I tried posting a few things on democrats.com and I kept getting some insane responses from some Jim guy. Take a look, its pretty amusing.
http://www.democrats.com/2-economy-questions-are-too-many-for-the-mba-president
http://www.democrats.com/node/17213
http://www.democrats.com/node/15425
He seems to advocate a wealth/property based tax which is considered by most economist the be the most rational tax. I disagree with most of the other stuff he says, but he is correct on that point. The governments main job is defense of wealth, and the most accurate way to asses that is through a direct tax of wealth.
NateS: The governments main job is defense of wealth
The governments main job is defense of wealth
Say what?!
As far as reality is concerned, the government's main job is to steal wealth through taxation. Somehow I don't remember asking my government for wealth protection, and last time we were robbed the police did a terrible job...
As for the Jim guy, I stopped reading at "Force U.S. manufacturers". Any guy that supports coercion is evil in my books, and I care not for their argument as coercion is immoral.
If you try to trick the market, it will get its revenge.
Solreyus
Meh, Deomcracy is the worst form of government except for the rest. It's hard to have property rights and in turn free markets without some kind of authority.
NateS: Meh, Deomcracy is the worst form of government except for the rest.
Meh, Deomcracy is the worst form of government except for the rest.
Which is why I'm an anarchist. Governments don't work, period.
NateS: It's hard to have property rights and in turn free markets without some kind of authority.
It's hard to have property rights and in turn free markets without some kind of authority.
Why is that? Do you have some sort of argument? because from where I'm sitting you're making empty assertions.
Property rights stem from self-ownership, and the very existence of governments is a contradiction of self-ownership (any forms of taxation). You see, taxation is by definition involuntary (else it would be donation) and thus, being a coercive mechanism, is in direct contradiction with any universal ethical system of property rights. It is not only the most direct threat to property rights imaginable, but it is also immorable, all the more so because it is regarded by most as moral!
If you were really concerned about property rights, you wouldn't be arguing for government, or violent authorities.
Well, that anarchy idea didn't work to well when you got robbed. Is something really yours if you can't protect it?
NateS: Well, that anarchy idea didn't work to well when you got robbed. Is something really yours if you can't protect it?
Huh? Clearly I didn't have a competent restitution agency working for me because the government has a monopoly on the police force/courts/"justice", and outlaws any real competition in the sector. You tried to argue against anarchy and freedom of competition, but that argument just boomeranged right back at you :)
Edit: Btw, when the cops came around, they invited a "specialist" to take off fingerprints. They went around the whole house, putting some sort of white powder everywhere, which was supposed to show up fingerprints. After 30 minutes of work, she declared there were none to be seen, and left. After a careful inspection, I saw 100s of full fingerprints all over the place. The corruption and laziness that is happening today is purely a result of the coercive government monopoly. No government agency would survive in a free market.
What kind of strawman is that?
It's not like he is banned from concealing a weapon or anything like that by the government in order to protect himself.
Oh and by the way, the government has something called taxes (you may have heard of them). I think there may even be a special tax on security cameras and the like, because they cost a fortune in Belgium, and were way more expensive than what was stolen.
It's like the silencer tax for guns in America. Thousands of people lose hearing every year because there's a flat 200 dollar tax on silencers (last I heard anyway).
Ohh, we are talking about the laws of Belgium? As far as I know you are allowed weapons in my country, and most wealthy people have their own security. Despite this, people are still robbed on a daily basis. If anarchy worked so well, why is every country in Anarchy the poorest in the world?
NateS:As far as I know you are allowed weapons in my country, and most wealthy people have their own security. Despite this, people are still robbed on a daily basis.
So you live in an anarchist country then?
The fact that people get robbed on a daily basis under a non-anarchist system really doesn't say anything about robbery statistics under an anarchist system.
NateS:If anarchy worked so well, why is every country in Anarchy the poorest in the world?
Oh, yeah?
Which anarchist countries? 'Every country' would seem to suggest that there are a bunch.
Anonymous Coward: NateS:As far as I know you are allowed weapons in my country, and most wealthy people have their own security. Despite this, people are still robbed on a daily basis. So you live in an anarchist country then? The fact that people get robbed on a daily basis under a non-anarchist system really doesn't say anything about robbery statistics under an anarchist system. NateS:If anarchy worked so well, why is every country in Anarchy the poorest in the world? Oh, yeah? Which anarchist countries? 'Every country' would seem to suggest that there are a bunch.
He's probably going to whip out Somalia as a "good" example, ignoring that Somalia's anarchy is mostly clan based. Praying on the fears of things outside of your control (i.e. if a person suddenlly decides to rob you, the only thing you really have control over is defending yourself) is not an honest way to argue against anarchism, or libertarianism, for that matter.
WARNING: This signature violates Rule 5. Stay classy!
How could we have competition in the justice and legal system? I am all for free markets, but I dont see how a judical system that is competing for dollars could be fair and impartial.
rixross:How could we have competition in the justice and legal system? I am all for free markets, but I dont see how a judical system that is competing for dollars could be fair and impartial.
Would you pay for an unfair and partial judicial system?
Anonymous Coward: rixross:How could we have competition in the justice and legal system? I am all for free markets, but I dont see how a judical system that is competing for dollars could be fair and impartial. Would you pay for an unfair and partial judicial system?
Baaziiing! :P
Regarding Somalia, for an anarchist society to actually work, the people involved have to want anarchy. In somalia, almost nobody really wants anarchy, the various warring factions all want to reassert control of their own version of a government, so all it is, is clans competing for a monopoly on coercion. Plus, the justice system there is very unlibertarian, mainly based on theocracy iirc, and the courts are sponsored by religious/statist organisations outside the country too.
What happens if two parties involved in a dispute won't reach a consensus on which judge to choose?
NateS:Well, that anarchy idea didn't work to well when you got robbed. Is something really yours if you can't protect it?
Apparently that state idea didn't work too well for him either did it? But the state was charging protection money anyway.
The poorest places in the world are actually the ones with the lowest freedom index. ("Economic Freedom of the World" published by Fraser Institute)
In the case of Somalia, western states (including the U.S.) have actually financed and enticed its destruction with bounties, mercenaries and direct military assaults. However, I recall reading a GDP growth report that showed its fastest growth beginning a few years after the initial revolution and ending after the new government formed.
Sphairon: What happens if two parties involved in a dispute won't reach a consensus on which judge to choose?
That situation may be one in which the court of public opinion could come into play. Perhaps both sides could publicize their cases to the relevant communities and advocate boycott.
It should also be remembered that the parties involved would have to pay for their stubborness, as other people would be hesitant to interact or do business with someone who refuses to see the arbitration process to its end.
I think that these concerns would provide incentive (for people who value interaction with other people) to resolve their disputes. There would always be consequences for being an a**hole :)
Stolz2525: NateS:Well, that anarchy idea didn't work to well when you got robbed. Is something really yours if you can't protect it? Apparently that state idea didn't work too well for him either did it? But the state was charging protection money anyway.
The state, like the mafia, was charging me for protection from itself, not other criminals. Have no illusions :)
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