiers did what they did, Mercenaries still do what they're infamous for because of money and profit. Since the context of bringing this up is due to the idea that profit and the market-place are a proper filter, I'd say that the point applies even if Nazi's were worse.
-
Who would force the companies to pay out the fines? Who would do this? Just look at history, and see how much damage companies will knowingly permit for profit.
The insurance company pays out the claims. So, you are either protected from the intrusion happening in the first place, or compensated monetarily to pay for necessary filtration/cleaning up to and including moving you to a new location. Considering how expensive that would be, they would employ means to prevent that from happening in the first place.
As a result, the cost of pollution/waste can no longer be externalized to third parties like it is now. The cost of waste processing and cleanup is now fully internalized so it is in the business' best interest to create a cleaner production process to reduce costs. Higher profits now translates to cleaner environment.
What insurance company? Are businesses required to have an insurance company? What if the insurance company goes broke? What if the insurance company is in cahoots by the bigger company? What if the insurance company is a secret, hidden sub-company of the other company? If I get sick because of a chemical in the water, how is it possible to trace that back to a specific company? The company could be one amongst many, do I sue them all? They'd all rightfully claim that it can't be pinned upon them, and that there isn't sufficient proof to convict. What if it's my next door neighbor, using a car that emits harmful chemicals? How do I sue him? How do I sue everyone, everywhere, who is responsible for certain chemicals be used, and being present in the environment? How do I sue companies for acid rain, when I have no idea what company is responsible? He IS supposed to have this insurance, and who is supposed to dictate that he doesn't? Furthermore, if he doesn't have the money (or any business doesn't have the money for that matter), what then? Do we imprison them? Who are we to take away their liberty, when the proof is so stringent, when the factors are so compounded, when all their doing is pursuing their own liberty?
Pragmatically, what the effect would be is telling companies they can't pollute their environment, enforcing this with a judiciary, and a group of people (society) who back up the requirements. Sounds an awful lot like government to me, just completely impossible.
-
You are the client of the insurance company, since you are paying them a premium for a clean environment in your area, they serve you (This would be just like having Fire Insurance and Health insurance). The business's will be clients too after agreeing to the term's of moving into your area as well, kind of like an HOA for companies on their allowed mount of pollution based on the criteria you the customer set for them. You wouldn't be suing anyone for infractions, it would all be done through the insurance company which acts as an agreed upon arbitrator by all parties.
If an insurance company is rogue or in cahoots, their reputation would be tarnished and wouldn't be in business very long as one of their rival's would swoop in to take the business.
As for going out of business? it happens. Just like governments collaps financially. See Greece.
-
You are the client of the insurance company, since you are paying them a premium for a clean environment in your area, they serve you (This would be just like having Fire Insurance and Health insurance). The business's will be clients too after agreeing to the term's of moving into your area as well, kind of like an HOA for companies on their allowed mount of pollution based on the criteria you the customer set for them. You wouldn't be suing anyone for infractions, it would all be done through the insurance company which acts as an agreed upon arbitrator by all parties.
Dude, that bold part, is democratic government. What the fuck. What constitutes in area, a watershed? Industries across the country can effect my environment.
I really don't see how an insurance company is going to make money off of this, or how some of the problems are insurance related. What will insurance companies do when CO2 acidifies the ocean, and collapses the ecosystem? It's a little too late by that point.
If an insurance company is rogue or in cahoots, their reputation would be tarnished and wouldn't be in business very long as one of their rival's would swoop in to take the business.
And you would know this... how? Maybe you'd find out, but you very easily wouldn't. Also, one good way of keeping track of who owns who, and what companies own's what, is taxes. It makes public such information.
As for going out of business? it happens. Just like governments collaps financially. See Greece.
Yar, government an business are entirely similar. I've argued this.
But in this case, I don't see how the insurance system would work too well. Insurance works where the reason for paying out is random / uncontrolled, etc. You don't' know when you're gion to get in a car accident, you don't know when a natural disaster will strike, you don't know when you'll need health care. This leads to windows where companies can make profits off premiums. How is that going to work with the environment? Also, how does this get back to the industry? If there's an insurance company making profit on environmental claims, where does a business come into the paying scheme?
-
Would you stop? You're not contributing anything to the discussion.
I'm just saying, if the ingredients are of such high quality, the preparation is such high quality, and the food in general is good stuff, how can it be that McDonald's is so unhealthy? Basically, the food is cheap and consequently is cheaply made. No state of the art ingredients are going to change that.
And yes I realize that, but that's more due to just losing track of the discussion and me trying to pick it back up again.
-
You are the client of the insurance company, since you are paying them a premium for a clean environment in your area, they serve you (This would be just like having Fire Insurance and Health insurance). The business's will be clients too after agreeing to the term's of moving into your area as well, kind of like an HOA for companies on their allowed mount of pollution based on the criteria you the customer set for them. You wouldn't be suing anyone for infractions, it would all be done through the insurance company which acts as an agreed upon arbitrator by all parties.
Dude, that bold part, is democratic government. What the fuck. What constitutes in area, a watershed? Industries across the country can effect my environment.
