Silk Road forums
Discussion => Off topic => Topic started by: kmfkewm on March 06, 2012, 08:31 pm
-
Of course it has ambiguity involved
-
Suggest: option for Pirate.
Predict: Pirate wins by 30% + . . . Yarr :)
-
I don't but my personal beliefs are probably closest to Anarchist/Socialism or Libertarian Socialism
-
I don't but my personal beliefs are probably closest to Anarchist/Socialism or Libertarian Socialism
Same
-
I lean closer to anarcho-capitalism. I believe the market is one of the most basic and pure non-physical forces (capitalism) and I believe that no man should have dominion over another man under any circumstances (anarchy, or at least my interpretation of it).
-
anarcho-capitalist but I don't completely deny the legitimacy of the state as an institution, it should provide only courts and defend against foreign invasion.
-
anarcho-capitalist but I don't completely deny the legitimacy of the state as an institution, it should provide only courts and defend against foreign invasion.
Foreign invasion?
I thought when we were discussing political theory we assumed a global system, if in the entire world weren't any state there wouldn't be any wars. The same way a communist country can't succeed in a capitalist world (see Cuba), or a capitalist country couldn't in a communist world, an anarchist "state" (region/zone) wouldn't succeed neither.
It may sound simplistic, but only because it is.
-
"Pro smoke, pro choke, anti broke, conservative-liberal, left wing slangin right wing hangin in criminal court it's civil"....... Love that line.
-
Capitalist. Also Pirate! 8)
-
Anarcho-Socialist, the anarcho because government is usually bull...
-
Not entirely sure right now. One thing I can say for sure though is that I fucking hate prisons and can't wait for this punishment/reward system to end. So yeah lol, I guess I'm a bit of ancap in that respect lol. Definitely see some pluses in the anarcho-socialist thing though. Hmmmm
-
anarcho-capitalist but I don't completely deny the legitimacy of the state as an institution, it should provide only courts and defend against foreign invasion.
I think that makes you a libertarian.
-
Slightly right, very libertarian.
Still a work in progress though, lots more reading and thinking to do.
-
There's comes a point in an educated mans life where you realize that there is no RIGHT answer, no PERFECT philosophy or viewpoint. It boggles my mind to what lengths people go (even I did) to convince others that their perspective is correct. Why is it a person's moral imperative to have their neighbor believe the exact same thing they do?
Whenever someone asks what my political stance is I always find it appropriate to quote the brilliant statesman Benjamin Disraeli and reply: "I'm a conservative on everything that is good, and a liberal on everything that is bad." It usually shuts them the fuck up.
-
Disillusioned liberal.
-
Individualism locally. I would arrange meat-space as a happy zoo with room to explore, experiment and evolve. Higher society, for me, occurs in cyber-space where anything goes depending upon the situation; fascism is completely acceptable and desirable on my home network; hard charging anarchism in crypto-space; it's all voluntary; multiple existences, death and rebirth are (relatively) easy.
-
Anarcho-capitalist.
Monocle and top-hat.
-
It is interesting that no one has selected communism yet. This forum seems to be pretty much commune-ist.
-
It is interesting that no one has selected communism yet. This forum seems to be pretty much commune-ist.
..... PIRATE! Yarrrrrr :)
-
It is interesting that no one has selected communism yet. This forum seems to be pretty much commune-ist.
I knew it! These forums are pinko training camps with their "sensitivity" and "sharing". commie scum.
-
There's comes a point in an educated mans life where you realize that there is no RIGHT answer, no PERFECT philosophy or viewpoint. It
I thought that after a while. And then I realized that it's fundamentally a contradiction. i.e. Your position is itself a circular argument. It is in of itself a philosophy/perspective/POV etc. It is exactly like saying:
The statement below is right.
The statement above is wrong.
That is the futility of relativism. It gets you absolutely fucking nowhere. Neither does absolutism as it has been empirically shown to be inevitably misguided again and again. In fact relativism is just absolutism in disguise. Not only is it a spectrum, but the spectrum is a circular band.
