If all individuals have equal access to the same rights, and government only uses its force to defend these rights from aggression, then the society has liberty and justice.
Liberty and justice crumble when government tries to promote concepts like material equality and social justice. This ideology requires that people aren't seen as individuals. They are seen as components of a class, and they are assigned rights and duties based on their involuntary class-association.
@tubecrabs "liberty and justice crumble when government tries to promote concepts like material equality and social justice" Well considering the Government has being doing this for the last seventy years - I don't see what you're talking about. Maybe I'm mistaken - but chatting away on the internet seems to be a pretty free and liberal activity. And I haven't seen the tanks on the streets or dissidents being thrown into camps yet - like the liberal right have been predicting for decades now.
Michael Moore is just a fat ugly slob who hates on the rich, and Larry King is just a typical two-faced liberal who wants socialism for everyone but himself.
I believe Social welfare should always be in place,, many people through no fault of there own have been have been let down by society, the ill and poor especially not everyone is born with a silver spoon, and can take care of one self, greed is what is destroying society
What happens if someone is ill through no fault of their own, for example Diabetes type 1: where you cant even blame this on a person food or health choices, like you could argue with type 2 which is usually developed from obesity or old age. Then why should they have to pay ANY money in order to be healthy and receive their medication. It is the responsibility of the government to support and help these people.
Sorry Ron Paul I agree with everything you say apart from this. The Human Rights act Article 25 states: (1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
Paul is right. Socialism is basically a system in which you can get services for free. If a person doesn't pay taxes then why should they be able to receive any free service. It just doesn't make sense to make others work while others take and don't work. Socialism is a failed system. It has been proven that distributing money throughout society will create more people taking from the system when unnecessary.
@StillxDRE Of course poor people will take advantage of the state - who can blame them. Just like before the state they took advantage of the church - do you think everyone in line for the soup kitchen or out begging actually needs it. And yes - to some extent - welfare is the nationalization of theft - but at least its controlled and orderly unlike the 19th century's army of pick pockets and shakedown artists. If you think things are bad now they can get a whole lot worse.
@32peartree -- Britain didn't suddenly fall into poverty and chaos and then lost its empire; it was the other way around. Their ever-expanding empire and mounting debt to creditors like the USA was simply unsustainable and thrusted the Brits into recession, one they never quite recovered from. The whole situation is rather reminiscent of the US's current role as "policeman of the world" and debtor nation, with China as our primary creditor.
@Courtiousness All I'm saying is - when empires collapse its never pretty. If the US suddenly bowed off the international stage - it could destabilize the entire world order - China would grab Asia - Russia would move into the Middle East - Europe would scramble for Africa - and Latin America would turn communist. Look what happened when the Roman Empire fell in Europe - the Ottoman Empire in Arabia - the British Empire in India. Ron Paul is dangerous both on foreign and domestic policy.
@32peartree Also the US relies on a lot of raw materials from the rest of the world - resources that the US doesn't possess - like diorite mines in Congo essential for cell phones - or rubber for car tires from Malaysia - and of course petroleum from Saudi Arabia. Of course America can not afford to finance this global empire - but a orderly transition to a more multi-polar would will be desirable
@32peartree -- If American interventionism stopped, trade would not necessarily follow. Other countries depend on our products/services/resources/dollars as much as we depend on theirs. In the event of total world trade meltdown, America would become self-sufficient and market forces would be better equipped than any government agency to transition us into self-sufficiency.
@Courtiousness America hasn't been self sufficient for a long time - or, for that matter, neither has the west more generally. You talking pre-colonialism. The US and Europe would need at least 50 years to readjust. And you're automatically surmising that other countries are less evil than the US - when empires fall other great powers inevitably fill the vacuum - just as America filled the vacuum when European imperialism collapsed. Without the US a SINO/RUSSO new world order might emerge.
@Courtiousness And the poor don't have less rights because of welfare dependency - that's absurd - if that was the case the poor would have had more more rights back in the 1930s before welfare. I'm personally for full employment - but capitalism has never supplied that - so in place of full employment - welfare empowers the poor because they are no longer the chattels of the bosses. They can turn round to some exploitative employer and say - shove your $7.75 an hour.
@32peartree -- Are you implying the whole of world order is supported by and functional only thanks American interventionism? Why should we care if China dominates Asia or Latin America turns communist? We don't own those territories nor have any jurisdiction over them. Trade might be disrupted but would be largely to their detriment; America, especially if trade were to become limited, would become self-sufficient. Anyway this isolationist world order your imagining would be temporary at worst.
@32peartree -- I can and do blame anyone who takes advantage of the state. Would it be okay if the rich or I took advantage of governing powers to grant myself favors? Of course not, then why would it be okay if I were under the poverty line? Do poor people have more rights than others?
So stealing is okay as long as you agree with the thief's method of thievery? It's controlled by the rich and politicians. Many of them receive welfare in some form, whether through subsidies or bailouts.
@Courtiousness Poor get a lousy hand - but its they who have less rights - this is why a innocent poor man can end up on death row while a rich man can get away with murder. And thieves have been romanticized throughout history from Robin Hood to Bonnie and Clyde - especially in hard times. But morality doesn't come into it - its just a fact of life - the poor will turn to crime. And crime will get worse if welfare is taken away - right or wrong - that's the way it goes.
@32peartree -- Poor may SEEMINGLY possess less rights as result of the kind of government intervention you seem to excuse or promote. Welfare makes them more dependent, tariffs make imported goods more expensive in order to compete with domestic goods, subsidies go to corporations or rich individuals and increase costs, they manipulate the money supply causing inflations and investment bubbles, tax endlessly, etc. All these things cost the lower class the most.
@Courtiousness And what I'm implying is - great imperial powers can soon become colonies themselves. History proves this time and time again - for instance America was Britain's colony until the power dynamic shifted in the US's favor. The Mongol empire collapsed and ended up being subsumed into the Russian empire, its the same story with the Greeks and the Romans. Those that were first will be last - and them that are last will be first.
@32peartree -- "a[n] innocent poor man can end up on death row while a rich man can get away with murder"
I actually agree with you on this; it's unacceptable that our judicial system works in such a way. But last I checked, the judicial system is run by the government, no? Let's just add it to the list of failures.
The whole system is in need of reform, and I firmly believe an adherence to the principles of liberty and inalienable rights is the answer; a principle long forgotten by gov't.
The poster of this video is a fuckking idiot. Michael Moore agrees with Ron Paul the most out of every candidates except perhaps on healthcare. Now Moore wont support Ron Paul. What bullshit is this ? You dont want people to support Ron Paul ?
@fuckvegan Ron Paul disagrees with Micheal Moore on almost everything apart from foreign policy but I understand why some none republicans are following Paul - but you have to be careful - a country can lose an Empire and be suddenly thrown into chaos and poverty - this happened to Britain following WW2 and Russia after the Cold War. A gentle decline of Pax America would be better for the US as well as the rest of the world.
And Taxing corporations is not like taxing families. Lets say a country is the property of its citizens - so it follows - if planes, lorries, freight trains etc mar the air and environment of that property -then its owners are entitled to a piece of the action. After all, this is how privateers operate toward the government. For instance lets say - the military wants to run military exorcises on the land of Ted Turner - the media mogul. Turner would rightfully demand millions in compensation.
Unfettered, the market would naturally correct the malinvestment. Likewise, the body would remove its hand from the stove the moment it sensed pain.
Government inflation and stimulus prevent the market from receiving the "pain" signal caused by malinvestment. Therefore the market tolerates, and actually fosters, sustained malinvestment. When default, or a shift in prevailing political will, makes it impossible for government to continue subsidizing the malinvestment, the crash occurs.
@tubecrabs But critical mass would still occur regardless of "malinvestment" which incidentally can be private as well as public - dot com bubble, housing bubble etc - even for the most well run firms there comes a point when no more profits can be made in any given economy - even a world economy - so companies begin downsizing. Which of course you're okay with because of your laissez faire philosophy. But meanwhile as the market readjusted the social pressures would start to mount.
@tubecrabs these social pressures are now mounting in the third world - after the IMF and World Bank implemented neo liberal policies - such as removing subsidies on bread and cooking fuel. When these social pressures come to head no government can survive - unless, that is, they employ Nazi levels of brutality. Which is why neo Liberal economics - paradoxically - might lead to what some libertarians fear the most - an Orwellian police state - in other words - a NWO.
To give you an approximate analogy, political forces mean to act as pain killers for the market. (This is an entirely different, however, relevant discussion. Killing pain wins votes. Worse than this, many good people just don't understand the damage they cause when they use government force to help people.)
If the market was a human body, then your hand touching a hot stove is analogous to malinvestment.
You were on the right track about bubbles and critical mass.
Crashes, characterized by great drops in value in a particular industry, currency, or economy, and the corresponding spike in unemployment, are caused by the market recognizing and correcting overinvestment. Overinvestment is the result of inflation and distortion of market signals (by government) which consequently inhibits the appropriate market forces from acting to curb malinvestment in its early stages.
Well, for supply-siders and Keynesian economists, it is a mystery how crashes and sustained unemployment come about. They're macro-economic interventionists that tie employment to aggregate supply and aggregate demand, respectively. Neither bothers to understand crashes, they just want to use government to fix them. These fixes only divide and diversify the inflation, and perpetuate the bubble. There can only be so much diversification. Eventually, the bubble has nowhere else to go.
The American government does not guarantee a standard of living. It does not guarantee civil liberties either (Obviously it's not a dictatorship, but it doesn't honor individual liberty as an inalienable right, as is the American tradition. Of course, access to liberty did increase for blacks and women, but the quality and sanctity of everyone’s individual liberty has fallen).
Corporations are voluntary associations. Taxing them is the same as taxing families and marriages.
You have a right to life, right to live unmolested ... but millions can go die under a bridge? You have to gamble on peoples charity? Paul is a very dogmatic, or a monster.
Well, if you can explain how government can respect all individuals' rights to their life, their liberty, and their property, while at the same time guaranteeing everyone a particular standard of living, I'd be interested in hearing it.
@tubecrabs the question you asked Dimmed Diamond can be easily answered by siting the present system - it does afford civil liberties and whilst maintaining a particular standard of living. However you would no doubt counter that taxation is theft - yet if we replaced taxation with inflation or just allowed government to raise corporation tax instead of income tax - your "tax is theft" argument would hold no water.
The trade deficit has nothing to do with getting poor. In a free society, high imports mean that society is receiving large quantities of foreign-produced goods at a cost less than the cost of producing them domestically.
"I understand markets only too well - sometimes they create wealth and innovation - sometimes they crash and produce nothing worthwhile."
This is not my understanding of markets at all.
Why and when do markets crash? What happens after the market crashes?
@tubecrabs Yeah the market crashes and everything starts again - with new businesses filling the void - etc - etc - Yet in reality the government has always been an engine for growth - since the dawn of civilization - but crude forms of Keynesian stimulation took the form of wars, building cathedrals etc. Taking the government out the of the equation has never really been tried - like all anarchistic ideas they sound alright on paper - but in reality would probably lead to chaos.
@tubecrabs deficits can weaken a country - this is what's happening with Germany in relation to the rest of Europe - and what if Chinese companies start buying up all of America's raw materials and companies - this means wealth starts leaving the US - which ultimately means less to spend on defense - pretty soon you'll wind being a colony - like Latin America is in relation to the US. This is why libertarianism could only work within a globalized system. One world government if you will.
Why do crashes happen, though? I actually expected you to say that shortages or famine cause busts.
In a market unrestricted by political forces, if we were to domestically produce the products that we receive as imports, we would end up with a less efficient and productive allocation of our resources (both material and labor). It defies logic to say that we'd be better off by lowering imports.