They are not the same. The free-market system proposed is voluntary and people will have signed a contract. Everyone who signed the Constitution died long ago, so it is no longer a binding document. Basic contract theory 101. If everyone were to sign on the dotted line, without coercion, I would have no problem with it.
-
You are the client of the insurance company, since you are paying them a premium for a clean environment in your area, they serve you (This would be just like having Fire Insurance and Health insurance). The business's will be clients too after agreeing to the term's of moving into your area as well, kind of like an HOA for companies on their allowed mount of pollution based on the criteria you the customer set for them. You wouldn't be suing anyone for infractions, it would all be done through the insurance company which acts as an agreed upon arbitrator by all parties.
Dude, that bold part, is democratic government. What the fuck. What constitutes in area, a watershed? Industries across the country can effect my environment.
They are not the same. The free-market system proposed is voluntary and people will have signed a contract. Everyone who signed the Constitution died long ago, so it is no longer a binding document. Basic contract theory 101. If everyone were to sign on the dotted line, without coercion, I would have no problem with it.
We are voluntarily bound to the Constitution still. If we weren't there'd have been another civil war or something by now. Yet we continue to operate within and observe the requirements and limitations of being bound to the Constitution.
-
You are the client of the insurance company, since you are paying them a premium for a clean environment in your area, they serve you (This would be just like having Fire Insurance and Health insurance). The business's will be clients too after agreeing to the term's of moving into your area as well, kind of like an HOA for companies on their allowed mount of pollution based on the criteria you the customer set for them. You wouldn't be suing anyone for infractions, it would all be done through the insurance company which acts as an agreed upon arbitrator by all parties.
Dude, that bold part, is democratic government. What the fuck. What constitutes in area, a watershed? Industries across the country can effect my environment.
They are not the same. The free-market system proposed is voluntary and people will have signed a contract. Everyone who signed the Constitution died long ago, so it is no longer a binding document. Basic contract theory 101. If everyone were to sign on the dotted line, without coercion, I would have no problem with it.
So what happens when I have kids? I'm enslaving my kids by having kids, because they'll grow up in a world where there's one insurance company, whom they have to go through, and whom they have no way of controlling it, becuase there's no competition. And if there is competition, that makes the market-place even more complicated, as companies wouldn't know which rules to follow, or what their liabilities are, making the entire thing worse. Also, how does the insurance c company come to an agreement on the issues? If one person doesn't want said chemical, does that mean said chemical can't be used? Does it require majority opinion? Well, again, you're talking about a democracy. The problem is, you propose something which would function exactly like a government, in every way, but you want to call it something different, and lambast anyone who says we need government.
Though to show how we agree a little, I think there should be a "revolution" every so often, that the social contract needs to be remade with every generation.
Also, please explain again how having a third party insurance company is going to get companies to reduce their pollution. Why should a company follow the rules, when there's nothing forcing them to? Boycotts work great in a lot of area's, but no so great when it comes down to food and water.
Lastly, what an area that an insurance company manages? Up to the consumers, or a strict locality? If it's up the consumers, then we'd end up with something just like the federal government, by another name. If if it's a small strict locality, then you have problems actually guaranteeing the quality in question here; and also begs the question of who says that a company can't be larger.
-
So what happens when I have kids? I'm enslaving my kids by having kids, because they'll grow up in a world where there's one insurance company, whom they have to go through, and whom they have no way of controlling it, becuase there's no competition. And if there is competition, that makes the market-place even more complicated, as companies wouldn't know which rules to follow, or what their liabilities are, making the entire thing worse. Also, how does the insurance c company come to an agreement on the issues? If one person doesn't want said chemical, does that mean said chemical can't be used? Does it require majority opinion? Well, again, you're talking about a democracy. The problem is, you propose something which would function exactly like a government, in every way, but you want to call it something different, and lambast anyone who says we need government.
Though to show how we agree a little, I think there should be a "revolution" every so often, that the social contract needs to be remade with every generation.
Also, please explain again how having a third party insurance company is going to get companies to reduce their pollution. Why should a company follow the rules, when there's nothing forcing them to? Boycotts work great in a lot of area's, but no so great when it comes down to food and water.
Lastly, what an area that an insurance company manages? Up to the consumers, or a strict locality? If it's up the consumers, then we'd end up with something just like the federal government, by another name. If if it's a small strict locality, then you have problems actually guaranteeing the quality in question here; and also begs the question of who says that a company can't be larger.
Why would there be only 1 insurance company. There would likely be many, that's the point of markets, the poly-centric nature ensures competition continually tries new approaches to find what is best in a dynamic situation. The governmental mono-centric one-size-fits-all approach is very slow to react and try new things to improve. The scope the insurance companies coverage would be as small or as large as it needed to be. Border's are irrational in the market system, since you are contracting with people directly, no matter where they are, it ensures they play by the same rules. If you don't want a particular chemical in your local environment, but another company really wanted to use it. It doesn't have to be a black-and-white ultimatum where one of you wins out at the others expense, it would go to arbitration to work out a solution and may very well be a win-win. Perhaps the company will use special filtration or post-processing to eliminate the chemical, or people's homes or utilities are fitted with addditional mechanisms to prevent contamination. There are lots of ways, but the point is, common ground can be found.