So where does that leave you? You might say it is unknown what is right or wrong, but once again, you have fallen prey to the exact same fallacy.
So, not only is it unknown what is right or wrong and whether right or wrong exist, but it is also unknown whether it is unknown. Some famous neo-cons eventually came to the same conclusion during the Iraq War.
Then I start really thinking, and realize that whether it matters or not, is irrelevant since we can only realistically work on a best effort strategy of sometimes thinking in relative terms and other times in absolute terms, and hope we use the right tools at the right times.
An uncomfortable conclusion, or perhaps a liberating one. And if there is a God, then the one thing I'm fucking sure about is that he's bipolar.
-
dialectics are overrated. they're sterile and give a false sense of efficacy.
Also, any statement beginning with, "there comes a point in every man's life..." is bound to fail. save that monolog for when you're eighty and have a great grandson on your knee to reveal the facts of life to.
sorry to sound curmudgeonly. bad day.
-
I thought that after a while. And then I realized that it's fundamentally a contradiction. i.e. Your position is itself a circular argument. It is in of itself a philosophy/perspective/POV etc.
Assuming or expecting stability might be the point of confusion. Add dimension and what appeared circular may be a spiral with progress.
-
I am rather social liberal. yeah. I will go with that.
-Amush
-
Doesn't it vary with scope? The connotations of "fascist" don't really fit here but couldn't a man with his immediate family have somewhat of a fascist role? Amongst his neighbors there may be more of a communist relationship. His community relations may be capitalistic and the state may have several welcome socialist-like institutions. The young adults, exploring their autonomy, may have a liberal or anarchistic perspective.
-
Socially, there's no question that I'm liberal. Very pro-gay marriage, pro-choice, pro-drugs legalization (duhhhhhhh). Financially, I'm not always too sure, but I tend to be pretty liberal there too, maybe even socialist. I get where libertarians come from, but I tend to think that all humans get one life to live, and I think that everyone should be comfortable and healthy for that life. If the rich have to pay a little bit more than everyone else too bad. They already control everything else in our lives, they might as well put in their fair share. But then of course in markets like the Silk Road, I don't want the government to get involved at all. So basically I'm libertarian when it comes to customer-run businesses. But when it comes to corporations, I say fuck the corporations, let's tax the shit out of them so that the 80 work hours a week single mother can feed her family.
-
Slightly right, very libertarian.
Still a work in progress though, lots more reading and thinking to do.
I used to be a hardcore Christian until about 2003 and was pretty conservative politically. I didn't really care about the "issues" bullshit (which probably made me a Conservative/Libertarian) but after I left xianty after a lot of studying and thinking I changed "politically" as well. I think it's good to be a "work in progress" and not to be too dogmatic and to be open minded to ideas.
-
I thought that after a while. And then I realized that it's fundamentally a contradiction. i.e. Your position is itself a circular argument. It is in of itself a philosophy/perspective/POV etc.
Assuming or expecting stability might be the point of confusion. Add dimension and what appeared circular may be a spiral with progress.
Beautifully said. Whenever anyone analyzes epistemology, it is very easy to fall into logical pitfalls. If you, like Nemo said, add the dimension of age and experience you will realize that what I stated is less a viewpoint and more an axiom/truth. Remember political science is not a SCIENCE per say, there is not much measuring you can do. Political science is very much like philosophy as in it deals with the human condition, rather than with cold hard facts.
-
If the rich have to pay a little bit more than everyone else too bad. They already control everything else in our lives, they might as well put in their fair share.
Please don't say that they should pay their "fair share" because that is a bullshit term. Just say that you want them to pay more than everyone else. That way at least you're being honest without rationalizing.
-
I don't mind. I will keep killing regardless.
-
how about a tyrannical capitalism or capitalistic tyranny that leverages addiction, extortion and exploitation as the means of profiting? would that be 'other’ or 'fascism’ or 'capitalism'?
