Libertarian
07 Mar 2007, 2:51 am
"You may chose how 50% of your taxes are allocated in times of peace and moderate prosperity. You will pay a flat tax of --%"?
How would a system like that necessarily work? Governments are supposed to put money where it is needed, if it is on such an allocation basis then cut taxes by that much in prosperity. Efficient taxes are hard to really say where they should be put though given the many arguments such as on efficiency and corporations, on the importance of progressivity from just a pure economics perspective, and the level of taxation that can be done before tax avoidance occurs on a major scale.
07 Mar 2007, 2:51 am
Everyone can use moderation of course though. There are 2 ways to avoid truth. Most people use one. I am glad to use the high investment form of it though as at least it allows for me to have clear thoughts.
I'll admit when I get angry I get....Borderline to say the least. I'm my own worst enemy when I'm angry, but then again that's the price I pay for being passionate.
_________________
How good music and bad reasons sound when one marches against an enemy!
07 Mar 2007, 2:53 am
Right, well, I think that a lot of people can agree with the idea of some standards. The only possible question ultimately might fall on the extreme libertarians who would argue that the only way to possibly account for human trade-offs is to let the human beings themselves make those trade-offs and who would argue that information on these services would disseminate and that such would allow people to make rational trade-offs.(this is the extreme view, it is supported by extreme market fundamentalists, which do include a few intelligent economists) Of course, I do think that some regulations and minimum standards are necessary for.
I can agree, some regulations and standards are very desirable...
to a point, because you are making companies spend their own money.
Then does it not stand to reason a tax of moderate amount is not reasonable? Can we not at least agree to something like:
"You may chose how 50% of your taxes are allocated in times of peace and moderate prosperity. You will pay a flat tax of --%"?
I think people shouldnt have to pay for what they dont need or dont use because then it becomes theft.
07 Mar 2007, 2:57 am
Right, well, I think that a lot of people can agree with the idea of some standards. The only possible question ultimately might fall on the extreme libertarians who would argue that the only way to possibly account for human trade-offs is to let the human beings themselves make those trade-offs and who would argue that information on these services would disseminate and that such would allow people to make rational trade-offs.(this is the extreme view, it is supported by extreme market fundamentalists, which do include a few intelligent economists) Of course, I do think that some regulations and minimum standards are necessary for.
I can agree, some regulations and standards are very desirable...
to a point, because you are making companies spend their own money.
Then does it not stand to reason a tax of moderate amount is not reasonable? Can we not at least agree to something like:
"You may chose how 50% of your taxes are allocated in times of peace and moderate prosperity. You will pay a flat tax of --%"?
I think people shouldnt have to pay for what they dont need or dont use because then it becomes theft.
How do you know you won't need it in the future?
And besides, your responsible for those around you in a society.
_________________
How good music and bad reasons sound when one marches against an enemy!
07 Mar 2007, 3:04 am
Right, well, I think that a lot of people can agree with the idea of some standards. The only possible question ultimately might fall on the extreme libertarians who would argue that the only way to possibly account for human trade-offs is to let the human beings themselves make those trade-offs and who would argue that information on these services would disseminate and that such would allow people to make rational trade-offs.(this is the extreme view, it is supported by extreme market fundamentalists, which do include a few intelligent economists) Of course, I do think that some regulations and minimum standards are necessary for.
I can agree, some regulations and standards are very desirable...
to a point, because you are making companies spend their own money.
Then does it not stand to reason a tax of moderate amount is not reasonable? Can we not at least agree to something like:
"You may chose how 50% of your taxes are allocated in times of peace and moderate prosperity. You will pay a flat tax of --%"?
I think people shouldnt have to pay for what they dont need or dont use because then it becomes theft.
How do you know you won't need it in the future?
I dont but its not right to use others money to finance my benefit IMO.
07 Mar 2007, 3:07 am
Right, well, I think that a lot of people can agree with the idea of some standards. The only possible question ultimately might fall on the extreme libertarians who would argue that the only way to possibly account for human trade-offs is to let the human beings themselves make those trade-offs and who would argue that information on these services would disseminate and that such would allow people to make rational trade-offs.(this is the extreme view, it is supported by extreme market fundamentalists, which do include a few intelligent economists) Of course, I do think that some regulations and minimum standards are necessary for.