@tubecrabs With a balance of trade there comes a point when imports go from being a positive to a negative - all the world's richest nations export high tech goods - which in turn keeps their currencies strong - this is why Germany can operate a strong currency - whereas Greece can not - because the Euros all flow back to Germany. So the dollar might suffer a currency crisis similar to Greece if it were to let its balance of payments get out of hand - in particular its trade deficit with China
@tubecrabs Protectionism can work in the short term to nurture industry - this is how the Northern states of America became industrial giants in the 19th Century - when they raised tariffs against Britain. On the other hand the southern states enjoying a competitive advantage in cheap labor due to slavery - were in favor of free trade. If the South had become independent it would have no doubt slipped into decline - as economies based on cheap labour and raw materials tend to do
@tubecrabs "why do crashes happen, though?" Well there are various theories - but a crash probably happens for many reasons - like other complex systems based around chaos theory. Personally I think the economy reaches a critical mass were it can not grow any further. Alan Greenspan probably thought globalization would keep the show permanently on the road - but he just set up a larger bubble that reached its critical mass and burst. The truth is - there are no magic bullets.
Nothing new, just the same perfect form of capitalism I've been talking about this whole time. Where the only direct role of government in the market is to provide a court system where instances of fraud or force can be punished.
So when one asks how there will be enough food, or medicine, or housing, or water - I can’t say. Economists can’t predict how these things will happen, just that they will. If you’re paralyzed with the fear of gravity letting up each time you take a step, I don’t expect you’ll get very far. So it is with economics. In economics as well as physics, the fear comes from not understanding the forces at play. When you understand the market, you’ll no longer desire for a governing force to control it.
@tubecrabs Universal suffrage has been the main progenitor of social change over the last century - not the free market - the free market existed for centuries with only piecemeal reforms - low and behold Black people and women get the vote and their conditions improve. And its true there is a lot of corruption in India but of course corruption would exist in your nominal libertarian republic too. Unless you've created some shiny new perfect form of capitalism - lol
@tubecrabs I understand markets only too well - sometimes they create wealth and innovation - sometimes they crash and produce nothing worthwhile. What happens if the US gets totally out performed by China - what if the trade deficit means America begins to get poorer and poorer - to the point she can no longer compete militarily - does the US fall on its sword in the name of free markets.
Tolerance towards homosexuality was not the result of government mandates. It wasn’t a law that made society push for a woman’s right to vote.
The laws of economics are like the laws of physics; they’re not subject to random change. That the interaction of individuals separately pursuing their own self-interest results in an organized, yet unplanned, system of production and distribution (known as the market) is one such law.
Suffrage for women and blacks were the results of societal changes in opinion, not the wisdom of central planners. There is a difference between society and government! The classical liberal supports and champions changes and improvements to society that occur by the natural forces of free exchange of ideas, free commerce, and freedom from coercion. Socialists think that positive change comes about because of wise legislators.
It sounds like this would alleviate the suffering of the most disadvantaged. The problem is that when you do this, you destroy the mechanism that facilitates innovation and productivity.
So while it is true that the redistribution would help the worst off for that one moment, what happens next year? What happens 20 years later?
There is a cost to everything, and if you hinder economic development now, you will hurt many people for each person you helped today.
Before its free-market reforms India was socialist. Its free-market reforms have helped drastically already. I'm sure you'll cry because not everyone is rich, and their median income is lower than ours, but you're quick to forget how much poorer they were under socialism.
Your problem is very typical of socialists. You look at a snapshot of the economy and say, "We have a lot of wealth here, but a lot is concentrated in the hands of a few. We should take it and spread it around."
One might argue that India is a pure capitalist society. One might also argue that India is a pure socialist society. One would be wrong to make either claim. There is more to capitalism than a government not providing aid (which is an incorrect assessment of India, anyway). India is notorious for political corruption. It grants favors (hmm.... this sounds like a socialist-style interventionist government) to the well-connected, while ignoring those who can't afford the bribes.
I find it ironic that you derided my Economic Freedom of the World Report as being biased only to turn around and cite LBO.
Even so, you're only decrying that capitalism and freedom don't create equality. I've never said that they would. However, a government dedicated to preserving liberty ends up, through the natural organization of the market, resulting in a distribution that is more advantageous to workers than any other system we know.
@tubecrabs Well I don't know what you're talking about in regards to capitalism being so advantageous for workers - seeing that we haven't seen a purely capitalist society in the West for a long time now. One might argue that India is a purely capitalist society with no redistribution of wealth or social safety nets to speak of. So if it was a straight comparison between Indian style pure capitalism and a Soviet style command economy - I'd say the "workers" would be better served by the latter.
@tubecrabs People have short memories has the recent economic collapse demonstrates. Keynesian economics only came about because classical capitalism was unsustainable - as it is today in the third world. The unemployment, squalor, hunger and disease capitalism generated meant that communism was growing more and more popular. But capitalism was saved by Keynesian ideas of redistribution. But If you turn the clock back to the I9th Century the same social forces will inevitably play out again.
4) Homosexuality was not illegal in America ever. Sodomy laws, and other similar laws, have always been handled at the state level until a recent SCOTUS ruling. As a libertarian, I agree that individuals have a right to engage in homosexual activity, but disagree with the ruling itself. The constitution grants no authority to the federal government on this matter.
Would you care to compare these crimes with those that took place under the central planners of the 20th century?
@tubecrabs The point is - you made the claim that equality and liberty in the United States has waned since the 19th Century - which is plainly nonsense. Unless, that is, you're talking about liberty for racists and Robber Barons.
1) It was illegal. I'm sorry for not understanding why this debunks libertarianism and republicanism, but as far as I can tell this has nothing to do with either. 2) While I don't support vigilantism, I can't dispute that a rancher who caught a thief in the process, has the right to defend his livelihood. Regarding Manning, I abhor government secrecy. 3) Republicanism can't prevent human error. It is equally true, however, that neither can any other form of governmental organization.
"there was a steady increase in inequality - - in income and wealth - - from the 1820s through to the Civil War - bringing the US up to European levels of lopsidedness. Though inequality probably dipped a bit during the Civil War - - it stayed high until the outbreak of WW1."
Capital punishment is still a possibility for crimes other than murder. Treason, for instance, is a capital crime.
While the 19th century saw violence against unions, it was either government-perpetrated (which was no guarantee of legality, anyway) or illegal already. There has been union-violence in the 20th and 21st centuries, but I don't characterize this as an inherent flaw of unions. Society is made up of flawed individuals, and sometimes they do bad things.
@tubecrabs 1)The Robber Barons sent in their goons and killed striking miners and railroad workers - a bit more severe than melees with law enforcement 2) Bradley Manning will not be executed for treason or rustling cattle for that matter 3) even though slavery and genocide were in direct opposition to the principles of the constitution they none-the-less demonstrate the shortcomings of pieces of paper in combating criminal abuses of human rights. 4) homosexuality was illegal in the 1900s.
What legal rights did homosexuals win in the 20th century? Open service in the military happened in the 21st, and there still aren't national laws guaranteeing they can marry or adopt. As a constitutionalist, I don't think there should be, because it's a state issue. As a libertarian, I think that the law should stay out of it entirely. Let couples have marriage proceedings if they want, and let them work out any adoptions with the adoption agencies.
I dispute your 80% in poverty figure. Are you talking about Britain or America?
The rest of your comments are all either irrelevant, or are misrepresentations.
By irrelevant I don't mean to say they're unimportant. Rather, I mean they have no place in an argument trying to discredit either libertarianism or republicanism. Libertarianism does not support genocide or vigilantism. Slavery was not a product of a particular government structure. It was driven by social prejudices.
In the 20th century women were allowed to vote. In the 20th century the Jim Crow laws were abolished. In the 20TH century it became illegal to violently oppress trade unions. In the 20th century homosexuals won equal rights. In the 20th Century the death penalty was banned for all crimes except murder. In the 20th Century Native Americans were finally granted compensation for the theft of the Black Hills of Dakota. In the 20th Century living standards substantially improved for the poor.
When was the last time a corporation forced you to do something except through government law?
Insurance companies can't force you to wear seat-belts; that's why they have to lobby government to force you to. Unions can't force you to join, so they lobby government to garnish your wages against your will.
If corporations could use force outside of law, they would.
Are you suggesting that a democracy is superior to a republic? If you are, I would like to know what advantage you see in a democracy over a republic. A republic gives individuals the greatest say in the government that directly governs over them. There is a federal government of course, but the federal government’s role would strictly be in tending to matters of nationhood. In this way, the tendency towards oppression of those in the nation’s minority is obstructed.
@tubecrabs In the 19th Century America perpetrated one of the worst genocides against an indigenous people. In the 19th century 80% of the population lived in grinding poverty. For the first half of the 19th Century slavery was legal - then in the second half it was replaced by racial apartheid. In 19th Century robber barons murdered striking workers with impunity. In the 19th century people were hung for theft and sheep rustling.
The gap between the richest and poorest has grown most dramatically since the early 1970s. Nixon’s transition to pure fiat money in 1971 really kick-started the transfer of wealth. Since then, the well-connected have benefited from currency manipulation and the unrestricted printing of money.
The average Americans were most prosperous when America was most free. Their prosperity and opportunity have dwindled as government has grown larger and more relevant.
Then the Marxists claim that liberty has failed, and that freedom is tyranny. The fact is that America was most prosperous, had the highest wealth equality, and the highest economic mobility when the role of government was restrained and society understood the value of liberty. In the 19th century, America was the envy of the world for its economic opportunity and stability. America’s love of liberty has certainly waned, and consequently, so has its equality and prosperity.
@tubecrabs "In the 19th Century, America was the envy of the world for its economic opportunity and stability. America's love of liberty has certainly waned, and consequently, so has its equality and prosperity" Tubecrabs 23 hours ago.
Marxist thought is essentially a prophecy. The prophecy states that in a free society, the rich will gain power, keep power, and oppress the workers. The problem is that the evidence doesn't support this. In fact, all evidence points to the contrary. History shows that when the masses adopt this mentality, they direct government to grow and liberty to shrink (the erosion of the free society), and the rich become more powerful by bribing officials and claiming power.
You are correct it is increasingly harder to evict a tenant that refuses to pay,
here in Canada it could take up too 3 months or more to evict a tenant and thats not a guaranteed either you will get your money,or eviction. Gov I believe do not want support the small time Landlord, they want to pass the buck on too them because of the low income housing shortage. that exists.
I don't think you can see if your own comments have been marked as spam, so I don't know if any of mine have been. Several of your comments have been marked as spam, though, including your one talking about laws making it difficult to be a landlord in Canada.
In a country that empowers the federal government, my opinions would be law and yours would be unrepresented. Perhaps we can agree that the best way to curb oppression and tyranny is to limit the federal government and allow the people in the states to decide what they want. There would be states that promote my style of libertarianism and states that promote your style of government. The tyranny of the majority would be most effectively mitigated. Do you agree?
@tubecr You are correct it is increasingly harder to evict a tenant that refuses to pay,
here in Canada it could take 3 mounths or more to evict a tenant and thats not a gauranteed either you will get your money,or eviction. Governments I believe do not want support the small time Landlord, they want to pass the buck on too them because of the low income housing shortage. that exists.
@tubecrabs Liberal dictatorships in Chilli and Indonesia etc come about because the interests of the ruling class are threatened by popular socialist revolutions - so the ruling bourgeois classes opts for authoritarian dictatorship. This is why Marxists argue ruling bourgeois elites will never cede power through universal suffrage - so advocate the dictatorship of the proletariat.
