General

Re: Do you think the Democrats' goal is to get as many people on welfare as possible?

Minarchist — Sun, 13 Jan 2013 08:03:37 GMT

As many as possible? No. A large number? Obviously. The welfare-state in the US wasn't created in a fit of absentmindedness.

They know what they're doing.

Re: Do you think the Democrats' goal is to get as many people on welfare as possible?

NonAntiAnarchist — Sat, 12 Jan 2013 05:10:20 GMT

130>120

Re: Do you think the Democrats' goal is to get as many people on welfare as possible?

Malachi — Sat, 12 Jan 2013 05:06:44 GMT

120>110

Re: Do you think the Democrats' goal is to get as many people on welfare as possible?

cab21 — Sat, 12 Jan 2013 04:26:26 GMT

100-10=90

90+20=110

110>100

Re: Do you think the Democrats' goal is to get as many people on welfare as possible?

Malachi — Fri, 11 Jan 2013 23:22:01 GMT

You dont get to keep my video, silly!

someone could end up with more wealth if the wealth is donated, traded, or stolen, depending on circumstances. traded and donated will be more, but it does not mean by neccicity that stolen wealth cannot make a person more wealthy.

what are you talking about?

Re: Do you think the Democrats' goal is to get as many people on welfare as possible?

cab21 — Fri, 11 Jan 2013 23:03:35 GMT

if i sell that video and make products and end up with more wealth than before, sure i feel more wealthy, because i would be. if more people are able to do more business with me because of it, sure that can make me more wealthy.

someone could end up with more wealth if the wealth is donated, traded, or stolen, depending on circumstances. traded and donated will be more, but it does not mean by neccicity that stolen wealth cannot make a person more wealthy.

Re: Do you think the Democrats' goal is to get as many people on welfare as possible?

Malachi — Fri, 11 Jan 2013 21:14:56 GMT

Say I robbed you of half your net worth. Has your wealth increased or decreased? What if I spend the money on a nice motorcycle and let you watch me video of me riding it around? Now do you feel wealthier?

Re: Do you think the Democrats' goal is to get as many people on welfare as possible?

cab21 — Fri, 11 Jan 2013 05:03:52 GMT

say government takes 50% of profits, how could the government then do something that could not be done in the private sector?

Re: Do you think the Democrats' goal is to get as many people on welfare as possible?

Malachi — Wed, 09 Jan 2013 23:28:46 GMT

I'm pretty sure you have devolved into trolling me. Let me know when you want to discuss this issue seriously.

Re: Do you think the Democrats' goal is to get as many people on welfare as possible?

cab21 — Wed, 09 Jan 2013 06:58:34 GMT

governments don't build roads that noone voted for , so i don't think people that vote for a tax for roads counts as a person being stolen from when they voted for it. it's only the people who don't want to be part of the system that are stolen from, those that would not tax.

a lot of people use roads made before they were born or before they moved into the area, so no chance to make a road before it is made.

government taxes still leave plenty for people to build roads, people have enough to run business that use public roads, so i assume they would have enough to build the road itself. lack of space for new roads is not solved by private roads, as there is still limited space and natural monopoly and a area can only have so much going on at one time.

private roads representing more wealth does not mean public roads represent no wealth. don't think i said government was not superfluous, just that it was more than zero wealth.

Re: Do you think the Democrats' goal is to get as many people on welfare as possible?

Malachi — Wed, 09 Jan 2013 02:10:23 GMT

if more people use public resources, would that not mean that more people subjectivly value them more than living without connection to them?

no, because they werent given an option to live in a world where their money wasnt taken from them to build things, like monopoly roads. Youre ignoring that which is not seen. The truth is that if they preferred to have the road, they wouldnt have needed to be taxed to provide is as they would have contracted to build it earlier.

sure wealth can be subjective, but it's more objective that a lot of business goes on with the usage of public roads

what other option do they have? Of course they use the roads, there arent many other ways to get around because, guess what, govt steals money and builds roads.

and would go on with the usage of those roads should those roads have been private or should they become private. roads would be made privately if not made publicly, so roads are seen as value by many that use roads with or without government.

those roads wold surely take a different form and represent more wealth because they would more accurately reflect the values of those individuals who funded their construction

sure, people want people to volunteer to pay for stuff people like. these things would still be built without government, and no need to call for the government to tax to build them.

so you concede that govt is superfluous?

