Link
That's a thread from DemocraticUnderground.com, a website for members of the American leftist party (the Democratic Party)
The few reasonable posts in that thread are probably spies from FreeRepublic.com (an American right-wing site) who have somehow managed to reach a high post-count; I have no idea how considering you get banned if you say anything too pro-market.
Don't allow leftists to play games with definitions! Some of the libertarian-leaning leftists at this forum will try to redefine "left-wing" back to its original defition (Third Estate, limited government, free-markets, laissez-faire reforms, etc.). Fine! We non-leftists can't stop them from using their own personal definitions; they can use whatever labels they want to describe any concept they want.However, they have the audacity to then use their personal definition of "left-wing" (remember, the original definition, which is no longer valid) to prove that modern leftists are more libertarian than modern rightists! They will say that libertarianism is "inherently leftist" (again, using the original, no longer valid definition), and use that to insist that we should prefer and side with modern leftists over modern rightists.
Question their motives.
John, that's an amusing point, and similar to what Nozick says in ASU as well - he mentions that some people prefer leisure over work, and thus derive psychic profit therefrom. If it is alright to tax income, beyond the "necessary" level needed to survive, then it should also be alright to tax psychic income, lest one greedily acquires too much of it.
-Jon
I cannot be caged. I cannot be controlled. Understand this as you die, ever pathetic, ever fools.
Irenicus' Diaries.
Jon Irenicus: If it is alright to tax income, beyond the "necessary" level needed to survive, then it should also be alright to tax psychic income, lest one greedily acquires too much of it.
If it is alright to tax income, beyond the "necessary" level needed to survive, then it should also be alright to tax psychic income, lest one greedily acquires too much of it.
Do we really need to give them ideas to generate more tax revenue through even more invasive means than the income tax?
Thankfully, for now, we are protected by the ban on direct taxation in the Constitution from a "psychic tax". Besides, this would be very difficult to quantify. Would we tax someone based on the amount of time they spend not working?
History teaches us that fines have been used to protect against unneccesary leisure, particularly by the Massachussetts Bay Colony in the 17th Century. In that case, the idea was to make sure that sufficient goods were produced by people that didn't have the proper incentives based on property ownership. Now, there is not enough money to fund the government leviathan because of inflation. I guess you're right, we will need to be on the lookout for this "new" intrusion into our liberties and freedom.
wuzacon:Thankfully, for now, we are protected by the ban on direct taxation in the Constitution from a "psychic tax".
LOL!
A-R: There is something as too much profit: any profit derived from state privilege, or through coercive means in general.
A-R: I'm usually sympathetic to socialist claimst made in ignorance that "greedy" corporations are making too much. Often it's true, given that we have nothing resembling a free market in reality. In a fixed context of a controlled market economy, it's perfectly reasonable to think that regulations, etc would be necessary to reign in these corporations.
commodities
If you think in a different state, it could be considered Interstate Commerce LOL!
Democracy is nothing more than replacing bullets with ballots
If Pro is the opposite of Con. What is the opposite of Progress?
Brainpolice: CopperHead: I have no problem with the right/left political spectrum. As far as Im concerned the more you move towards statism the more you've moved to the left. And when I hear the word "leftist" I think of folks like Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, and Castro. So I think Ego using "leftist" as a pejorative is spot on. From this nonsensical premise, it would logically follow that anarchism = "the far right". Which is absurd.
CopperHead: I have no problem with the right/left political spectrum. As far as Im concerned the more you move towards statism the more you've moved to the left. And when I hear the word "leftist" I think of folks like Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, and Castro. So I think Ego using "leftist" as a pejorative is spot on.
I have no problem with the right/left political spectrum. As far as Im concerned the more you move towards statism the more you've moved to the left. And when I hear the word "leftist" I think of folks like Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, and Castro. So I think Ego using "leftist" as a pejorative is spot on.
From this nonsensical premise, it would logically follow that anarchism = "the far right". Which is absurd.
Well yeah if as I said moving to the left meant increasing statism than it would naturally follow that anarchism="the far right" and just what is the problem with that? Do note of course that the terms left and right can easily be alternated however on would see fit. The important thing is that one end represents totalitarianism and the other "anarchy'. If you wish to call the end that represents anarchy the far left thats fine with me but it does not change the premise of the spectrum.