-
"Politically" anarchist, economically capitalist. Do what you want without inhibiting others from doing the same, trade as you wish without taxation or regulation.
-
You should separate out economics and social issues as does the political compass because you are using labels that are tied to a left-right political spectrum that is obsolete. The terms left and right come from assemblies in France where the supporters of the status quo/previous ancien regime sat on the right and those that sought change sat on the left.
Today many people self identify as being on the left yet they support the status quo on most issues while many people who self identify as being right wing are actually radicals that want to change society (albeit often towards what they view as how it was before "leftists" changed things) this is really very confusing.
Furthermore most of the individual terms that you use have been corrupted in popular usage and some have very different meanings in different parts of the anglosphere and beyond. Liberal is a good example, liberal means many things but in the States it can be used as an insult against supporters of big government when this is very much opposite classical liberal beliefs in limited government. In the same way conservative is used in the USA to mean many things but most politicians who claim to be conservatives supported the bank bail outs and many people who self identify as conservative are in fact radicals and seek massive change in society and government by cutting back at the federal government.
Most people on SR are probably socially very liberal, we take drugs and want these laws to be liberalized, no? Yet many people seem to support free markets in some shape and so we are both left and right wing. Socially to the left, Economically on the right. The political compass is better at representing these differences and if you've never taken it then I highly recommend you posit their propositions and see where you rank, I score around -8 socially and between 0 and 8 on the economic scale, it varies so much on economics because I support free markets and believe in a lot of capitalist ideological constructs yet I also believe in a fundamental right to life and the necessities of life and at heart I am a communist who sees capitalism as a valid tool that aids us in reaching a brighter future. (Any one else have this head/heart dichotomy in their economic views?)
My views are fairly complex, while you could categorize them as market based socialism or just call me a commie if you're that twisted, I would prefer to explain in detail and justify my views, if you disagree I would love to know why. With social issues I believe in the principle that what consenting adults do that doesn't harm others should always be allowed and that the government has no right to protect me from myself. (The exception to the harming others is where the others consent to being harmed, I support BDSM between consenting adults)
I really believe in free markets for most sectors of the economy but with certain caveats, because it doesn't always work as intended.
Everyone in this world should receive housing, food and transport for no charge if they cannot afford these things. It is most certainly possible at a fairly low cost and the net social gain would far outweigh the minor economic cost. It would also be a net economic gain since it would increase consumption and capital accumulation and foster no end of new businesses. Food is not a real problem, we already throw away more than enough to feed every hungry person on the planet (if your hungry and in a rich country you should try dumpster diving/skipping it is safe, fun and truly liberating)
Housing could at least be fixed a bit by liberalizing zoning restrictions and green areas being built on a bit more and allowing the fundamental correction in housing prices to actually happen (it's still over priced if you look at rent/income house price/income ratios over the last century)
Transport is tricky, in EU countries I argue for lower or no energy taxes since they are regressive and lower gasoline costs lead to lower costs for most everything, in the U.S. gas isn't really taxed that much and you pay pretty close to the market price usually. In the U.S. I suppose you need more investment in a subsidized public transport system, the benefits are quite strong from lower traffic and pollution.
More importantly (because it helps achieve those ends above and all ends in general) everyone should receive health care with no charge. Not only does it pay for itself thanks to increased worker productivity but the cost savings from a single payer model in health care are massive (EU medical treatment is as good as if not better than the US and treats everyone with less spent on it as a % of GDP) The whole incentive system of the market doesn't work in healthcare any way, it rewards reactionary over priced treatment and punishes preventative care that is economically more efficient. I am constantly amazed at how blind faith in the power of markets can ignore the fundamental asymmetry in healthcare and it's lack of suitability to a ·sector that can never be governed in a good way by money.