@tubecrabs Libertarian ideas could effectively be use by the top two 2% to hold onto power indefinitely - claiming that the force of the majority is illegitimate. Especially if Ayn Rand's wish comes true and economics and politics are separated by law - viz-a-viz church and state in the constitution. This would create what Marx called a Bourgeois Republic - where liberal ideology allowed the means of production to remain permanently in the hands of a tiny elite.
@tubecrabs Democracy manages and delineates tensions between different classes - its far from perfect - but if its underpinned by a constitution that protects minority rights, free speech, religious freedom etc its probably - like Churchill said - the least worst system.
Certainly you're right; it's possible to have economic liberty without having political liberty. This is very odd, but sometimes it happens.
However, I believe that we can reach some kind of agreement here. I advocate for free markets, but never to have free markets enforced on an unwilling people by a dictatorial government. My loyalty is always to the proper means. The governed should control the government.
So, what if 49% of my country had your opinion and 51% had mine?
Well, the correlations they've made are legitimate. I understand that results can be manipulated and misrepresented, but I reviewed the report and nothing jumped out as illegitimate to me.
Plus, the other example I gave you is an example of how liberty in trade policy promotes competition. Perhaps you could argue that competition is actually bad for society (I’d disagree), but I don't think you would imagine that increased liberty somehow equates to less competition.
Democrats should consider voting in the republican primaries for Ron Paul, based upon the national discussion it could create for the notion of international Peace and corporatism.
Even if they don't vote for him in the general election.
Do you Really want Newt or Romney to run any risk of being president? Really?
A nomination for Ron Paul to beGOP nominee at least keeps the possiblity of a warmonger out of the equation.
I disagree with the Adam Smith idea of perfect competition. Competition is symptomatic of liberty. It is merely the pressure of the consumer to get more for less, and of capital to go where profits are greatest.
The second point doesn't make much sense to me either. Since the courts already have a role in the markets to punish fraud, the only misinformation left is human error. Government interventionism simply replaces government speculation for market speculation.
I haven't read the book, but am familiar with his work.
As far as I know, the foundation for his promotion of socialist interventionism is two-fold. First, actual competition in the market deviates from the more classical idea (think Adam Smith) of many small firms competing in an industry. Second, is that the markets operate without perfectly accurate information.
If you refer to the comment I originally referenced, it was the one where you were talking about Cuba's tourism, it didn't sound like that's what you meant. I have no basis to think that you're lying, though, so I'll believe that you meant the economy as a whole.
Corporations are part of the capitalism and the free market, the problem in a free society, is where they get to monopolies threw government help such as lobbing, this gives the corporation an advantage, which makes no competition in the free market
with its competitors, give them unfair advantage, should they pay taxes yes, but we must understand in a free market
corporations will go where there are deals just like the consumer
the British Houses of Parliament, for instance, is a corporation - look it up - its all there in the small print- I think the US Congress might be the same. But lets not look at this in terms of taxation- but rather has rent or remuneration- just as home owners receive compensation from a railroad company for knocking 20 grand off the price of their property. So government becomes gamekeeper rather than poacher. Are you suggesting government shouldn't enjoy the same rights has corporations?
@32peartree to Clarify,,what I mean by corporation is a company with a ceo and appointees , down to its workers that work to produce products to sell to the consumer such as GE. As for Congress in the United States it is not a corporation, they are elected individuals elected by the people that are suppose to speek for the people by passing laws voting etc.Totalyopposite of your system of government in the UK,like Canadawhich are Bureaucracies
I don't know if the British Houses of Parliament are considered a corporation in Britain, but I do know that there are all sorts of government across the world that have nothing to do with American government.
What difference does a change in name make, anyway? If we called congressmen Gods, would they suddenly have the right to create and extinguish life?
In America, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, not you. Article 1 Section 8 enumerates the powers of Congress.
@samsonlt123 Monopolies would still exist with small government. Look at the history of the Rockerfellers and the Rothschilds in the 19th century. In fact, with small government such families would enjoy far more power and influence.
@32peartree very true, Question Do you think its right for a politicians to accept money from a corporations just an example like Acme? and i dont mean tax money separate issue, private money that the public does not know about
@tubecrabs I look at Germany and France in comparison to Britain - Britain has lower rates of productivity even though it takes much less in corporation tax. France and Germany take their corporation tax and invest in infrastructure that increases productivity - transport, education, health - and its sometimes the case - that firms expand production in high tax and spend countries. Whereas if profits are too easily made - e.g. Wall St or property booms - this can cause productivity to fall.
Wait, so did you gain your wisdom from reading economics books like you originally claimed, or did you make this stuff up all by yourself? It's seeming more and more like the latter. If you read it in a book, I'm interested in knowing what economist actually thinks that raising taxes increases productivity.
Neither Keynesian nor Austrian economists believe that's the case. As far as I know, not even Marx thought that taxation of an industry stimulated growth in that industry.
@tubecrabs simple economics - I didn't say increases in profits - I said increases in productivity - applied to the economy as an whole not to individual corporations. Redistribution of wealth from rich to poor can increase productivity - as the masses spend more on consumer goods opposed to the rich - who invest their money in assets like art and real estate or squirrel it away in Tax havens. Stiglitz talks about this in "America, Free Markets, and the sinking of the world economy".
Corporations are voluntary associations. People invest their money into corporations. The corporate assets all belong to the owners.
What's next, should we tax families and marriages? Those aren't people, they're voluntary associations.
Maybe we should tax bank accounts, they're not people. Oh, wait, here's the best idea: Let's tax wallets! Wallets aren't people, so they have no rights. Since they have no rights, it can't be theft.
Government can't be a corporation by virtue of the fact that corporations are voluntary associations that can't use force to punish a refusal to cooperate. That's all government does. Do you understand this basic distinction between government and society? All government actions are backed by force, whereas corporate and individual actions are based on individual will and voluntary exchange.
@tubecrabs "all government actions are backed by force, whereas corporate and individual actions are based on individual will and voluntary exchange" lol- so corporations- e.g. banks- can't use "force" to evict you from your property for, say, not meeting the last few payments on your mortgage- even though you've probably paid for your house twice over. Of course corporations can use force to take your stuff under maritime law without even bothering a jury - people are corporations too you know?
@tubecrabs Technically probably right - but that's passing the buck - c'mom. That's like saying your landlord wouldn't throw your ass on the street if it wasn't for those nazi government officials making them do it. Admitted government allows private concerns to get away with it - without Jury trial under maritime law - but I don't hear the banks complaining too much.
I'm sorry, what's your point? Do you think that one who agrees to borrow money shouldn't be subject to the method of recourse they agree to? Do you think that contracts should mean nothing? The force behind the eviction and foreclosure process is government force. It's illegal for a bank or landlord to force those living in the home out.
@tubecrabs yes you're right - maritime law is enforced by government - but cui bono - that's the point - and if government made it harder to evict tenants or foreclose - or allowed it easier to squat unoccupied buildings - how do you think landlords, banks and empty property magnates would react? Of course they would lobby government to recind such reforms. And that would occur in your Libertarian Republic - the same as the present system.
Government has made it hard to evict and foreclose. Do you have any experience in evicting a tenant who refuses to pay rent? I don't know how they do things in the UK, or wherever it may be you're from, but in America it's a lengthy procedure. Government rules favor the tenant over the landlord, and that's just the facts.
You're saying that if a government refuses to promote justice, that the governed will become irate with it? I agree, though I don't know why that's relevant.
I can't help but believe that competition being symptomatic of liberty is rather self-evident. One report I've been referring people to for a while is the 2008 Annual Economic Freedom of the World Report.
You can find more recent reports, but I haven't read them, and therefore won't recommend them on the grounds that I don't know if they contain the same summaries and studies.
It defines economic liberty and observes correlations it has to favorable economic and social conditions.
@tubecrabs But that's like Fitch and Standard & Poor insisting the banking system was solvent in 2008 - all depends who's writing the reports - vested interests etc - there's been free market bias in the West for a long time now. But competition is no guarantor of freedom - look at Milton Friedman's shock therapy in Chili - Suharto's free market reforms in Indonesia - all implemented under the jackboot of dictatorship.
For a practical example, consider this: would there be more or less competition for American car-makers if government banned the sale of all foreign-made cars in America?
Higher corporate taxes equate to higher productivity?
You said that you became wise by reading books on economics, can you please refer me to which book says that higher corporate tax means higher productivity?
Ron Paul's portfolio is completely consistent with his message. Ron Paul is an MD and a bestselling author, yet his portfolio is not exceptionally large by any stretch of the imagination. He has not been profiting off of insider trading, he earned his money fairly and invested it as he likes. That the majority of his money is involved in gold and silver indicates that he believes what he says.
@tubecrabs You call 3 million invested in gold mining companies - small? In Britain you can be mired in scandal for receiving a free lunch at the Ritz. Ron Paul's continual preaching for the Gold Standard represents what we Europeans call a "conflict of interests" - a concept you seem to struggle with. But I suppose under the 1st amendment - talking up your stock - is perfectly legal.
If advocating for a gold standard while owning gold is a conflict of interest, is advocating for a fiat system while owning fiat money a conflict of interest?
Maybe a black arguing that slavery of blacks should be illegal is a conflict of interest too.
Yes, I call 3 million invested in gold mining companies small. Not small for the average American, small for a MD who's also a best-selling author. Unless you think his portfolio is big compared to other best-selling authors(it's not).
@tubecrabs False dichotomy - everybody uses Fiat currency - but not everybody has 3 mil invested in goldmines. The more he talks about fiat money collapsing - the more people buy gold - the more his stock appreciates. Fiat currency is not stock.
Is your complaint that he has 3 million dollars to invest, or that he invests in gold, silver, and mining companies? They're two different issues.
Neither one really seems condemning to me. That he had the means to legitimately earn that much money certainly isn't in question.
What's even the problem with the second thing? He doesn't make snap investment decisions on the basis of insider information he receives before the public. He just invests and advocates for what he believes.
Does America's military interventionism cost us trillions as you suggest in your first post, or is it the secret engine of our prosperity as you suggest in your last? If it was our engine of prosperity, all the wars we've engaged in lately would have made us the richest we've ever been. That's just not the case, though.
The first real American interventionist presidents were progressives Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, and we were very prosperous before them.
@tubecrabs I don't know - hit and miss really - capital tends to split into two camps internationalist and nationalist - I think its hard to gauge - American imperialism has kept prices low for US consumers - if America had to rely more on their own resources -prices would obviously be higher. But American workers would have more industrial muscle and therefore political influence. But perhaps we should talk about the west more generally because Europe, Canada and Japan are juiced in too.
@tubecrabs but I think you'd have to say that the west has benefited from globalization enforced by America's military might- surplus value congregates in the west- that much is clear. If the third world had become communist like it very nearly did- raw materials would be more expensive.Gigantic cartels a la Opec would have become the norm for other commodities like sugar, cocoa, rubber, copper, tin. zinc etc. Something more akin to a duopoly would have formed instead of the present oligopoly
Nobody cares if you don't like porn, don't like drugs, or don't like Jersey Shore (I agree with you on all three, though). None of your tastes, morals, or opinions qualify you to decide for other people what they should do.
Society is made up of humans. They're not your pets or subordinates, they're your equals.
@tubecrabs But I wouldn't tax human beings - I'd tax corporations - corporations are not people. And if corporations where making profits from morally dubious sources I'd raise taxes on them. Like You Tube - for instance - we're here working for nothing while they get all the advertising revenue - maybe there's an argument for a stealth tax?