I can agree, some regulations and standards are very desirable...
to a point, because you are making companies spend their own money.
Then does it not stand to reason a tax of moderate amount is not reasonable? Can we not at least agree to something like:
"You may chose how 50% of your taxes are allocated in times of peace and moderate prosperity. You will pay a flat tax of --%"?
I think people shouldnt have to pay for what they dont need or dont use because then it becomes theft.
How do you know you won't need it in the future?
I dont but its not right to use others money to finance my benefit IMO.
It's not right to make someone pay a little bit of cash so a five-year old can get a flu shot even though his parents cannot pay for it? It's wrong to make sure everyone gets a good education?
Oh thank goodness you'll never get power. Go back to your Ayn Rand.
_________________
How good music and bad reasons sound when one marches against an enemy!
07 Mar 2007, 3:10 am
Right, well, I think that a lot of people can agree with the idea of some standards. The only possible question ultimately might fall on the extreme libertarians who would argue that the only way to possibly account for human trade-offs is to let the human beings themselves make those trade-offs and who would argue that information on these services would disseminate and that such would allow people to make rational trade-offs.(this is the extreme view, it is supported by extreme market fundamentalists, which do include a few intelligent economists) Of course, I do think that some regulations and minimum standards are necessary for.
I can agree, some regulations and standards are very desirable...
to a point, because you are making companies spend their own money.
Then does it not stand to reason a tax of moderate amount is not reasonable? Can we not at least agree to something like:
"You may chose how 50% of your taxes are allocated in times of peace and moderate prosperity. You will pay a flat tax of --%"?
I think people shouldnt have to pay for what they dont need or dont use because then it becomes theft.
How do you know you won't need it in the future?
I dont but its not right to use others money to finance my benefit IMO.
It's not right to make someone pay a little bit of cash so a five-year old can get a flu shot even though his parents cannot pay for it? It's wrong to make sure everyone gets a good education?
Oh thank goodness you'll never get power. Go back to your Ayn Rand.
If the person who has the money doesnt want to pay for someone else, then yes it is wrong because the ends dont justify the means because its pretty much theft.
07 Mar 2007, 3:12 am
Right, well, I think that a lot of people can agree with the idea of some standards. The only possible question ultimately might fall on the extreme libertarians who would argue that the only way to possibly account for human trade-offs is to let the human beings themselves make those trade-offs and who would argue that information on these services would disseminate and that such would allow people to make rational trade-offs.(this is the extreme view, it is supported by extreme market fundamentalists, which do include a few intelligent economists) Of course, I do think that some regulations and minimum standards are necessary for.
I can agree, some regulations and standards are very desirable...
to a point, because you are making companies spend their own money.
Then does it not stand to reason a tax of moderate amount is not reasonable? Can we not at least agree to something like:
"You may chose how 50% of your taxes are allocated in times of peace and moderate prosperity. You will pay a flat tax of --%"?
I think people shouldnt have to pay for what they dont need or dont use because then it becomes theft.
How do you know you won't need it in the future?
I dont but its not right to use others money to finance my benefit IMO.
It's not right to make someone pay a little bit of cash so a five-year old can get a flu shot even though his parents cannot pay for it? It's wrong to make sure everyone gets a good education?
Oh thank goodness you'll never get power. Go back to your Ayn Rand.
If the person who has the money doesnt want to pay for someone else, then yes it is wrong because the ends dont justify the means because its pretty much theft.
Ends can often Justify the means. It's right to kill one man to save ten lives. It's right to leverage a small tax againist everyone who can pay so others can have a chance.
Turns out your just Lawful Evil I guess.
_________________
How good music and bad reasons sound when one marches against an enemy!
07 Mar 2007, 3:13 am
Right, well, I think that a lot of people can agree with the idea of some standards. The only possible question ultimately might fall on the extreme libertarians who would argue that the only way to possibly account for human trade-offs is to let the human beings themselves make those trade-offs and who would argue that information on these services would disseminate and that such would allow people to make rational trade-offs.(this is the extreme view, it is supported by extreme market fundamentalists, which do include a few intelligent economists) Of course, I do think that some regulations and minimum standards are necessary for.
I can agree, some regulations and standards are very desirable...
to a point, because you are making companies spend their own money.