Would you go to a doctor because he was cheaper? Fuck no. If you were a doctor would you rather some one makes simple. low cost changes in their lifestyles or that they get really sick and need to pay you loads of money? I hope you would opt for the first option, if not you should not be a doctor, you are evil and I don't want you near my internal organs. (Have you heard any stories about doctors stealing organs from patients and even killing their patients to ensure a supply? It does happen)
Zero charge education (with cash hand outs to the brightest and most studious as well as those from low income households) should include serious university study (not your joke degrees) because it raises worker productivity and increases the tax base. Maybe there is an argument for some copay with cheap, deferred loans but essentially I believe in meritocracy and that the brightest should get the best education, money only screws this up. Bush went to Harvard, some thing is wrong here. I know that all systems can be gamed but that doesn't mean we can't try and allocate education on the basis of ability and previous commitment to education, I've never lived in the USA but I thought that was why you had SATs and GPAs... yet ability to pay controls access to the most prestigious and supposedly better universities and even access in total since kids from low income households feel under pressure to get a job after high school and that is where the three fundamental necessities come in of housing, food and transport.
I also believe that the market works best when it can easily reallocate resources and this often means being able to fire employees for no reason, but to make this palatable for the people and not cause massive social unrest during times of recession there needs to be a system of unemployment insurance available to all for some limited period of time. If we could accept that everyone needs and should get a roof over their heads, some food and the means to mobilize themselves then this could be extremely limited or even non-existent, but that's not going to happen anytime soon.
Taxes are not popular but are a necessary evil, tax code reform is needed almost everywhere. It has to be simplified because many high net worth individuals pay next to nothing or even get government handouts and that is not right in any sane book when ordinary people pay a good percentage of income as tax. How would I do it? Wealth tax and special consumption tax.
Wealth tax because it increases efficiency of allocation of resources, paying 1 or 2% on all your assets if you own more than a million or so of property won't make you poor, you should still be able to get a decent return on your investments and it would stop people wasting property by leaving it fallow and unused year after year after year. This one is politically hard because it would actually affect rich bastards that don't pay a cent today and they will spend lots of money to defeat this idea, it will be called communism in the USA, it is not.
Consumption tax on everything other than your basic necessities (which I think should include communication as well now that I consider it some more, free internet for the people!) It's fairer than taxing income (income tax is slavery) and it rewards the prudent people that save (something that is essential to the accumulation of capital and betterment of yourself and the human race) Higher consumption taxes on vices like drugs & prostitution would not just be socially acceptable but would help to pay for the negative externalities associated with them and the health care provided to consumers as is the case already with tobacco and alcohol.
And that should be it for tax, we could pay for everything with this even if government didn't get rid of stupid things like WAR & overseas bases, economic interference like agricultural subsidies & bank subsidies, NASA, trimmed down on regulation and devolved powers of decision to local communities. I am sure some of you can help with suggestions of other useless government spending that could be cut.
Last but not least I want to emphasize that I am pro-diplomacy and anti-war. I love Ron Paul for having the balls to say the truth that no one hates the USA because of your way of life or your freedoms, people hate your government because you destroy our way of life and take away our freedoms by invading our countries and supporting reactionary dictatorships throughout the world. I would vote for him happily if I could.
How many countries have suffered coups, wars and invasions caused or lead openly by the USA? How many young men have died trying to protect their freedoms from a country that claims to love freedom?
The recent Iraq war fiasco is not so new. There are some older and wiser people on here than I who remember Iran-Contra and I hope that you've all taken the time to learn about the Sandinista movement. The press in the states scares me when they talk of democratic leaders as being dictators just because they happen to be socialists, that is the way to crazy actions that benefit nobody but some rich C"()/$. Before Iran-Contra there was the US/UK backed coup that put the Shah in power and ultimately led to the rise of Khomeini. Reactionary action on the world stage is always short sighted. The USA needs to learn that there really is no threat from the rest of the world and you'd be a lot safer just leaving us alone, please!