@darknight651 Because of the arguments herein. As individuals - the rich can claim they are being persecuted with a little justification - but its much harder for corporation to claim they're are being treated unfairly. So I think to counter the libertarian argument you know "what right have you got to take my stuff" - corporation and indirect taxes like VAT are probably the way forward - besides the rich can always up-sticks and move to Switzerland - whereas Mcdonalds has to stay put.
@32peartree The Corporation money benefits everyone in corporation and is used for production.its the money which goes to the individual ceo is useless.they stack millions of dollar not using them and they should be taxed to make their money useful for the country.
@darknight651 I Agree totally - but I'm just engaging in a bit of semantics with our libertarian friends. Just read about Kent Snyder - you posted it up a few weeks ago - y' know Ron Paul's campaign manager who died of aids because he couldn't pay his medical bills. Ron Paul said something really crass along the lines of 'that's the price of freedom '. This guy is a total fucking disgrace - as cold as ice. And that's someone he cared about- OMG imagine what he thinks about us.
You're right. We need a GIANT government sized corporation with unlimited powers and revenue to save America, freedom and capitalism. How could I have been so stupid!? Thank you peachtree, I've been reborn.
Ignoring the fact that morals are subjective, do you honestly believe taxing corporations will have no effect on people? What do you think a corporation will do if you raise its costs through taxes? Logically, it will pass it on to consumers and employees.
You don't want to work for nothing on YouTube? Stop posting.
@mountainpony if companies raise the price in response to corporation tax and Vat- then people won't buy their product.The corporations are always saying taxes will restrict their growth but the truth is they're little like bacteria-they grow anywhere.Look at the package tour companies in Cuba- Castro taxed their profits at 90% but they still set up there in droves - because millions of dollars were still for the taking. In fact higher corporation tax can often mean higher productivity.
"higher corporation tax can often mean higher productivity"
That has got to be the dumbest statement in this discussion. You make darknight651 sound like a scholar. Would you work harder if the more you worked the more I took from you? The people of Cuba lead such envious lives don't they?
Please, name one productive private corporation operating in Cuba.
@mountainpony I was only half serious when I said Tax You Tube. But I use it as an example of the million and one ways government could legitimately raise taxes without ever bothering individuals. After all if we all went on strike You Tube wouldn't have a business. Government could also threaten to shut down Google and replace it with its own system like China. So in this sense the government becomes a corporation offering access to other corporations - so why shouldn't it get the best deal?
@mountainpony You're pissed off because I have proven quite clearly that tax needn't be theft - has the libertarian Taliban insists. A government can be a corporation selling access to other corporations in a free exchange of goods and services. So it follows we the citizens of that country are the shareholders of that corporation. So just as a Manhattan property developer leases out apartments at extortionate rents - it is only legitimate that government can do likewise but on grander scale
Capitalism and liberty were the driving forces of American prosperity until politicians decided that society just wasn't as smart or moral as them. We now see the paradise their machinations have wrought. When you factor our unfunded liabilities into the debt, it exceeds $76 trillion. Thank your parasitic socialist policies for our unemployment, high medical costs, and the massive financial hole we're in today.
@tubecrabs most of that 76 trillion is future gross debt - which America could start turning around by cutting a trillion dollars off its Military budget. I also suggest the US army doesn't send its troops half - way around the world to Afghanistan - but rather engages the Pirates of Caribbean and recoups some of the trillion dollar a year horde being stashed away in off-shore tax havens. But more radically - the US could nationalize the federal reserve and stop writing IOUs to Wall Street.
@tubecrabs Has it ever occurred to you that some of that American prosperity - might be connected to the vast empire you maintain - all those petro-dollars working their way back into the US economy. As well as the vast raw materials and labor of Latin America which were stolen by Standard oil, Conchita, Monsanto etc. So lets not pretend some of that imperialist "force" hasn't been a driving "force" of American prosperity. Just ask Ron Paul about his 500,000 stake in the Gold Fields of Peru.
You've now said that women and men are too gullible and vulnerable to be left to tend to their matters. Tell me, what did you do to become so wise and deserving of command over us other silly humans? I think we at least deserve to know how the hand that feeds us came to rightly do so.
As to capitalism being proven a failure, the richest, most powerful, most productive nation in the history of humankind was founded on the libertarian principle of inalienable rights.
@tubecrabs I became 'wise' like you did I suppose - I read a few books on economics - studied a little history and politics - you know the general stuff that Joe Six Pack can't do because he's too exhausted from working mind numbing long hours in a shitty low paid job. Knowledge is power- as they say- but the question is - do you use that knowledge to protect Joe Six Pack from the hyenas of this world or do you use it to take him to the proverbial cleaners and fuck him for everything he's got.
He's wrong about health care. The UK has the NHS for everyone but also private Health and Health insurance for those who want it. Its not a slippery road to socialism.
It makes me sad hearing these guys wanting to keep those dollars coming in and sacrifice the health of many when in reality there is a middle ground
@MegaJay79 - the faulty breast implants made by the French manufacturer PIP is another fine example of a mess caused by the free market cleared up by the NHS. Ron Paul would probably say those women should be allowed to develop breast cancer instead of taxing the crooks that made the 'products' - after all - the women involved made a free choice - he would no doubt argue - which, of course, ignores the role of capitalism in promoting the fetishisation of the female form to sell its products.
@32peartree (con't) But then again, by Ron Paul's logic - its fine - because even though those women might die of breast cancer - eventually PIP might improve its game and supply better, safer in-plants in the future. So all's well that ends well.
Do people have the right to create porn films and be pornstars? How generous of you to allow them to keep 5% of their own property; you could have easily taken it all. You're not even criticizing the free market anymore. You're against people making decisions you don't approve of. You don't hate the free market because you don't think it'll work, you see it as an obstacle to forcing your will unto society.
I'm indulging in delusions? You're the one who believes you can save freedom by forcing people to relinquish it. Government can't instill good habits and morals into individuals; you can't mold society to your liking with laws and regulations without forsaking freedom and oppressing the populace, no matter how "well-intentioned" you may be. You're not the first person to preach such nonsense either; Mao, Stalin and Hitler would be proud.
Don't get me wrong, in a free market these implants could just as easily have made it into use. The difference would be that women would be more aware of the risks involved; their doctors would be more particular in selecting implants to avoid losing patients and possible malpractice. Private companies would arise to guarantee the safety of products, competing for reliability. Mistakes would still occur but would promptly be punished by the market with bankruptcy and lawsuits.
@mountainpony Listen to the Video - Ron Paul wants to get rid of Malpractice suits - lol. But I'm not suggesting I'd become the moral arbiter - but when you ask where do I get the money from to pay for health care etc - I would tax gambling, pornography, violent videos, tobacco, fat foods, financial transactions, polluting corps, gun manufacturers - all up to the hilt - that way we have strong moral case against you tightwad scrooges - its called politics darling.
Are people who produce the means to gamble, smoke, or watch others have sex somehow less human and thus having less right to the fruits of their labor? As silly as such a notion would be it's not even the point. You act as though taxing something more would increase revenues. How many pornstars do you think there would be if you taxed them 95%? Zero, as much as your revenue. Using taxes as a way to force people to stop doing things is no less immoral than physically restraining them.
is it just me or does Larry King say cunt @ :47
JohnLocke2012 48 minutes ago
Ron Paul = Knowledge
sterlinghighschool 15 hours ago
If all individuals have equal access to the same rights, and government only uses its force to defend these rights from aggression, then the society has liberty and justice.
Liberty and justice crumble when government tries to promote concepts like material equality and social justice. This ideology requires that people aren't seen as individuals. They are seen as components of a class, and they are assigned rights and duties based on their involuntary class-association.
tubecrabs 17 hours ago
@tubecrabs "liberty and justice crumble when government tries to promote concepts like material equality and social justice" Well considering the Government has being doing this for the last seventy years - I don't see what you're talking about. Maybe I'm mistaken - but chatting away on the internet seems to be a pretty free and liberal activity. And I haven't seen the tanks on the streets or dissidents being thrown into camps yet - like the liberal right have been predicting for decades now.
32peartree 4 hours ago
Michael Moore and Larry King = Pinky & The Brain
SouthParkBear 18 hours ago
Michael Moore is just a fat ugly slob who hates on the rich, and Larry King is just a typical two-faced liberal who wants socialism for everyone but himself.
They're both ignoramus idiots in a blender.
SouthParkBear 18 hours ago
I believe Social welfare should always be in place,, many people through no fault of there own have been have been let down by society, the ill and poor especially not everyone is born with a silver spoon, and can take care of one self, greed is what is destroying society
samsonlt123 3 days ago
What happens if someone is ill through no fault of their own, for example Diabetes type 1: where you cant even blame this on a person food or health choices, like you could argue with type 2 which is usually developed from obesity or old age. Then why should they have to pay ANY money in order to be healthy and receive their medication. It is the responsibility of the government to support and help these people.
dannysonic1989 4 days ago
If we can spend trillions a year on protecting the U.S. citizens from "terrorists", fire and criminals, why not on health?
TheAlexKiernan 4 days ago
Sorry Ron Paul I agree with everything you say apart from this. The Human Rights act Article 25 states: (1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
This is a Human Right!
dannysonic1989 4 days ago
Paul is right. Socialism is basically a system in which you can get services for free. If a person doesn't pay taxes then why should they be able to receive any free service. It just doesn't make sense to make others work while others take and don't work. Socialism is a failed system. It has been proven that distributing money throughout society will create more people taking from the system when unnecessary.
StillxDRE 4 days ago
@StillxDRE Of course poor people will take advantage of the state - who can blame them. Just like before the state they took advantage of the church - do you think everyone in line for the soup kitchen or out begging actually needs it. And yes - to some extent - welfare is the nationalization of theft - but at least its controlled and orderly unlike the 19th century's army of pick pockets and shakedown artists. If you think things are bad now they can get a whole lot worse.
32peartree 2 days ago
@32peartree -- Britain didn't suddenly fall into poverty and chaos and then lost its empire; it was the other way around. Their ever-expanding empire and mounting debt to creditors like the USA was simply unsustainable and thrusted the Brits into recession, one they never quite recovered from. The whole situation is rather reminiscent of the US's current role as "policeman of the world" and debtor nation, with China as our primary creditor.
Courtiousness 21 hours ago
@Courtiousness All I'm saying is - when empires collapse its never pretty. If the US suddenly bowed off the international stage - it could destabilize the entire world order - China would grab Asia - Russia would move into the Middle East - Europe would scramble for Africa - and Latin America would turn communist. Look what happened when the Roman Empire fell in Europe - the Ottoman Empire in Arabia - the British Empire in India. Ron Paul is dangerous both on foreign and domestic policy.
32peartree 21 hours ago
@32peartree Also the US relies on a lot of raw materials from the rest of the world - resources that the US doesn't possess - like diorite mines in Congo essential for cell phones - or rubber for car tires from Malaysia - and of course petroleum from Saudi Arabia. Of course America can not afford to finance this global empire - but a orderly transition to a more multi-polar would will be desirable
32peartree 21 hours ago
@32peartree -- If American interventionism stopped, trade would not necessarily follow. Other countries depend on our products/services/resources/dollars as much as we depend on theirs. In the event of total world trade meltdown, America would become self-sufficient and market forces would be better equipped than any government agency to transition us into self-sufficiency.
Courtiousness 20 hours ago
@Courtiousness
It's a conceited myth to think that the world needs the US policing it-- as well as a front for US corporate expansion into foreign markets via war.