Then does it not stand to reason a tax of moderate amount is not reasonable? Can we not at least agree to something like:
"You may chose how 50% of your taxes are allocated in times of peace and moderate prosperity. You will pay a flat tax of --%"?
I think people shouldnt have to pay for what they dont need or dont use because then it becomes theft.
How do you know you won't need it in the future?
I dont but its not right to use others money to finance my benefit IMO.
It's not right to make someone pay a little bit of cash so a five-year old can get a flu shot even though his parents cannot pay for it? It's wrong to make sure everyone gets a good education?
Oh thank goodness you'll never get power. Go back to your Ayn Rand.
If the person who has the money doesnt want to pay for someone else, then yes it is wrong because the ends dont justify the means because its pretty much theft.
Ends can often Justify the means. It's right to kill one man to save ten lives. It's right to leverage a small tax againist everyone who can pay so others can have a chance.
Well I disagree because its still theft.
07 Mar 2007, 3:15 am
Right, well, I think that a lot of people can agree with the idea of some standards. The only possible question ultimately might fall on the extreme libertarians who would argue that the only way to possibly account for human trade-offs is to let the human beings themselves make those trade-offs and who would argue that information on these services would disseminate and that such would allow people to make rational trade-offs.(this is the extreme view, it is supported by extreme market fundamentalists, which do include a few intelligent economists) Of course, I do think that some regulations and minimum standards are necessary for.
I can agree, some regulations and standards are very desirable...
to a point, because you are making companies spend their own money.
Then does it not stand to reason a tax of moderate amount is not reasonable? Can we not at least agree to something like:
"You may chose how 50% of your taxes are allocated in times of peace and moderate prosperity. You will pay a flat tax of --%"?
I think people shouldnt have to pay for what they dont need or dont use because then it becomes theft.
How do you know you won't need it in the future?
I dont but its not right to use others money to finance my benefit IMO.
It's not right to make someone pay a little bit of cash so a five-year old can get a flu shot even though his parents cannot pay for it? It's wrong to make sure everyone gets a good education?
Oh thank goodness you'll never get power. Go back to your Ayn Rand.
If the person who has the money doesnt want to pay for someone else, then yes it is wrong because the ends dont justify the means because its pretty much theft.
Ends can often Justify the means. It's right to kill one man to save ten lives. It's right to leverage a small tax againist everyone who can pay so others can have a chance.
Well I disagree because its still theft.
Theft implies use for evil purposes. A poor man stealing bread from a well-off merchant so he can feed himself and his family is doing the right thing.
_________________
How good music and bad reasons sound when one marches against an enemy!
Anubis
Veteran
Joined: 6 Sep 2006
Age: 137
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,911
Location: Mount Herculaneum/England
07 Mar 2007, 5:14 am
I support communism, and planned economy, but people still need incentives to work, such as pay rises. My system, which is not communism, but still has the same essence, uses the same model of basic standards of living for all, but it eliminates tax, and realises a few facts about human nature. People should have high degrees of individual freedom, to a certain extent, but not to the point where they harm society and others, take most recreational drugs, or do something so utterly and completely disgusting and disrespectful of life. I am wholly opposed to Libertarianism though.
_________________
Lalalalai.... I'll cut you up!
07 Mar 2007, 10:33 am
I dont know whats been concluded, but Flagg, in regards to people who cannot afford health or education, what types of services do we offer now? Welfare? Welfare is pure cash which can be mispent (I think 'school loans' should go straight to the 'school' and not the individual, but thats a different topic). What about Charity? Did you know, here in Canada, even WITH our government health care, we STILL need charities? Isnt that unbelievable? Socialism exists, here, yet, charities STILL need to exist. The idea is that, with the removal of socialism, you STILL have charity. Whats best is that 'charity' is 100% volunteer and 0% force RUN by people who 'care.' Welfare, the government TAKES my money but charity simply 'asks' for it. They give me a 'choice.' Choice is something we have less and less of, these days and thats a BAD thing because we become more 'dependent' on the state. Its like we're a nation of 'babies' who need 'mommy and daddy' to control and make decisions for us. Sometimes, I think people need to spend more time looking at their own 'plate' and spend less time forcing others to do certain things.