Terrorism is just a figment of your imagination, there is no such thing as a world wide conspiracy of crazy freedom hating Muslims that want to kill you all. It is a lie. It is just an idea that has been put in your head by your own government. It is a lie. Perhaps there were/are a few people that took offense at the occupation of their holy land and the propping up of corrupt leaders by the USA in the Muslim world. That is what bin Laden said his reasons were. If I came and occupied Washington and imposed a government that was in my pocket on you then I think you'd want to hurt me too.
My fundamental philosophy in life is love, charity and peace. Thank you for reading.
-
My fundamental philosophy in life is love, charity and peace. Thank you for reading.
edit: Ok, now I read it all. Very good post, couldn't have said it better myself!
-
Bananatinpoints all of your views and ideas sure are noble and really great but unfortunately free healthcare, education, welfare for the poor, communication (i.e. internet), and low taxes all rack up a horrendously large deficit. Where do you hope to find the money to pay for all of this?
In my opinion, the very first step to reclaim the United States and build our dream society is to get money out of politics. Corruption is evident everywhere, yet somehow it doesn't receive any media coverage. For example, the US allocates over $2 billion in aid annually to Egypt, HOWEVER with the string attached that the majority of that aid must be used to buy US weapons. Almost $2 billion in taxpayer dollars goes directly into the pockets of the military industrial complex. Think about how many other countries have a deal like this with the US and about how much of your hard-earned money is being used to promote war and pay for these company private jets!
And to provide a little historical context... all this trouble started with the 17th amendment i.e. the direct election of senators by popular vote, which supersedes article 1 of the Constitution in which Senators were elected by state legislature.
The implications of this are that first, the 17th amendment threw off one of the most important checks and balances created by the Founders. This check is that the states retain all powers that have not been specifically allocated to the federal government (which has been GROSSLY ignored). "The original Constitution provided for the Senators to represent state interests in the Congress. By making the senators elected by popular vote rather than selected by the state legislature, they removed the representation of the states in the Congress. The Senators are basically free agents voting their own interests rather than the interests of the states and our country."
Secondly, the public is much easier to manipulate than an already elected body of (in most cases) highly educated individuals. Corporations split production into several factories and then place each factory in a congressional district. Thus if a senator opposes the will of a certain corporation, that corporation will simply move its factory elsewhere and that senator would lose 500+ loyal votes. The loss of those votes would be DETRIMENTAL for his/her reelection chances, and I mean who doesn't want to stay in power?
First lets repeal the 17th amendment and I feel that all our current problems will become solved.
-
John Keats,
A wealth tax of just 2% on all assets would raise approximately $4 trillion a year or around 28% of GDP, a consumption tax around 20% on non essentials and in the hundreds of percent on tobacco, alcohol other drugs and prostitution would raise the other 12-15% of GDP required to pay all the governments current spending.
Then we strip out non essential government expenditure, defense would be my first target for major cuts (only keep bases inside the USA and cut down on troop levels) that will pay for free health care easily enough, the single payer model is way more efficient.
At this point there is no income tax and no one needs to pay for health insurance, the average worker and professional person is going to feel a lot wealthier and either accumulate more wealth or consume more luxuries, that will result in higher incomes for the government and by slowly raising sin/vice taxes on drugs (Alcohol, Tobacco and the good stuff) you could increase aid for higher education (through a combination of cheap loans and scholarships) as well as start investing in public transport, bring in
Eventually the cost of providing internet services will fall and providing very cheap connections and computers to low income households shouldn't be that big a deal, $100 computers and $2 internet connections are very likely to be commercially viable within ten years.
I know this politically impossible and I'm intrigued by your idea of restoring indirect election to the senate but I doubt it would fix everything.
As for the current debt burden, just print a load of money and cause inflation to erode the real cost of the debt... it's quite unfair on those that have saved in cash & treasuries but it's an easy option. The deficit is already covered with my 2% Wealth Tax, 20% Standard Consumption Tax (possibly an intermediate consumption tax on cars and white goods) and 200-500% Sin tax on Drugs and Prostitution.