SouthParkBear 18 hours ago
@Courtiousness America hasn't been self sufficient for a long time - or, for that matter, neither has the west more generally. You talking pre-colonialism. The US and Europe would need at least 50 years to readjust. And you're automatically surmising that other countries are less evil than the US - when empires fall other great powers inevitably fill the vacuum - just as America filled the vacuum when European imperialism collapsed. Without the US a SINO/RUSSO new world order might emerge.
32peartree 10 hours ago
@Courtiousness And the poor don't have less rights because of welfare dependency - that's absurd - if that was the case the poor would have had more more rights back in the 1930s before welfare. I'm personally for full employment - but capitalism has never supplied that - so in place of full employment - welfare empowers the poor because they are no longer the chattels of the bosses. They can turn round to some exploitative employer and say - shove your $7.75 an hour.
32peartree 10 hours ago
@32peartree -- Are you implying the whole of world order is supported by and functional only thanks American interventionism? Why should we care if China dominates Asia or Latin America turns communist? We don't own those territories nor have any jurisdiction over them. Trade might be disrupted but would be largely to their detriment; America, especially if trade were to become limited, would become self-sufficient. Anyway this isolationist world order your imagining would be temporary at worst.
Courtiousness 20 hours ago
@32peartree -- I can and do blame anyone who takes advantage of the state. Would it be okay if the rich or I took advantage of governing powers to grant myself favors? Of course not, then why would it be okay if I were under the poverty line? Do poor people have more rights than others?
So stealing is okay as long as you agree with the thief's method of thievery? It's controlled by the rich and politicians. Many of them receive welfare in some form, whether through subsidies or bailouts.
Courtiousness 21 hours ago
@Courtiousness Poor get a lousy hand - but its they who have less rights - this is why a innocent poor man can end up on death row while a rich man can get away with murder. And thieves have been romanticized throughout history from Robin Hood to Bonnie and Clyde - especially in hard times. But morality doesn't come into it - its just a fact of life - the poor will turn to crime. And crime will get worse if welfare is taken away - right or wrong - that's the way it goes.
32peartree 20 hours ago
@32peartree -- Poor may SEEMINGLY possess less rights as result of the kind of government intervention you seem to excuse or promote. Welfare makes them more dependent, tariffs make imported goods more expensive in order to compete with domestic goods, subsidies go to corporations or rich individuals and increase costs, they manipulate the money supply causing inflations and investment bubbles, tax endlessly, etc. All these things cost the lower class the most.
Courtiousness 20 hours ago
@Courtiousness
Don't forget HIDDEN taxes of higher prices due to inflation and "taxes on the rich corporations," which are ULTIMATELY born most by the poor.
It's like Michael Corleone said: "Contempt for money is a trick of the rich to keep others from it."
SouthParkBear 17 hours ago
@Courtiousness And what I'm implying is - great imperial powers can soon become colonies themselves. History proves this time and time again - for instance America was Britain's colony until the power dynamic shifted in the US's favor. The Mongol empire collapsed and ended up being subsumed into the Russian empire, its the same story with the Greeks and the Romans. Those that were first will be last - and them that are last will be first.
32peartree 10 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@32peartree -- "a[n] innocent poor man can end up on death row while a rich man can get away with murder"
I actually agree with you on this; it's unacceptable that our judicial system works in such a way. But last I checked, the judicial system is run by the government, no? Let's just add it to the list of failures.
The whole system is in need of reform, and I firmly believe an adherence to the principles of liberty and inalienable rights is the answer; a principle long forgotten by gov't.
Courtiousness 20 hours ago
The poster of this video is a fuckking idiot. Michael Moore agrees with Ron Paul the most out of every candidates except perhaps on healthcare. Now Moore wont support Ron Paul. What bullshit is this ? You dont want people to support Ron Paul ?
fuckvegan 5 days ago
@fuckvegan Ron Paul disagrees with Micheal Moore on almost everything apart from foreign policy but I understand why some none republicans are following Paul - but you have to be careful - a country can lose an Empire and be suddenly thrown into chaos and poverty - this happened to Britain following WW2 and Russia after the Cold War. A gentle decline of Pax America would be better for the US as well as the rest of the world.
32peartree 2 days ago
Larry King and Michael Moore are the weirdest people in media.
ashatut 1 week ago
Comment removed
ashatut 1 week ago
Comment removed
ashatut 1 week ago
Larry king always liberal bias, always sucked, nothing new. . .
theonemanparty7 1 week ago
And Taxing corporations is not like taxing families. Lets say a country is the property of its citizens - so it follows - if planes, lorries, freight trains etc mar the air and environment of that property -then its owners are entitled to a piece of the action. After all, this is how privateers operate toward the government. For instance lets say - the military wants to run military exorcises on the land of Ted Turner - the media mogul. Turner would rightfully demand millions in compensation.
32peartree 1 week ago
(3/3)
Unfettered, the market would naturally correct the malinvestment. Likewise, the body would remove its hand from the stove the moment it sensed pain.
Government inflation and stimulus prevent the market from receiving the "pain" signal caused by malinvestment. Therefore the market tolerates, and actually fosters, sustained malinvestment. When default, or a shift in prevailing political will, makes it impossible for government to continue subsidizing the malinvestment, the crash occurs.
tubecrabs 1 week ago
@tubecrabs But critical mass would still occur regardless of "malinvestment" which incidentally can be private as well as public - dot com bubble, housing bubble etc - even for the most well run firms there comes a point when no more profits can be made in any given economy - even a world economy - so companies begin downsizing. Which of course you're okay with because of your laissez faire philosophy. But meanwhile as the market readjusted the social pressures would start to mount.
32peartree 1 week ago
@tubecrabs these social pressures are now mounting in the third world - after the IMF and World Bank implemented neo liberal policies - such as removing subsidies on bread and cooking fuel. When these social pressures come to head no government can survive - unless, that is, they employ Nazi levels of brutality. Which is why neo Liberal economics - paradoxically - might lead to what some libertarians fear the most - an Orwellian police state - in other words - a NWO.
32peartree 1 week ago
@tubecrabs
(2/3)
To give you an approximate analogy, political forces mean to act as pain killers for the market. (This is an entirely different, however, relevant discussion. Killing pain wins votes. Worse than this, many good people just don't understand the damage they cause when they use government force to help people.)
If the market was a human body, then your hand touching a hot stove is analogous to malinvestment.
tubecrabs 1 week ago
@32peartree
(1/3)
You were on the right track about bubbles and critical mass.
Crashes, characterized by great drops in value in a particular industry, currency, or economy, and the corresponding spike in unemployment, are caused by the market recognizing and correcting overinvestment. Overinvestment is the result of inflation and distortion of market signals (by government) which consequently inhibits the appropriate market forces from acting to curb malinvestment in its early stages.
tubecrabs 1 week ago
@32peartree
Well, for supply-siders and Keynesian economists, it is a mystery how crashes and sustained unemployment come about. They're macro-economic interventionists that tie employment to aggregate supply and aggregate demand, respectively. Neither bothers to understand crashes, they just want to use government to fix them. These fixes only divide and diversify the inflation, and perpetuate the bubble. There can only be so much diversification. Eventually, the bubble has nowhere else to go.
tubecrabs 1 week ago
@32peartree
The American government does not guarantee a standard of living. It does not guarantee civil liberties either (Obviously it's not a dictatorship, but it doesn't honor individual liberty as an inalienable right, as is the American tradition. Of course, access to liberty did increase for blacks and women, but the quality and sanctity of everyone’s individual liberty has fallen).
Corporations are voluntary associations. Taxing them is the same as taxing families and marriages.
tubecrabs 1 week ago
You have a right to life, right to live unmolested ... but millions can go die under a bridge? You have to gamble on peoples charity? Paul is a very dogmatic, or a monster.
DimmedDiamond 1 week ago
@DimmedDiamond
Well, if you can explain how government can respect all individuals' rights to their life, their liberty, and their property, while at the same time guaranteeing everyone a particular standard of living, I'd be interested in hearing it.
tubecrabs 1 week ago
@tubecrabs the question you asked Dimmed Diamond can be easily answered by siting the present system - it does afford civil liberties and whilst maintaining a particular standard of living. However you would no doubt counter that taxation is theft - yet if we replaced taxation with inflation or just allowed government to raise corporation tax instead of income tax - your "tax is theft" argument would hold no water.
32peartree 1 week ago
The war in Afghanistan is GOOD and NECESSARY, and the opium trade is ESSENTIAL. WTF IS THIS
iasedu 1 week ago
"Socialism doesn't work", really?
iasedu 1 week ago
@32peartree
The trade deficit has nothing to do with getting poor. In a free society, high imports mean that society is receiving large quantities of foreign-produced goods at a cost less than the cost of producing them domestically.
"I understand markets only too well - sometimes they create wealth and innovation - sometimes they crash and produce nothing worthwhile."
This is not my understanding of markets at all.
Why and when do markets crash? What happens after the market crashes?
tubecrabs 1 week ago
@tubecrabs Yeah the market crashes and everything starts again - with new businesses filling the void - etc - etc - Yet in reality the government has always been an engine for growth - since the dawn of civilization - but crude forms of Keynesian stimulation took the form of wars, building cathedrals etc. Taking the government out the of the equation has never really been tried - like all anarchistic ideas they sound alright on paper - but in reality would probably lead to chaos.
32peartree 1 week ago
@tubecrabs deficits can weaken a country - this is what's happening with Germany in relation to the rest of Europe - and what if Chinese companies start buying up all of America's raw materials and companies - this means wealth starts leaving the US - which ultimately means less to spend on defense - pretty soon you'll wind being a colony - like Latin America is in relation to the US. This is why libertarianism could only work within a globalized system. One world government if you will.
32peartree 1 week ago
@32peartree Even though in one world government libertarianismcant work.
darknight651 1 week ago
@32peartree
Why do crashes happen, though? I actually expected you to say that shortages or famine cause busts.
In a market unrestricted by political forces, if we were to domestically produce the products that we receive as imports, we would end up with a less efficient and productive allocation of our resources (both material and labor). It defies logic to say that we'd be better off by lowering imports.
tubecrabs 1 week ago
@tubecrabs With a balance of trade there comes a point when imports go from being a positive to a negative - all the world's richest nations export high tech goods - which in turn keeps their currencies strong - this is why Germany can operate a strong currency - whereas Greece can not - because the Euros all flow back to Germany. So the dollar might suffer a currency crisis similar to Greece if it were to let its balance of payments get out of hand - in particular its trade deficit with China
32peartree 1 week ago
@tubecrabs Protectionism can work in the short term to nurture industry - this is how the Northern states of America became industrial giants in the 19th Century - when they raised tariffs against Britain. On the other hand the southern states enjoying a competitive advantage in cheap labor due to slavery - were in favor of free trade. If the South had become independent it would have no doubt slipped into decline - as economies based on cheap labour and raw materials tend to do
32peartree 1 week ago
@tubecrabs "why do crashes happen, though?" Well there are various theories - but a crash probably happens for many reasons - like other complex systems based around chaos theory. Personally I think the economy reaches a critical mass were it can not grow any further. Alan Greenspan probably thought globalization would keep the show permanently on the road - but he just set up a larger bubble that reached its critical mass and burst. The truth is - there are no magic bullets.
