20 Jul 08
Originally posted by WajomaBreaking news : Taxes discourage trade !!
Here's an example of how taxation discourages voluntary co-operation.
There are two farmers, Fred and Trev, they have neighbouring properties. They decide to plant different crops that require harvesting at different times so that each can help the other out. It's all going well, a mutual trade that is mutually beneficial. Then one day Fred gets a visit f ...[text shortened]... l beneficence simply don't take place because gummint punishes people for doing that.
Really, who in the world doesn't know that. However, you seem to be forgetting that the governement needs a way to have an income. Now tell me, how are they going to do that without taxes ?
20 Jul 08
Originally posted by BartsIf all taxes are eliminated we(all good Socialists/commies) will give voluntarily. Very simple. We don'i need the gov't to rip it out of our hands with mandatory taxes. You know nothing. Tee He!
Breaking news : Taxes discourage trade !!
Really, who in the world doesn't know that. However, you seem to be forgetting that the governement needs a way to have an income. Now tell me, how are they going to do that without taxes ?
GRANNY.
20 Jul 08
Originally posted by BartsThat's because you are most likely NOT a Socialist. But if you are why not just buck up to help your fellow man. I'm inclined towards Socialism and i would most likely give the gov't .....ahhhh.....hmmmm.... let me think on that. I'll give you may answer in the morning.
Except we won't.
GRANNY.
21 Jul 08
Originally posted by zeeblebotgoogle australia and see how a "socialist" agenda works in a more real world pragmatic context that does not ignore or deny the power of laissez faire capitalism. What it does instead is recognize its integral and enduring appeal, and then goes about systematically taming it and filing its beastly claws, to make it safe for human consumption.
unfortunately, having put their names on a petition for better farm reform, Kev and Robbo were never seen again.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/11/world/asia/11china.html?ref=todayspaper
Voice Seeking Answers for Parents About a School Collapse Is Silenced
21 Jul 08
Originally posted by BartsCheers for the honesty Barts, there are people that don't know it and there are others that need reminding.
Breaking news : Taxes discourage trade !!
Really, who in the world doesn't know that. However, you seem to be forgetting that the governement needs a way to have an income. Now tell me, how are they going to do that without taxes ?
We've even had one lunatic claiming that raising prices increases trade.
21 Jul 08
Originally posted by WajomaYou're answering the question you posed me, and I didn't give you the same answer.
Shav you can understand the exasperation can't you, my mistake was to ask for a straight answer from you. So here is the straight question with the straight answer, and following that an explanation.
[b]"Would you agree that increased prices discourage trading?"
Yes
When two parties trade generally they both profit from the transaction, ot ...[text shortened]... me down to necessity, and this comment by shav reveals something about his philosophy.[/b]
You're coming away with a theory I can't seem to back up with examples. More to the point, you aren't debunking the examples I came up with.
It would seem your theory is a priori and totally baseless.
21 Jul 08
1 edit
Originally posted by WajomaThanks for the compliment, but could you also reply to the second part of the post you quoted. It's where I am excpecting honesty from you.
Cheers for the honesty Barts, there are people that don't know it and there are others that need reminding.
We've even had one lunatic claiming that raising prices increases trade.
21 Jul 08
2 edits
Originally posted by Wajomathe sound of silence bump.
He raises the line, and every fraction of a percent that the line is raised a few more people are dissauded from trading. It may be the two farmers helping each other out, it may be a Sunday drive, a pint in the pub, in almost every aspect of our lives we are being dissauded from the voluntary trade of value for value, we are being dissauded from co-operating with each other.
Btw in this whole credit squeeze who of the two trading philosophies is doing better.
The higher taxing more heavily regulated EU, or the regulation averse free wheeling USA???
EDIT: By the BTW: the core of your libertarianism comes across as an incredibly negative view on life. People stop playing fair by your description and you spit chips pick your ball up and go home.
You recognize a set of inherent rights that you defend by a set of criteria that is not universally held or believed and if anyone suggests that other sets of criteria could also equally hold, your only response is no they don't. So you support the idea of governance and the idea of taxation as long as it only protects a series of rights that you consider to be valid natural rights. The right to be free of violence which essentially you interpret as your property rights. Everything else you reckon is no one else's business especially not governments, and you dismiss any attempt to link the lack of rights to the disproportionate ownership of property or that force is not always physical.
The notion that complex systems like world scale economies should be allowed to shake themselves down and regulate themselves and if people get squeezed then thats all part of the cycle, is not only irresponsible, it constitutes culpable behavior. For you if someone designs something that could kill a person, thats okay because the market would ensure that in the long run they would be driven out of business, is about the most absurd insane proposition as to how anyone could think of running a civil society. If wanting a government that taxes its citizens so that certain benchmarks of safety and standards of due diligence are applied in the creation of public works and structures that constitute public space, means that I am some God bothering control freak, then hallelujah praise the lord and I hope someday you are saved!