I know there are some serious problems with this, a lot of wealth might try to flee the jurisdiction, people would reject having to pay 20% on top of their purchases but if you don't have to pay the IRS any income tax then you should come out ahead. People with positive net worth wouldn't like having to pay asset taxes and it will be really unpopular when the press paints it as a tax to kick old people out of their homes (it is possible that it gets differed on your main household until death and would then act like an inheritance tax).
Yeah, it's a pipe dream but it's not impossible, a lot of EU countries have pretty much the same system I am describing but they combine it with high income taxes instead of wealth taxes, rigid regulation on labor markets is quite common and other internal distortions which are not really economically sensible. The great thing about the wealth & consumption taxes is that they encourage wealth creation, the WT by encouraging assets to be used in the most efficient way and the CT because it rewards you for not consuming and therefore accumulating capital.
-
that will pay for free health care easily enough
Can you seriously say that something will pay for free things with a straight face?
A simple 1% tax on your income will allow me to give you a free apple. You do like free things right?!
-
Sorry, it's not really free, it's without charge with free access. Obviously some one is going to have to pay. But I am talking about giving people health care, not drugs or applesauce, it's a good thing to give away and it doesn't make sense to run health care under market mechanisms because the incentive system is not right for it.
You (probably) don't know as much about medicine as your doctor, he tells you that you need a $5000 operation and you'll probably do it, he's not going to tell you that some $20 pills are just as good if he's a surgeon.
Single payer (government paying) is cheaper than us all contracting insurance separately since the massive buying power forces down the price of medicine and treatment, just look at how much you pay for any OTC or prescription medication in comparison with Canada or the EU.
And yeah, I do like free things, I like them a lot, so much in fact I'll be giving some free high quality cocaine away pretty soon on SR.
-
Governmet gets its money by taking it from you. Saying things like government money and free health care is evading the truth.
-
Bananatinpots,
I'm no mathematician (in fact I hate the whole entire discipline) but could you show me how you got your numbers? The US government pulled in only $1.16 trillion in income taxes and that's at a rate of over 25% for most people... how a 2% tax would pull in 4 trillion doesn't quite add up. The issue of the legality of the income tax is a whole 'nother discussion we could get into but I'll try not to sway from the topic.
I agree with doing away with most government expenditure. It's really one of the largest sources of inefficiency and all around corruption.
On the issue of healthcare... I'm not even going to get started. What a financial and ethical mess. I'm sure we could spend hours debating it, but essentially I disagree with most of what you've had to say about it.
On the issue of debt... another complicated issue. Unfortunately I again strongly disagree with you. Debt is a PROMISE. What else are you here on SR, other than your reputation, your word. Since you're a seller, I think it would easy for you to just think about the moral implications of doing a complete 360 on everything you've promised to your buyers or the community. For me, your promise, YOUR WORD, is sacred.
Please read this article: (http://www.zcommunications.org/debt-slavery-and-our-idea-of-freedom-part-1-by-david-graeber). It is highly enlightening on the history and connotations of debt and outlines many of the problems associated with debt today. I'd love to hear your thoughts on it.
And on the cocaine... I'd love to try a free sample. :) I have a minor in English so you can count on me to write you a stellar review! ;)
-
@bananatinpots
There is so much that I disagree with in your posts (POV-wise, it's not personal), that I'm unsure of where to begin.
Some things:
- If you plot the division of labor process, you'll see a geometrical curve. Then if you work out the net affect of taxation, you'll see that the division of labor is greatly harmed by any taxation. Put simply: taxes destroy productivity and production. 1% more tax does not destroy 1% more wealth, the relationship is far more complex than that, but almost never in a positive direction.
The problem, is that you never see the destruction of wealth. If it happens, it stands to reason that nobody will be aware that it occurred...
- You seem to be unaware of the numbers regarding debt. It is not possible to pay off Westerns debts by just inflating the currency. The last time a western state attempted to inflate away this much debt, we got a world war. This is serious stuff! There are consequences! Consequences it is not too unlikely we're meandering towards even now.