32peartree 1 week ago
@32peartree
Nothing new, just the same perfect form of capitalism I've been talking about this whole time. Where the only direct role of government in the market is to provide a court system where instances of fraud or force can be punished.
tubecrabs 1 week ago
So when one asks how there will be enough food, or medicine, or housing, or water - I can’t say. Economists can’t predict how these things will happen, just that they will. If you’re paralyzed with the fear of gravity letting up each time you take a step, I don’t expect you’ll get very far. So it is with economics. In economics as well as physics, the fear comes from not understanding the forces at play. When you understand the market, you’ll no longer desire for a governing force to control it.
tubecrabs 1 week ago
@tubecrabs Universal suffrage has been the main progenitor of social change over the last century - not the free market - the free market existed for centuries with only piecemeal reforms - low and behold Black people and women get the vote and their conditions improve. And its true there is a lot of corruption in India but of course corruption would exist in your nominal libertarian republic too. Unless you've created some shiny new perfect form of capitalism - lol
32peartree 1 week ago
@tubecrabs I understand markets only too well - sometimes they create wealth and innovation - sometimes they crash and produce nothing worthwhile. What happens if the US gets totally out performed by China - what if the trade deficit means America begins to get poorer and poorer - to the point she can no longer compete militarily - does the US fall on its sword in the name of free markets.
32peartree 1 week ago
@32peartree
Tolerance towards homosexuality was not the result of government mandates. It wasn’t a law that made society push for a woman’s right to vote.
The laws of economics are like the laws of physics; they’re not subject to random change. That the interaction of individuals separately pursuing their own self-interest results in an organized, yet unplanned, system of production and distribution (known as the market) is one such law.
tubecrabs 1 week ago
@32peartree
Suffrage for women and blacks were the results of societal changes in opinion, not the wisdom of central planners. There is a difference between society and government! The classical liberal supports and champions changes and improvements to society that occur by the natural forces of free exchange of ideas, free commerce, and freedom from coercion. Socialists think that positive change comes about because of wise legislators.
tubecrabs 1 week ago
@32peartree
It sounds like this would alleviate the suffering of the most disadvantaged. The problem is that when you do this, you destroy the mechanism that facilitates innovation and productivity.
So while it is true that the redistribution would help the worst off for that one moment, what happens next year? What happens 20 years later?
There is a cost to everything, and if you hinder economic development now, you will hurt many people for each person you helped today.
tubecrabs 1 week ago
@32peartree
Before its free-market reforms India was socialist. Its free-market reforms have helped drastically already. I'm sure you'll cry because not everyone is rich, and their median income is lower than ours, but you're quick to forget how much poorer they were under socialism.
Your problem is very typical of socialists. You look at a snapshot of the economy and say, "We have a lot of wealth here, but a lot is concentrated in the hands of a few. We should take it and spread it around."
tubecrabs 1 week ago
@32peartree
One might argue that India is a pure capitalist society. One might also argue that India is a pure socialist society. One would be wrong to make either claim. There is more to capitalism than a government not providing aid (which is an incorrect assessment of India, anyway). India is notorious for political corruption. It grants favors (hmm.... this sounds like a socialist-style interventionist government) to the well-connected, while ignoring those who can't afford the bribes.
tubecrabs 1 week ago
@32peartree
I find it ironic that you derided my Economic Freedom of the World Report as being biased only to turn around and cite LBO.
Even so, you're only decrying that capitalism and freedom don't create equality. I've never said that they would. However, a government dedicated to preserving liberty ends up, through the natural organization of the market, resulting in a distribution that is more advantageous to workers than any other system we know.
tubecrabs 1 week ago
@tubecrabs Well I don't know what you're talking about in regards to capitalism being so advantageous for workers - seeing that we haven't seen a purely capitalist society in the West for a long time now. One might argue that India is a purely capitalist society with no redistribution of wealth or social safety nets to speak of. So if it was a straight comparison between Indian style pure capitalism and a Soviet style command economy - I'd say the "workers" would be better served by the latter.
32peartree 1 week ago
@tubecrabs People have short memories has the recent economic collapse demonstrates. Keynesian economics only came about because classical capitalism was unsustainable - as it is today in the third world. The unemployment, squalor, hunger and disease capitalism generated meant that communism was growing more and more popular. But capitalism was saved by Keynesian ideas of redistribution. But If you turn the clock back to the I9th Century the same social forces will inevitably play out again.
32peartree 1 week ago
@32peartree
4) Homosexuality was not illegal in America ever. Sodomy laws, and other similar laws, have always been handled at the state level until a recent SCOTUS ruling. As a libertarian, I agree that individuals have a right to engage in homosexual activity, but disagree with the ruling itself. The constitution grants no authority to the federal government on this matter.
Would you care to compare these crimes with those that took place under the central planners of the 20th century?
tubecrabs 1 week ago
@tubecrabs The point is - you made the claim that equality and liberty in the United States has waned since the 19th Century - which is plainly nonsense. Unless, that is, you're talking about liberty for racists and Robber Barons.
32peartree 1 week ago
@32peartree
1) It was illegal. I'm sorry for not understanding why this debunks libertarianism and republicanism, but as far as I can tell this has nothing to do with either. 2) While I don't support vigilantism, I can't dispute that a rancher who caught a thief in the process, has the right to defend his livelihood. Regarding Manning, I abhor government secrecy. 3) Republicanism can't prevent human error. It is equally true, however, that neither can any other form of governmental organization.
tubecrabs 1 week ago
"there was a steady increase in inequality - - in income and wealth - - from the 1820s through to the Civil War - bringing the US up to European levels of lopsidedness. Though inequality probably dipped a bit during the Civil War - - it stayed high until the outbreak of WW1."
From "Income and Poverty an LBO Overview".
32peartree 1 week ago
@32peartree
Capital punishment is still a possibility for crimes other than murder. Treason, for instance, is a capital crime.
While the 19th century saw violence against unions, it was either government-perpetrated (which was no guarantee of legality, anyway) or illegal already. There has been union-violence in the 20th and 21st centuries, but I don't characterize this as an inherent flaw of unions. Society is made up of flawed individuals, and sometimes they do bad things.
tubecrabs 1 week ago
@tubecrabs 1)The Robber Barons sent in their goons and killed striking miners and railroad workers - a bit more severe than melees with law enforcement 2) Bradley Manning will not be executed for treason or rustling cattle for that matter 3) even though slavery and genocide were in direct opposition to the principles of the constitution they none-the-less demonstrate the shortcomings of pieces of paper in combating criminal abuses of human rights. 4) homosexuality was illegal in the 1900s.
32peartree 1 week ago
@32peartree
What legal rights did homosexuals win in the 20th century? Open service in the military happened in the 21st, and there still aren't national laws guaranteeing they can marry or adopt. As a constitutionalist, I don't think there should be, because it's a state issue. As a libertarian, I think that the law should stay out of it entirely. Let couples have marriage proceedings if they want, and let them work out any adoptions with the adoption agencies.
tubecrabs 1 week ago
@32peartree
I dispute your 80% in poverty figure. Are you talking about Britain or America?
The rest of your comments are all either irrelevant, or are misrepresentations.
By irrelevant I don't mean to say they're unimportant. Rather, I mean they have no place in an argument trying to discredit either libertarianism or republicanism. Libertarianism does not support genocide or vigilantism. Slavery was not a product of a particular government structure. It was driven by social prejudices.
tubecrabs 1 week ago
In the 20th century women were allowed to vote. In the 20th century the Jim Crow laws were abolished. In the 20TH century it became illegal to violently oppress trade unions. In the 20th century homosexuals won equal rights. In the 20th Century the death penalty was banned for all crimes except murder. In the 20th Century Native Americans were finally granted compensation for the theft of the Black Hills of Dakota. In the 20th Century living standards substantially improved for the poor.
32peartree 1 week ago
@EndWesternTyranny
When was the last time a corporation forced you to do something except through government law?
Insurance companies can't force you to wear seat-belts; that's why they have to lobby government to force you to. Unions can't force you to join, so they lobby government to garnish your wages against your will.
If corporations could use force outside of law, they would.
tubecrabs 1 week ago
@32peartree
Are you suggesting that a democracy is superior to a republic? If you are, I would like to know what advantage you see in a democracy over a republic. A republic gives individuals the greatest say in the government that directly governs over them. There is a federal government of course, but the federal government’s role would strictly be in tending to matters of nationhood. In this way, the tendency towards oppression of those in the nation’s minority is obstructed.
tubecrabs 1 week ago
@tubecrabs In the 19th Century America perpetrated one of the worst genocides against an indigenous people. In the 19th century 80% of the population lived in grinding poverty. For the first half of the 19th Century slavery was legal - then in the second half it was replaced by racial apartheid. In 19th Century robber barons murdered striking workers with impunity. In the 19th century people were hung for theft and sheep rustling.
32peartree 1 week ago
@32peartree
(3/3)
The gap between the richest and poorest has grown most dramatically since the early 1970s. Nixon’s transition to pure fiat money in 1971 really kick-started the transfer of wealth. Since then, the well-connected have benefited from currency manipulation and the unrestricted printing of money.
The average Americans were most prosperous when America was most free. Their prosperity and opportunity have dwindled as government has grown larger and more relevant.
tubecrabs 1 week ago
@32peartree
(2/3)
Then the Marxists claim that liberty has failed, and that freedom is tyranny. The fact is that America was most prosperous, had the highest wealth equality, and the highest economic mobility when the role of government was restrained and society understood the value of liberty. In the 19th century, America was the envy of the world for its economic opportunity and stability. America’s love of liberty has certainly waned, and consequently, so has its equality and prosperity.
tubecrabs 1 week ago
@tubecrabs "In the 19th Century, America was the envy of the world for its economic opportunity and stability. America's love of liberty has certainly waned, and consequently, so has its equality and prosperity" Tubecrabs 23 hours ago.
32peartree 1 week ago
@32peartree
(1/3)
Marxist thought is essentially a prophecy. The prophecy states that in a free society, the rich will gain power, keep power, and oppress the workers. The problem is that the evidence doesn't support this. In fact, all evidence points to the contrary. History shows that when the masses adopt this mentality, they direct government to grow and liberty to shrink (the erosion of the free society), and the rich become more powerful by bribing officials and claiming power.
tubecrabs 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You are correct it is increasingly harder to evict a tenant that refuses to pay,
here in Canada it could take up too 3 months or more to evict a tenant and thats not a guaranteed either you will get your money,or eviction. Gov I believe do not want support the small time Landlord, they want to pass the buck on too them because of the low income housing shortage. that exists.
samsonlt123 1 week ago
also there manipulating the thumbs up and down bs
samsonlt123 1 week ago
@samsonlt123
I don't think you can see if your own comments have been marked as spam, so I don't know if any of mine have been. Several of your comments have been marked as spam, though, including your one talking about laws making it difficult to be a landlord in Canada.
tubecrabs 1 week ago
This board is being censored , by you tube, I have had post removed here warning
samsonlt123 1 week ago
RON PAUL 2012!!!!!
missekobil 1 week ago
@32peartree
(2/2)
In a country that empowers the federal government, my opinions would be law and yours would be unrepresented. Perhaps we can agree that the best way to curb oppression and tyranny is to limit the federal government and allow the people in the states to decide what they want. There would be states that promote my style of libertarianism and states that promote your style of government. The tyranny of the majority would be most effectively mitigated. Do you agree?
tubecrabs 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tubecr You are correct it is increasingly harder to evict a tenant that refuses to pay,
here in Canada it could take 3 mounths or more to evict a tenant and thats not a gauranteed either you will get your money,or eviction. Governments I believe do not want support the small time Landlord, they want to pass the buck on too them because of the low income housing shortage. that exists.
samsonlt123 1 week ago
@tubecrabs Liberal dictatorships in Chilli and Indonesia etc come about because the interests of the ruling class are threatened by popular socialist revolutions - so the ruling bourgeois classes opts for authoritarian dictatorship. This is why Marxists argue ruling bourgeois elites will never cede power through universal suffrage - so advocate the dictatorship of the proletariat.