22 Jul 08
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterIt will be solved faster if the govt regulates and influences the incentives -- which is needed given the urgent crisis of global warming. Carter called for alternative energy sources during his presidency (Republican presidents Eisenhower, Nixon and Ford weren't opposed to this idea) but Reagan tossed all that aside with his BS.
The co-founder of PayPal says that within the next four years, he hopes to produce a practical, $30,000, all-electric car. Aside from some engineering problems (only gets 200 miles to the battery), this looks very promising. Even better, the government wasn't involved in the car's development.
Debate: Why do we need governments to regulate ou ...[text shortened]... olving this issue?
EDIT: Here's the link to the story:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/145876
In some cases, it's better for the govt to remove current regulations, such as taxes and tariffs on ethanol trade with Brazil.
22 Jul 08
Originally posted by kmax87I would turn it around, Libertarianism is the positive view. Libertarians give people the credit to run their own lives, you can't seem to go a week without thinking up some reason why people should not have sovereignty over their own lives, that you have some superior vision and that that vision should be forced on to those not ohhhhh soooo enlightened as you.
the sound of silence bump.
Btw in this whole credit squeeze who of the two trading philosophies is doing better.
The higher taxing more heavily regulated EU, or the regulation averse free wheeling USA???
EDIT: By the BTW: the core of your libertarianism comes across as an incredibly negative view on life. People stop playing fair by your description ...[text shortened]... God bothering control freak, then hallelujah praise the lord and I hope someday you are saved!
The positive libertarian view - Your life belongs to you.
kmax view - humans are essentially helpless and cannot be trusted to set their own values or to act charitably towards their fellow man. They need to be pushed, prodded and moulded by the superior visionists (of which kmax see's himself).
Then we have a statement from kmax of the 'eye scorchingly obvious' variety. Thanks for reminding us that the concept that man has a right to life free from force, threats of force and fraud is not 'universally held or believed'. Yeah cheers for that. News of the mind numblingly obvious for kmax - neither are your views 'universally held or believed'.
"The right to be free of violence which essentially you interpret as your property rights."
The right to property is an extension of the right to life. In order to support yourself through reason, you must be able to own and use the product of your labor. If the means of your survival are subject to random confiscation by a dictator or mob of dictators (ones as bad as the other), then your life is subject to random destruction.
"...disproportionate ownership..."
Yes, you're correct, I don't give a hoot how much rightfully acquired property another human being manages to amass, I'm not driven into fits of envy. Go ahead and give us the magic formula of how much is too much and how you arrived at that formula.
Privatise the safety standards board, those that wish to purchase a safety standards board approved product are free to do so, those that don't - caveat emptor. It's a completely off topic and has been dealt with before, we have organisations like the FDA holding up drugs and enforcing an incredibly expensive testing regime, the drug finally gets released and the FDA puffs it's chest and says 'look at all the lives that will be saved' never mind the lives lost and suffering endured by years of the drug being in their system. Never mind that the cost of getting a drug through the FDA is a deterrent to even investing in the development of new drugs.
22 Jul 08
Originally posted by BartsIt won't happen in our life time Barts, but it will happen one day because it is right and we have to believe that what is right will win out in the end. In the mean time it is a direction we need to start heading in, starting with a massive reduction in guvamint down to it's core responsibilities - police, justice, defence - only. People need to get used to the idea that guvamint is not a tool to bludgeon their fellow man with their own particular values.
Except that won't happen. If your counting on voluntary contributions to the governement, you can say bye-bye to your emergency services, police force, army, judical system, road network and whatever else governement provides.
22 Jul 08
Originally posted by WajomaI'm wondering why you aren't trying to argue that it is possible to provide these services with voluntairy contributions. Maybe you know that certainly that part of your philosophy warrants the line "great theory, wrong species".
It won't happen in our life time Barts, but it will happen one day because it is right and we have to believe that what is right will win out in the end. In the mean time it is a direction we need to start heading in, starting with a massive reduction in guvamint down to it's core responsibilities - police, justice, defence - only. People need to get used ...[text shortened]... dea that guvamint is not a tool to bludgeon their fellow man with their own particular values.
As for reducing governement to it's core responsibilities, I don't wholy agree, but that would be a discussion where our viewpoints are too far apart to ever come to an agreement. I would, however want to discuss the importance of certain services you seem to think the governement should need to stay away from, a first example being safety boards (as in your reply to Kmax.) Unfortunatly, I'm leaving on a holiday in a couple of hours, so if you'd want to discuss these things with me, we'll have to postpone it for a week and a half.