- You do realize that taxation in Europe, which you seem to regard as superior, is absolutely enormous? It's in the region of 60% - 70% of the economy in many EU countries, with 50% seeming to be a minimum. The figures have to be seen to be believed. If you attempt to replicate the EU model of progressive taxation, then you've just gone from the frying pan into the fire. Our economic model is completely unsustainable.
--
I would like to see a world without taxation at all. All you need to do, is to save an enormous quantity of capital over time. Then, much like a pensioner living off the interest in the savings account, you could run a minimal sized government whose capital requirements are supplied by markets over time. That way, the government's capital increases over time, and also changes to reflect current economic conditions.
This means, nobody is taxed in the system. Yet all the functionality of modern government, the infrastructure, continues to exist just as it always did before.
Does this sound like a pipe dream? Because it does already exist in certain countries that happen to have large pools of capital from natural resources. So it is certainly possible. Some of those countries have a problem though:
The real problem as I see it, is how to tie the government's responsibilities to the populace without the tax requirement. i.e. how to keep the social contract going if the government doesn't depend on the population for financial resources.
-
Okay so I am not talking about taxing 2% of income but 2% of assets. You own a car? how much did you pay - deprecation x 0.02 = tax bill. Do you own a house, apartment, land, stocks, bonds, anything you own with a significant value. There would have to be an allowance, but most people do not have any net worth, they are in debt to the banks.
This guy puts total assets in the USA at 188 trillion.
http://rutledgecapital.com/2009/05/24/total-assets-of-the-us-economy-188-trillion-134xgdp/
2% of the total assets is approximately 3.7 trillion. The bottom 80% of the population controls just 7% of assets, this group is my proxy for the wealth tax free allowance. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_in_the_United_States#Wealth_inequality)
So lets knock off 10% from the previous number and say we raise 3.3 trillion with a 2% wealth tax after limited allowances.
The U.S. economy by GDP is 14.5 trillion: 3.3 / 14.5 x100 = 22.75% of the yearly income is raised by taxing 2% of the total wealth, only the richest 20% pay this.
The consumption tax would have to be adjusted to bring in the difference between wealth tax revenue and government expenditure, which is running around 40% of GDP atm in the USA.
No income tax.
Mr Keats I will read that article on debt tomorrow and get back to you, as for the coke everyone will have to wait until I get my vendor account which shouldn't be too long. Sorry, but I've got to get some sleep, I've only managed to get an hour in the last 48.
Pine, I will say that taxation in the EU is not as high as you imagine, though it does get up around 50% as a theoretical take on income, for example in the UK the top rate of income tax on earnings over apx. $150,000 is indeed 50% and over $60,000 you are supposed to pay 40%.... yet this is not what people pay. Most people with incomes over the 100,000 level hire good accountants and arrange tax efficient structures to avoid paying anywhere near the levels you imagine.
Please see http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Tax_revenue_statistics you will see that the EU wide averages are under 40% and no country takes 50% of gdp in taxation.
I admit that my answer about the debt was pretty lame, inflating the debt isn't probably the best idea but I think that our debt levels are manageable especially if banks were forced to pay up some special one off charges after the governments saved their asses so that the whole economy didn't implode. Countries have run successful economies with higher debt loads and most of the debt doesn't even come from the financial crisis.
We don't actually need to pay the debt anyway, that's not the idea anyway.
The wealth tax would encourage wealth creation because all investments must achieve a minimum 2.1% return or you wouldn't be making any money in nominal terms let alone after factoring inflation.
As for your idea of accumulating capital and then running off the resource as has occurred in some countries, it is a great idea in principle, but you hit the nail on the head about government disconnect from the people...
I live in an oil rich(ish) country and most government's have followed a policy of raubwirtschaft, or rape economy where the politicians just stole cash and got kicked out only for it to happen again. Fortunately we have a popular charismatic leader who has brought a bit of order and stability recently and doesn't seem to be stealing too much (though who knows?) It would only take one bad administration to fuck the whole savings plan. But it is definitely possible, Norway has lots of money tucked away in its rainy day account and the rainy day is not likely to arrive...