32peartree 1 week ago
@tubecrabs Libertarian ideas could effectively be use by the top two 2% to hold onto power indefinitely - claiming that the force of the majority is illegitimate. Especially if Ayn Rand's wish comes true and economics and politics are separated by law - viz-a-viz church and state in the constitution. This would create what Marx called a Bourgeois Republic - where liberal ideology allowed the means of production to remain permanently in the hands of a tiny elite.
32peartree 1 week ago
@tubecrabs Democracy manages and delineates tensions between different classes - its far from perfect - but if its underpinned by a constitution that protects minority rights, free speech, religious freedom etc its probably - like Churchill said - the least worst system.
32peartree 1 week ago
@32peartree
(1/2)
Certainly you're right; it's possible to have economic liberty without having political liberty. This is very odd, but sometimes it happens.
However, I believe that we can reach some kind of agreement here. I advocate for free markets, but never to have free markets enforced on an unwilling people by a dictatorial government. My loyalty is always to the proper means. The governed should control the government.
So, what if 49% of my country had your opinion and 51% had mine?
tubecrabs 1 week ago
@32peartree
Well, the correlations they've made are legitimate. I understand that results can be manipulated and misrepresented, but I reviewed the report and nothing jumped out as illegitimate to me.
Plus, the other example I gave you is an example of how liberty in trade policy promotes competition. Perhaps you could argue that competition is actually bad for society (I’d disagree), but I don't think you would imagine that increased liberty somehow equates to less competition.
tubecrabs 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Democrats should consider voting in the republican primaries for Ron Paul, based upon the national discussion it could create for the notion of international Peace and corporatism.
Even if they don't vote for him in the general election.
Do you Really want Newt or Romney to run any risk of being president? Really?
A nomination for Ron Paul to beGOP nominee at least keeps the possiblity of a warmonger out of the equation.
Plus it irks the neocons.
Search "Blue Republican"
Premier112 1 week ago
@32peartree
(2/2)
I disagree with the Adam Smith idea of perfect competition. Competition is symptomatic of liberty. It is merely the pressure of the consumer to get more for less, and of capital to go where profits are greatest.
The second point doesn't make much sense to me either. Since the courts already have a role in the markets to punish fraud, the only misinformation left is human error. Government interventionism simply replaces government speculation for market speculation.
tubecrabs 1 week ago
@32peartree
(1/2)
I haven't read the book, but am familiar with his work.
As far as I know, the foundation for his promotion of socialist interventionism is two-fold. First, actual competition in the market deviates from the more classical idea (think Adam Smith) of many small firms competing in an industry. Second, is that the markets operate without perfectly accurate information.
tubecrabs 1 week ago
@32peartree
If you refer to the comment I originally referenced, it was the one where you were talking about Cuba's tourism, it didn't sound like that's what you meant. I have no basis to think that you're lying, though, so I'll believe that you meant the economy as a whole.
tubecrabs 1 week ago
Corporations are part of the capitalism and the free market, the problem in a free society, is where they get to monopolies threw government help such as lobbing, this gives the corporation an advantage, which makes no competition in the free market
with its competitors, give them unfair advantage, should they pay taxes yes, but we must understand in a free market
corporations will go where there are deals just like the consumer
samsonlt123 1 week ago
the British Houses of Parliament, for instance, is a corporation - look it up - its all there in the small print- I think the US Congress might be the same. But lets not look at this in terms of taxation- but rather has rent or remuneration- just as home owners receive compensation from a railroad company for knocking 20 grand off the price of their property. So government becomes gamekeeper rather than poacher. Are you suggesting government shouldn't enjoy the same rights has corporations?
32peartree 1 week ago
@32peartree to Clarify,,what I mean by corporation is a company with a ceo and appointees , down to its workers that work to produce products to sell to the consumer such as GE. As for Congress in the United States it is not a corporation, they are elected individuals elected by the people that are suppose to speek for the people by passing laws voting etc.Totalyopposite of your system of government in the UK,like Canadawhich are Bureaucracies
Government should not be in business
samsonlt123 1 week ago
@32peartree
I don't know if the British Houses of Parliament are considered a corporation in Britain, but I do know that there are all sorts of government across the world that have nothing to do with American government.
What difference does a change in name make, anyway? If we called congressmen Gods, would they suddenly have the right to create and extinguish life?
In America, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, not you. Article 1 Section 8 enumerates the powers of Congress.
tubecrabs 1 week ago
@samsonlt123 Monopolies would still exist with small government. Look at the history of the Rockerfellers and the Rothschilds in the 19th century. In fact, with small government such families would enjoy far more power and influence.
32peartree 1 week ago
@32peartree very true, Question Do you think its right for a politicians to accept money from a corporations just an example like Acme? and i dont mean tax money separate issue, private money that the public does not know about
samsonlt123 1 week ago
@32peartree
I asked two questions in those posts that I would actually like an answer to.
Can you refer me to which book on economics you read that told you that increasing taxation increases productivity?
Can you show me where in the constitution there is authority given to the government to shut down and replace Google?
tubecrabs 1 week ago
@tubecrabs I look at Germany and France in comparison to Britain - Britain has lower rates of productivity even though it takes much less in corporation tax. France and Germany take their corporation tax and invest in infrastructure that increases productivity - transport, education, health - and its sometimes the case - that firms expand production in high tax and spend countries. Whereas if profits are too easily made - e.g. Wall St or property booms - this can cause productivity to fall.
32peartree 1 week ago
@32peartree
Wait, so did you gain your wisdom from reading economics books like you originally claimed, or did you make this stuff up all by yourself? It's seeming more and more like the latter. If you read it in a book, I'm interested in knowing what economist actually thinks that raising taxes increases productivity.
Neither Keynesian nor Austrian economists believe that's the case. As far as I know, not even Marx thought that taxation of an industry stimulated growth in that industry.
tubecrabs 1 week ago
@tubecrabs simple economics - I didn't say increases in profits - I said increases in productivity - applied to the economy as an whole not to individual corporations. Redistribution of wealth from rich to poor can increase productivity - as the masses spend more on consumer goods opposed to the rich - who invest their money in assets like art and real estate or squirrel it away in Tax havens. Stiglitz talks about this in "America, Free Markets, and the sinking of the world economy".
32peartree 1 week ago
@32peartree
You've proven that tax needn't be theft? When?
Corporations are voluntary associations. People invest their money into corporations. The corporate assets all belong to the owners.
What's next, should we tax families and marriages? Those aren't people, they're voluntary associations.
Maybe we should tax bank accounts, they're not people. Oh, wait, here's the best idea: Let's tax wallets! Wallets aren't people, so they have no rights. Since they have no rights, it can't be theft.
tubecrabs 1 week ago
@32peartree
Government can't be a corporation by virtue of the fact that corporations are voluntary associations that can't use force to punish a refusal to cooperate. That's all government does. Do you understand this basic distinction between government and society? All government actions are backed by force, whereas corporate and individual actions are based on individual will and voluntary exchange.
tubecrabs 1 week ago
@tubecrabs "all government actions are backed by force, whereas corporate and individual actions are based on individual will and voluntary exchange" lol- so corporations- e.g. banks- can't use "force" to evict you from your property for, say, not meeting the last few payments on your mortgage- even though you've probably paid for your house twice over. Of course corporations can use force to take your stuff under maritime law without even bothering a jury - people are corporations too you know?
32peartree 1 week ago
@32peartree
You don't know what you're talking about. Eviction is recourse for nonpayment of rent. Foreclosure is the process you probably mean to refer to.
Even so, banks only have the right to foreclose if you agree to collateralize the building. We call that "voluntary exchange".
Eminent domain is force. You never enter any agreement to relinquish ownership of your property, but it is forcibly taken from you by the government.
Next bullshit line? I'm sure you've got a stash.
Like Obama money.
tubecrabs 1 week ago
@tubecrabs Technically probably right - but that's passing the buck - c'mom. That's like saying your landlord wouldn't throw your ass on the street if it wasn't for those nazi government officials making them do it. Admitted government allows private concerns to get away with it - without Jury trial under maritime law - but I don't hear the banks complaining too much.
32peartree 1 week ago
@32peartree
I'm sorry, what's your point? Do you think that one who agrees to borrow money shouldn't be subject to the method of recourse they agree to? Do you think that contracts should mean nothing? The force behind the eviction and foreclosure process is government force. It's illegal for a bank or landlord to force those living in the home out.
Courts order the enforcement of the contract.
tubecrabs 1 week ago
@tubecrabs yes you're right - maritime law is enforced by government - but cui bono - that's the point - and if government made it harder to evict tenants or foreclose - or allowed it easier to squat unoccupied buildings - how do you think landlords, banks and empty property magnates would react? Of course they would lobby government to recind such reforms. And that would occur in your Libertarian Republic - the same as the present system.
32peartree 1 week ago
@32peartree
Government has made it hard to evict and foreclose. Do you have any experience in evicting a tenant who refuses to pay rent? I don't know how they do things in the UK, or wherever it may be you're from, but in America it's a lengthy procedure. Government rules favor the tenant over the landlord, and that's just the facts.
You're saying that if a government refuses to promote justice, that the governed will become irate with it? I agree, though I don't know why that's relevant.
tubecrabs 1 week ago
@tubecrabs "competition being symptomatic of liberty" Do you have any evidence for this?
32peartree 1 week ago
@32peartree
I can't help but believe that competition being symptomatic of liberty is rather self-evident. One report I've been referring people to for a while is the 2008 Annual Economic Freedom of the World Report.
You can find more recent reports, but I haven't read them, and therefore won't recommend them on the grounds that I don't know if they contain the same summaries and studies.
It defines economic liberty and observes correlations it has to favorable economic and social conditions.
tubecrabs 1 week ago
@tubecrabs But that's like Fitch and Standard & Poor insisting the banking system was solvent in 2008 - all depends who's writing the reports - vested interests etc - there's been free market bias in the West for a long time now. But competition is no guarantor of freedom - look at Milton Friedman's shock therapy in Chili - Suharto's free market reforms in Indonesia - all implemented under the jackboot of dictatorship.
32peartree 1 week ago
Comment removed
tubecrabs 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@32peartree
For a practical example, consider this: would there be more or less competition for American car-makers if government banned the sale of all foreign-made cars in America?
tubecrabs 1 week ago
Comment removed
samsonlt123 1 week ago
@32peartree
Higher corporate taxes equate to higher productivity?
You said that you became wise by reading books on economics, can you please refer me to which book says that higher corporate tax means higher productivity?
That's 100% stupidity.
tubecrabs 1 week ago
@32peartree
Strike against youtube? Are you angry that they’re not paying you a living wage to watch music videos or something?
Even worse than that, what’s this you’re saying about government shutting down Google?
I’d like you to show me where in the constitution government is granted authority to shut down Google.
tubecrabs 1 week ago
@32peartree
Ron Paul's portfolio is completely consistent with his message. Ron Paul is an MD and a bestselling author, yet his portfolio is not exceptionally large by any stretch of the imagination. He has not been profiting off of insider trading, he earned his money fairly and invested it as he likes. That the majority of his money is involved in gold and silver indicates that he believes what he says.
tubecrabs 1 week ago
@tubecrabs You call 3 million invested in gold mining companies - small? In Britain you can be mired in scandal for receiving a free lunch at the Ritz. Ron Paul's continual preaching for the Gold Standard represents what we Europeans call a "conflict of interests" - a concept you seem to struggle with. But I suppose under the 1st amendment - talking up your stock - is perfectly legal.
32peartree 1 week ago
@32peartree
If advocating for a gold standard while owning gold is a conflict of interest, is advocating for a fiat system while owning fiat money a conflict of interest?