Re: Do you think the Democrats' goal is to get as many people on welfare as possible?

cab21 — Tue, 08 Jan 2013 03:51:03 GMT

how many people don't use public resources? if more people use public resources, would that not mean that more people subjectivly value them more than living without connection to them? if all public resources were privitised, would people reject these now private resources in favor of resources that have never touched public funds?

sure wealth can be subjective, but it's more objective that a lot of business goes on with the usage of public roads, and would go on with the usage of those roads should those roads have been private or should they become private.

roads would be made privately if not made publicly, so roads are seen as value by many that use roads with or without government.

sure, people want people to volunteer to pay for stuff people like. these things would still be built without government, and no need to call for the government to tax to build them.

Re: Do you think the Democrats' goal is to get as many people on welfare as possible?

Malachi — Tue, 08 Jan 2013 03:31:01 GMT

Obviously wealth refers to subjective valuations. Coercive acts deprive an individual of wealth, whereas catallactic acts result in net increase of wealth, as viewed by the individuals who trade. You can invent another "measure" of "wealth" but youre really just saying you want other people to pay for stuff that you value.

Re: Do you think the Democrats' goal is to get as many people on welfare as possible?

cab21 — Tue, 08 Jan 2013 02:22:51 GMT

so by what method of transportation do you get the material goods that you find valuable? is it just through private transportation. we are using the internet, that's not something that has been created only through private methods.

one way to measure wealth could be access to food, cities have more access to food usally than people living in cabins in alaska who farm and hunt . stories donate all sorts of food to people in cities and there are shortages in alaska wild.

Re: Do you think the Democrats' goal is to get as many people on welfare as possible?

Malachi — Tue, 08 Jan 2013 01:09:53 GMT

wealth, assets , resources, human and material capital, access. one way to measure is interstate 5 and it's traffic and trade volume volume vs some nature trail and it's volume of trade. there is more wealth interacting on interstate 5 than a bike trail for instance.

well I dont consider a traffic jam on the interstate to be wealth. Using your definition of wealrh its easy to posit that s tyrannical government could spur massive increases in wealth, Darth Cheney could send his legions to mandate that everyone build catapults and launch rocks east, trillions of tons of rocks, all over the world, hurtling through the air, its so much wealth, can you even imagine?

I would rather bike to work on a nature trail than risk my life at 70 mph in a 2 ton missile surrounded by other multi-ton missiles. So I guess I am saying I dont care if a tyrant can make a bunch of useless "wealth" I want quality of life. I would even have went with material goods, but traffic? Lol ok go have your tyrant, see how much traffic you get when theres a curfew.

plants nor animals benefit from the wealth people force them to create for them. i was saying a farmer can gain wealth by killing his animal and trading it, it is wealth generated by a mix of the animal and the farmer.

does he gain if I kill his animal and steal it, and fix him some rib tips a few years later? Or would that be a loss of wealth?

government does not prohibit children from starting their own households. there can always be a black market for this.

You sound awfully confused on either "government," "black market," or both.

i think parts of government have stemmed from parenting practices and heiarchy, i doubt government happens independantly of family. bigger government happend after family government. having the 21 and over males be the only one to vote must have stemmed from families where head's of household were 21 and over males and that family governing was taken to town and society governing. in places like the church i know i have seen heiarchies where children are supposed to be the lowest and obey whatever the father says, and older males have church governing power. so depends on what it means by the government, as families, churches, tribes, and whatnot have created definitions where some are to govern the lives of others and others are to submit to those that give themselves the power to govern.

thanks for your idle speculations.