To be honest there are lots of advantages to living in a resource rich economy with low levels of government debt and a relatively inept government. I don't pay any income tax, I can buy a gallon of gasoline for $1.45 and everything is quite cheap but I am digressing and I really need to sleep.
Talk to you in the morning, take care.
-
How would you (OP / all) differentiate between libertarian and anarcho-capitalist?
Seems to me if you believe in individual liberation then you should believe in it in both social and economic spheres, so they're essentially the same thing.
I think the question boils down to:
Do you believe, given transparency of information, humans are capable of making rational decisions that more times than not benefit the many as opposed to the self?
I have to. Even if it's a pipe dream, it's a worthy goal. The alternative (centralised control, restricted freedoms) is not the kind of world i'd like.
Some species have evolved in an environment such that working together creates the optimal outcome.
We're constantly shaping our environment (not just agricultural, but the legal landscape) to suit us, so i don't see why societal structures can't be established (bottom-up of course) to work towards this.
The notion that human nature is intrinsically selfish and given too much freedom we will run amok is largely based on propaganda and has been made into a self-fulfilling prophecy.
We've been fighting against social darwinism and these so called animal urges for years now and in the process changing them. It's terribly defeatist to say that that is the way it must be.
Another question would be:
Which would you prefer: Forced equality with limited potential, or inequality with unlimited potential?
I say this because not everyone is born equal. Some people are victims of their environment and due to a globalised market and different currency rates, some places simply cannot compete with the cheaper labor costs in other places.
Also, not everyone has the same level of intelligence. And i don't mean the old fashioned IQ-style notion of intelligence here. One person might not be particularly learned, but could have a natural entrepreneurial ability to make the best of a bad start in life, while someone else might choose a different path.
Should he/she be forced to earn the same as a person with less motivation?
The important word here is choose. It's vital people have the opportunity to reach the potential they choose.
And i'm sorry but if the reality of that means that people starve then so be it. The alternative: "humanitarian intervention", usually causes more harm than good. When done by states anyway.
-
Green...........I also try to seek the middle way. I actually believe to have a world that truly coexists we must accept that others have different opinions than us. Its like the USA politics, Republicans say that their way is the only way, and yet the policies they present have failed miserably before, well I suppose not so much if your the elite........Democrats insist that their way is best, and yet most are whiny cryey nana babies.........and also promote policies that have proven to fail.
With no willingness to truly compromise the whole nation suffers.
What really outrages me though is this......Majority leader Boenher said this, that corporations are on strike, and they will not start hiring until their demands of less taxes and de-regulation among others are met. So the whole country and really the world is held captive by the elite because they want to make even more money. They are making record profits, but still no major increase in jobs.........
-
I think it would easy for you to just think about the moral implications of doing a complete 360 on everything you've promised to your buyers or the community.
just fyi if you do a 360 you end up right where you started. you probably mean 180.
-
I think it would easy for you to just think about the moral implications of doing a complete 360 on everything you've promised to your buyers or the community.
just fyi if you do a 360 you end up right where you started. you probably mean 180.
Haha sorry, thanks for pointing that out. I was pretty tired last night. :P
And about this whole discussion and on several of the points that bananatinpots has been trying to make... I find that one or two programs or types of taxes or whatever else is not going to solve problems. A radical change in the fundamentals and principles that constitute our society and even our own moral code has to be brought about. This may seem slightly utopian, slightly "Brave New World", but the problems we're facing today have causes that are very deeply rooted in our societies. Let me provide an analogy to illustrate my claim.
The problems of our current system of government, in this analogy, are a rather stubborn weed. We can temporarily get rid of the weed by simply cutting it (i.e. whatever minor reform you can think of) but sooner or later it will grow back. The only way for the perfect rose of governing policy to grow and bloom is to entirely remove the weed, roots and all.
Big picture, not the details.
-
With this avatar, I don't need to answer the question.