As well, libertarians believe that with open competition, more jobs become available AS WELL AS the fact people can set THEIR value. Minimum wage, currently, sets your value (and it ISNT much). More jobs, more opportunities should possibly lead to less people requiring social services as there is more money flowing in the open market system. As well, with less tax, people take home more of their income (minus the minimum tax to cover police/military/high court). Is it wrong to suggest that people EARN their money, somehow, versus getting a hand/free ride? Why is it 'libertarians' get a bad 'reputation' because they don't think everyone should be handed everything and that people should stand up straight and work for themself?
Its call 'responsibility' and its NO ONE's job to sit there and 'take care of people' no matter HOW rich. They have a life, too, and while helping others is super, its not the same when you force someone to 'do it.' Again, this sounds 'cold' but the fact of the matter is, how would you like someone telling YOU how to live, who to help, etc. In other words, how do you feel about losing your 'choice?'
Poor people, on the street, ask for my money. Sometimes I have some, sometimes I don't. The difference between 'them' and people on welfare is that they took the time to ASK me for it and give me a 'choice' in the matter while people on welfare didn't, they just received a cheque. I'm more inclined to help people on the street but the government doesn't give them money, thats on the CITY and its 'fundraisers.' Socialism is a crock because it is HIGHLY prejudice and totally dependent.
07 Mar 2007, 11:16 am
And that is why I do not like being passionate, losing my control is not a consequence I want to deal with and passion is too easily an enemy of rationality. I cannot deny that I have both bias and passion, no human being can deny such either. The avoidance of truth thing I referenced goes back to an article I read where it says that people either avoid the truth by never actually attempting to know it, or they avoid it through biased knowledge, to try to learn and still be biased is high investment and never trying is low investment of course.
07 Mar 2007, 9:47 pm
Here's my 2 cents:
A lot of people who complain about the current system do so because of being ruled by rich guys in suits in a building. You know what though? We'd have the exact same thing in free, unbridled capitalism. Only these people wouldn't be Democratically elected. Instead, they would be the bigshot money-grubbing Capitalist blathering pig corporation owners controlling our everyday lives because we'd be virtually forced into buying their products.
People who support Capitalism say "People who work hard will come out on top!" Well that's true....at the beginning. After all the winners of this dog-eat-dog Social Darwinist competition have been established, the rich will stay on top, and the poor will stay on bottom. You need money to make money. It's how the dreaded Capitalist machine works. (You need more money to buy more stocks, and more money to make more products etc.)
It is helpful, though, to have enough economic growth to keep up with population growth. Accomplishing this through free market though, scares the living *ampersand* out of me. Without ANY sort of government regulations, who knows what kind of sick *bleep* those corporate bastards could and would do to us.
I think we need to come up with a way to stop the people and the government from becoming two completely seperate entities. If the people end up being the government's slap doggy, then society has failed (like in the Soviet Union). I think what we need for businesses is profit ceilings...
07 Mar 2007, 10:07 pm
The people who complain about the current system do so because of the corrupting influence of various groups and of the populism engaged in by the average politician. The question would end up being on how they would force us, considering the number of corporations in existence then through such competition they are unlikely to be able to exert any force.
Money can be attained through giving up labor for money or gotten through lending practices. Many people do get their initial money required through borrowing, including many small businesses from what I have heard. You are right that money is important but money is available for new endeavors and this can be utilized by a person with the right knowledge or foresight in order to achieve the desired goal.
Corporations are concerned with making a profit. If you create the diarrhea burger or the crap wagon then it is not likely that others will buy your products. Now it can be argued that due to market information distribution imperfections affecting the ability for individuals to make rational choices that government intervention is necessary but if people know their options and make choices based upon those choices then businesses cannot force people to buy crap.
The issue with that is that people cannot be the government. The government is one organization, people as I mentioned earlier have N desires where N = the population. This by its nature makes the thing you want to attempt rather impossible to attain for a large population as even if the government takes the middle course among all things(probably an impossibility considering the amount of information needed to be gathered) then there will still be the disenfranchised. I do not see the need for profit ceilings though, that will not promote a good thing but rather be a negative thing as corporations will not see a need to be productive beyond this ceiling thus causing inefficiencies as the servants of the desires of the people will have no incentive to serve and thus either leave some people unsatisfied or cause inefficient measures to create more products to meet a market demand.