Maybe a black arguing that slavery of blacks should be illegal is a conflict of interest too.
Yes, I call 3 million invested in gold mining companies small. Not small for the average American, small for a MD who's also a best-selling author. Unless you think his portfolio is big compared to other best-selling authors(it's not).
tubecrabs 1 week ago
@tubecrabs False dichotomy - everybody uses Fiat currency - but not everybody has 3 mil invested in goldmines. The more he talks about fiat money collapsing - the more people buy gold - the more his stock appreciates. Fiat currency is not stock.
32peartree 1 week ago
@32peartree
Is your complaint that he has 3 million dollars to invest, or that he invests in gold, silver, and mining companies? They're two different issues.
Neither one really seems condemning to me. That he had the means to legitimately earn that much money certainly isn't in question.
What's even the problem with the second thing? He doesn't make snap investment decisions on the basis of insider information he receives before the public. He just invests and advocates for what he believes.
tubecrabs 1 week ago
Comment removed
32peartree 1 week ago
@32peartree
Does America's military interventionism cost us trillions as you suggest in your first post, or is it the secret engine of our prosperity as you suggest in your last? If it was our engine of prosperity, all the wars we've engaged in lately would have made us the richest we've ever been. That's just not the case, though.
The first real American interventionist presidents were progressives Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, and we were very prosperous before them.
tubecrabs 1 week ago
@tubecrabs I don't know - hit and miss really - capital tends to split into two camps internationalist and nationalist - I think its hard to gauge - American imperialism has kept prices low for US consumers - if America had to rely more on their own resources -prices would obviously be higher. But American workers would have more industrial muscle and therefore political influence. But perhaps we should talk about the west more generally because Europe, Canada and Japan are juiced in too.
32peartree 1 week ago
@tubecrabs but I think you'd have to say that the west has benefited from globalization enforced by America's military might- surplus value congregates in the west- that much is clear. If the third world had become communist like it very nearly did- raw materials would be more expensive.Gigantic cartels a la Opec would have become the norm for other commodities like sugar, cocoa, rubber, copper, tin. zinc etc. Something more akin to a duopoly would have formed instead of the present oligopoly
32peartree 1 week ago
@32peartree
Nobody cares if you don't like porn, don't like drugs, or don't like Jersey Shore (I agree with you on all three, though). None of your tastes, morals, or opinions qualify you to decide for other people what they should do.
Society is made up of humans. They're not your pets or subordinates, they're your equals.
tubecrabs 1 week ago
@tubecrabs But I wouldn't tax human beings - I'd tax corporations - corporations are not people. And if corporations where making profits from morally dubious sources I'd raise taxes on them. Like You Tube - for instance - we're here working for nothing while they get all the advertising revenue - maybe there's an argument for a stealth tax?
32peartree 1 week ago
@32peartree why not tax rich people they will still be rich than others.
darknight651 1 week ago
@darknight651 Because of the arguments herein. As individuals - the rich can claim they are being persecuted with a little justification - but its much harder for corporation to claim they're are being treated unfairly. So I think to counter the libertarian argument you know "what right have you got to take my stuff" - corporation and indirect taxes like VAT are probably the way forward - besides the rich can always up-sticks and move to Switzerland - whereas Mcdonalds has to stay put.
32peartree 1 week ago
@32peartree The Corporation money benefits everyone in corporation and is used for production.its the money which goes to the individual ceo is useless.they stack millions of dollar not using them and they should be taxed to make their money useful for the country.
darknight651 1 week ago
@darknight651 I Agree totally - but I'm just engaging in a bit of semantics with our libertarian friends. Just read about Kent Snyder - you posted it up a few weeks ago - y' know Ron Paul's campaign manager who died of aids because he couldn't pay his medical bills. Ron Paul said something really crass along the lines of 'that's the price of freedom '. This guy is a total fucking disgrace - as cold as ice. And that's someone he cared about- OMG imagine what he thinks about us.
32peartree 1 week ago
@32peartree TROLL ALERT TROLL ALERT !!!
WakeUpToTheNWO2 1 week ago
@32peartree
You're right. We need a GIANT government sized corporation with unlimited powers and revenue to save America, freedom and capitalism. How could I have been so stupid!? Thank you peachtree, I've been reborn.
mountainpony 1 week ago
@32peartree
Ignoring the fact that morals are subjective, do you honestly believe taxing corporations will have no effect on people? What do you think a corporation will do if you raise its costs through taxes? Logically, it will pass it on to consumers and employees.
You don't want to work for nothing on YouTube? Stop posting.
Are you trolling? Cause I can't tell anymore.
mountainpony 1 week ago
@mountainpony if companies raise the price in response to corporation tax and Vat- then people won't buy their product.The corporations are always saying taxes will restrict their growth but the truth is they're little like bacteria-they grow anywhere.Look at the package tour companies in Cuba- Castro taxed their profits at 90% but they still set up there in droves - because millions of dollars were still for the taking. In fact higher corporation tax can often mean higher productivity.
32peartree 1 week ago
Comment removed
mountainpony 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@32peartree
"higher corporation tax can often mean higher productivity"
That has got to be the dumbest statement in this discussion. You make darknight651 sound like a scholar. Would you work harder if the more you worked the more I took from you? The people of Cuba lead such envious lives don't they?
Please, name one productive private corporation operating in Cuba.
mountainpony 1 week ago
@mountainpony I was only half serious when I said Tax You Tube. But I use it as an example of the million and one ways government could legitimately raise taxes without ever bothering individuals. After all if we all went on strike You Tube wouldn't have a business. Government could also threaten to shut down Google and replace it with its own system like China. So in this sense the government becomes a corporation offering access to other corporations - so why shouldn't it get the best deal?
32peartree 1 week ago
@32peartree
There is no way a grown man honestly believes the things you say. I'm just going to assume your every past and future post is an elaborate joke.
mountainpony 1 week ago
@mountainpony You're pissed off because I have proven quite clearly that tax needn't be theft - has the libertarian Taliban insists. A government can be a corporation selling access to other corporations in a free exchange of goods and services. So it follows we the citizens of that country are the shareholders of that corporation. So just as a Manhattan property developer leases out apartments at extortionate rents - it is only legitimate that government can do likewise but on grander scale
32peartree 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mountainpony
Yes, "32peartree" is not only a TROLL, but also a BRITISH resident attempting to negatively influence the American election process.
Americans kicked the Brits out hundreds of years ago - don't let the limeys sneak back in through the back door !!!
WakeUpToTheNWO2 1 week ago
Ron Paul on Hurricane Katrina "is bailing out people who chose to live on the coastline a proper function of the Federal Government?"
32peartree 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@32peartree
Capitalism and liberty were the driving forces of American prosperity until politicians decided that society just wasn't as smart or moral as them. We now see the paradise their machinations have wrought. When you factor our unfunded liabilities into the debt, it exceeds $76 trillion. Thank your parasitic socialist policies for our unemployment, high medical costs, and the massive financial hole we're in today.
tubecrabs 1 week ago
Comment removed
tubecrabs 1 week ago
@tubecrabs most of that 76 trillion is future gross debt - which America could start turning around by cutting a trillion dollars off its Military budget. I also suggest the US army doesn't send its troops half - way around the world to Afghanistan - but rather engages the Pirates of Caribbean and recoups some of the trillion dollar a year horde being stashed away in off-shore tax havens. But more radically - the US could nationalize the federal reserve and stop writing IOUs to Wall Street.
32peartree 1 week ago
@tubecrabs Has it ever occurred to you that some of that American prosperity - might be connected to the vast empire you maintain - all those petro-dollars working their way back into the US economy. As well as the vast raw materials and labor of Latin America which were stolen by Standard oil, Conchita, Monsanto etc. So lets not pretend some of that imperialist "force" hasn't been a driving "force" of American prosperity. Just ask Ron Paul about his 500,000 stake in the Gold Fields of Peru.
32peartree 1 week ago
@32peartree
You've now said that women and men are too gullible and vulnerable to be left to tend to their matters. Tell me, what did you do to become so wise and deserving of command over us other silly humans? I think we at least deserve to know how the hand that feeds us came to rightly do so.
As to capitalism being proven a failure, the richest, most powerful, most productive nation in the history of humankind was founded on the libertarian principle of inalienable rights.
tubecrabs 1 week ago
@tubecrabs I became 'wise' like you did I suppose - I read a few books on economics - studied a little history and politics - you know the general stuff that Joe Six Pack can't do because he's too exhausted from working mind numbing long hours in a shitty low paid job. Knowledge is power- as they say- but the question is - do you use that knowledge to protect Joe Six Pack from the hyenas of this world or do you use it to take him to the proverbial cleaners and fuck him for everything he's got.
32peartree 1 week ago
He's wrong about health care. The UK has the NHS for everyone but also private Health and Health insurance for those who want it. Its not a slippery road to socialism.
It makes me sad hearing these guys wanting to keep those dollars coming in and sacrifice the health of many when in reality there is a middle ground
MegaJay79 2 weeks ago
@MegaJay79 - the faulty breast implants made by the French manufacturer PIP is another fine example of a mess caused by the free market cleared up by the NHS. Ron Paul would probably say those women should be allowed to develop breast cancer instead of taxing the crooks that made the 'products' - after all - the women involved made a free choice - he would no doubt argue - which, of course, ignores the role of capitalism in promoting the fetishisation of the female form to sell its products.
32peartree 2 weeks ago
@32peartree (con't) But then again, by Ron Paul's logic - its fine - because even though those women might die of breast cancer - eventually PIP might improve its game and supply better, safer in-plants in the future. So all's well that ends well.
32peartree 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
mountainpony 1 week ago
@32peartree
Do people have the right to create porn films and be pornstars? How generous of you to allow them to keep 5% of their own property; you could have easily taken it all. You're not even criticizing the free market anymore. You're against people making decisions you don't approve of. You don't hate the free market because you don't think it'll work, you see it as an obstacle to forcing your will unto society.
mountainpony 1 week ago
@32peartree
I'm indulging in delusions? You're the one who believes you can save freedom by forcing people to relinquish it. Government can't instill good habits and morals into individuals; you can't mold society to your liking with laws and regulations without forsaking freedom and oppressing the populace, no matter how "well-intentioned" you may be. You're not the first person to preach such nonsense either; Mao, Stalin and Hitler would be proud.
mountainpony 1 week ago
@32peartree
Don't get me wrong, in a free market these implants could just as easily have made it into use. The difference would be that women would be more aware of the risks involved; their doctors would be more particular in selecting implants to avoid losing patients and possible malpractice. Private companies would arise to guarantee the safety of products, competing for reliability. Mistakes would still occur but would promptly be punished by the market with bankruptcy and lawsuits.
mountainpony 1 week ago
@mountainpony Listen to the Video - Ron Paul wants to get rid of Malpractice suits - lol. But I'm not suggesting I'd become the moral arbiter - but when you ask where do I get the money from to pay for health care etc - I would tax gambling, pornography, violent videos, tobacco, fat foods, financial transactions, polluting corps, gun manufacturers - all up to the hilt - that way we have strong moral case against you tightwad scrooges - its called politics darling.
32peartree 1 week ago
@32peartree
Are people who produce the means to gamble, smoke, or watch others have sex somehow less human and thus having less right to the fruits of their labor? As silly as such a notion would be it's not even the point. You act as though taxing something more would increase revenues. How many pornstars do you think there would be if you taxed them 95%? Zero, as much as your revenue. Using taxes as a way to force people to stop doing things is no less immoral than physically restraining them.
mountainpony 1 week ago