-
Thought it would be appropriate to post this here: https://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/18/us/politics/obama-tax-plan-would-ask-more-of-millionaires.html
He's calling it the "Buffet Plan."
-
Thought it would be appropriate to post this here: https://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/18/us/politics/obama-tax-plan-would-ask-more-of-millionaires.html
He's calling it the "Buffet Plan."
Why on earth would you post this and bring us back on topic :D
-
bring us back on topic
-
So what happens when I have kids? I'm enslaving my kids by having kids, because they'll grow up in a world where there's one insurance company, whom they have to go through, and whom they have no way of controlling it, becuase there's no competition. And if there is competition, that makes the market-place even more complicated, as companies wouldn't know which rules to follow, or what their liabilities are, making the entire thing worse. Also, how does the insurance c company come to an agreement on the issues? If one person doesn't want said chemical, does that mean said chemical can't be used? Does it require majority opinion? Well, again, you're talking about a democracy. The problem is, you propose something which would function exactly like a government, in every way, but you want to call it something different, and lambast anyone who says we need government.
Though to show how we agree a little, I think there should be a "revolution" every so often, that the social contract needs to be remade with every generation.
Also, please explain again how having a third party insurance company is going to get companies to reduce their pollution. Why should a company follow the rules, when there's nothing forcing them to? Boycotts work great in a lot of area's, but no so great when it comes down to food and water.
Lastly, what an area that an insurance company manages? Up to the consumers, or a strict locality? If it's up the consumers, then we'd end up with something just like the federal government, by another name. If if it's a small strict locality, then you have problems actually guaranteeing the quality in question here; and also begs the question of who says that a company can't be larger.
Why would there be only 1 insurance company. There would likely be many, that's the point of markets, the poly-centric nature ensures competition continually tries new approaches to find what is best in a dynamic situation. The governmental mono-centric one-size-fits-all approach is very slow to react and try new things to improve. The scope the insurance companies coverage would be as small or as large as it needed to be. Border's are irrational in the market system, since you are contracting with people directly, no matter where they are, it ensures they play by the same rules. If you don't want a particular chemical in your local environment, but another company really wanted to use it. It doesn't have to be a black-and-white ultimatum where one of you wins out at the others expense, it would go to arbitration to work out a solution and may very well be a win-win. Perhaps the company will use special filtration or post-processing to eliminate the chemical, or people's homes or utilities are fitted with additional mechanisms to prevent contamination. There are lots of ways, but the point is, common ground can be found.
Because if there's more than one insurance company, it creates uncertainty and havoc in the market place in the relevant situation's Was it this, or the other thread, where the Articles of Confederation came up? By having more of a uniform policy, businesses and investors are able to know what they're getting their hands into. In your world, they won't really know what the rules are, and this will cause problems, uncertainty and a whole bunch of other things which make it unclear what the rules of the road are. This, along with basic human nature, market competition, and time eventually producing winners and lowers, a monopoly would eventually form.
What about infrastructure? There's limited space for things like telephone wires, roads, etc; a true market-place for this kind of thing would lead to absurd inefficiency in the system; there would either be too many roads, or no competition. The government is good when there won't be competition, because in a democratic governement, the people still have a voice - where as in a "market" system, you end up with someone who might as well be a monarch.
Also, arbitration? You do realize that's a legal term, meaning you're relying upon a government and a judicial system to enforce it. In your world, I see no reason at all to see why a company is held to someone elses demands unless they want to. If you force them into arbitration, then we're back to where you don't think we should be forcing them into said arbitration. If my investors and my market is half way across the world, then why should I listen to the local population as to what they want? The only way around this problem is to allow governance, your "HOA," which enforce such a process, and allow for something like what you're talking about to be possible. Regulations are then the rules and the common ground that get's agreed upon, which can end up in litigation and arbitration, and where people can find just compensation. It's a system they pay into and agree upon by where they live, and in a free society, you're allowed to leave.
The common ground that is eventually formed is a government, and you can call it by whatever name you want.
I'm done, the implications of what you say end up in government, and would mature into something you don't like, yet you don't like government. You've ignored so many of my arguments, that's it's rather frustrating.
-
I'm just saying, if the ingredients are of such high quality, the preparation is such high quality, and the food in general is good stuff, how can it be that McDonald's is so unhealthy? Basically, the food is cheap and consequently is cheaply made. No state of the art ingredients are going to change that.
I'm going to pm you with more information so the topic doesnt get derailed.
-
Sheavo, Like Nigereus, we'll continue this conversation by PM.
-
bring us back on topic
Sir, yes, sir!
Looks like Obama is going to bring in the "Buffet Rule" (thats how its being reported in my newspapers).
The way I see it, it will be some kind of targetted new tax on investment earnings that are drawn as income but taxed at CGT rates; aiming to bring the marginal tax rate investors who derive more of the income from capital to regular income earners. Ofcourse, this will go down super well in congress, and will likely end up being more of a political chess piece in the election.
People's thoughts?
-
Sheavo, Like Nigereus, we'll continue this conversation by PM.
Or, you could create a new topic :)