CopperHead: Brainpolice: CopperHead: I have no problem with the right/left political spectrum. As far as Im concerned the more you move towards statism the more you've moved to the left. And when I hear the word "leftist" I think of folks like Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, and Castro. So I think Ego using "leftist" as a pejorative is spot on. From this nonsensical premise, it would logically follow that anarchism = "the far right". Which is absurd. Well yeah if as I said moving to the left meant increasing statism than it would naturally follow that anarchism="the far right" and just what is the problem with that? Do note of course that the terms left and right can easily be alternated however on would see fit. The important thing is that one end represents totalitarianism and the other "anarchy'. If you wish to call the end that represents anarchy the far left thats fine with me but it does not change the premise of the spectrum.
The problem is that if you apply such a spectrum to contemporary politics involving the self-proclaimed and commonly identified "left" and "right", it is entirely disingenous or misleading, as "the right" most certainly are not a bunch of anarchists and "the left" is not entirely made up of statists. I'd prefer to treat a genuine axis measuring political power as up and down rather than "left" and "right", so that people are not confused into applying it inaccurately to modern conceptions of "left" and "right".
Brainpolice: The problem is that if you apply such a spectrum to contemporary politics involving the self-proclaimed and commonly identified "left" and "right", it is entirely disingenous or misleading, as "the right" most certainly are not a bunch of anarchists and "the left" is not entirely made up of statists. I'd prefer to treat a genuine axis measuring political power as up and down rather than "left" and "right", so that people are not confused into applying it inaccurately to modern conceptions of "left" and "right".
Well theres no doubt about its being confusing. I mean I have no clue how people like William Gladstone and Vladimir Lenin are both considered "leftists" or how Neville Chamberlain and Benito Mussolini are both "rightists". But that is the perception by most people and I suppose that does make having a left/right scale that is universally understood pretty damn impractical. Still thought all the other political scales I have seen haven't been much better.
A-R: There is something as too much profit: any profit derived from state privilege, or through coercive means in general. I'm usually sympathetic to socialist claimst made in ignorance that "greedy" corporations are making too much. Often it's true, given that we have nothing resembling a free market in reality. In a fixed context of a controlled market economy, it's perfectly reasonable to think that regulations, etc would be necessary to reign in these corporations. These people just have no clue about the free market alternative. But, if you start from a common base, then it's alot easier to make some progress with them.
There is something as too much profit: any profit derived from state privilege, or through coercive means in general.
I'm usually sympathetic to socialist claimst made in ignorance that "greedy" corporations are making too much. Often it's true, given that we have nothing resembling a free market in reality. In a fixed context of a controlled market economy, it's perfectly reasonable to think that regulations, etc would be necessary to reign in these corporations.
These people just have no clue about the free market alternative. But, if you start from a common base, then it's alot easier to make some progress with them.
This is a very good point, I was assuming we were talking about profits made completely on the free market. Thanks for the correction, and I totaly agree. Like I said I was speaking in terms of real, non coerced free market profits. Something we do not have today in this country. Many businesess do get privledge and special treatment from government and this is unfair profit.
Too much profit depends on circumstances. Ethiopia had a (maybe still has) a tax of 90% on all income over $67 and a 10% tax on income under $67. Therefore earning $68 would be "too much profit". But the real problem there is taxes and not income.
Someone who suddenly makes money, but is not prepared for having money and what to do with it when you have it can likely have "too much profit". I know someone who came from a poor background who got a good job on Wall Street years ago and then suddenly everyone from her past like old friends, neighbors and relatives suddenly decided to come visit her. People who normally would never ask for money started asking her for loans to start a business or some other venture and she decided she made too much money and quit her job and also quit many of her friends and family. But the fault here is not profit itself but the carrying capacity of good and money that all individuals have (even if they do not realise it).
How much profit is too much for someone who honestly earns it? I, and no one else is at liberty to decide for them.
http://www.comebackalive.com/phpBB2 Travel, Adventure Travel, Arguments, Recipes.
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap