The mixed economy inevitably leads to totalitarianism

A brief explanation of why the mixed economy is unstable and necessarily leads to totalitarianism.
Please read these articles:
The original article by Alex Epstein http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/alex_epstein/blog/2008/12/10/what_capitalists_ne...
On minimum prices for alcohol:
http://news.scotsman.com/uk/Westminster-to-urge-minimum-alcohol.5073547.jp
On taxing chocolate:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/articl...
(in this article the author suggests taxing chocolate is stupid... we should tax sugar! what an idiot)

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• ayn
• rand
• objectivism
• economics
• morality
• mixed
• economy
• totalitarianism

[jonwal1010]

The articles you are showing are ridiculous things that never passed. Remember that the people are in control of the government. They aren't going to vote themselves into totalitarianism. Meanwhile the free market is a system only performs well on slavery and helps the rich get richer. I would rather have a regulated open market that is controlled by the people for the people. This doesn't mean wealth distribution either, it simply means change the rules to companies can't fuck the people over.

[dannidandannikins]

@jonwal1010 People won't vote themselves into totalitarianism you say? Tell that to Germany.

[TimeWarp66]

Your camera sucks, but the content of this video is superb and very important to our current situation.

*favorited* + 5 stars! Keep up the good fight!

[picapauengracado]

More scary than the sugar tax article itself is the comments:

"How about taxing beef burgers, ham burgers, ice cream, certain breakfast cereals, excessively sugary fizzy drinks etc etc that contribute to the obesity problem at the same, or greater, rate as chocolate. Tax chocolate by all means but don't forget all the other high quality contributors to obesity.

Bob Crichton, Panissieres, France."

I guess ppl will rely on govt through the prices now to tell them what's healthy and not.

[jonwal1010]

@dannidandannikins They didn't stand up to Hitler though. The American democracy doesn't quite work that way though. There is a congress and a trickle down democracy. If you give 1 person unlimited power then yea that's no good. They also should have stood against Hitler.

[lucentenor]

@dannidandannikins Excuse me, I tend to create new words. Thankfully, the meaning was clear.

[dannidandannikins]

@lucentenor generally i am in agreement with your comment, but this word: 'insuperior' ..... WTF?

'Inferior' is, I fancy, the word for which you were groping.

[lucentenor]

@dannidandannikins Also, socialistic governments with small populations appear to work simply because most of the people agree about what they want- like a small group of friends. In effect, the majority will probably be happy, even though the system is still unjust and insuperior to a truly free system. Here in the US it results, necessarily, in the "biggest" group trumping over everyone else and forcing them to follow. The means to the end matter- not one person's rights should be forfeit.

[picapauengracado]

Cool; what's the title, so I may locate the article?

So when health care is paid by taxes, unhealthy people are in effect leaching off the ones that make an effort to stay healthy (as unhealthy people will cost the system more while paying the same). That's where they are coming from, right? Anyway, I bet politicians would end up using the tax to increase general spending, rather than as some indirect transfer from the unhealthy to the healthy.

[riverlioness]

The economist featured an article debating whether or not the government should tax the overweight, ironically the article was over a Pigouvian tax, a.k.a. a "sin tax".

[dannidandannikins]

Errr, my contention was that despite crap policies, Saudi Arabia and Norway are both wealthy because they are both large oil exporters. You said that their policies are different and therefore oil has nothing to do with Norway's wealth. I know their policies are different. I know Saudi Arabian monarchs like to spunk money on jihadist groups while Norwegian governments like to spunk money on socialist claptrap. The money for both these follies comes from massive oil exports. My point stands.

[suleydaman]

The saudi Government is really rich. The people, not so much, but in Norway, they have one of the best healthcare, education, high satisfaction with life and just a generally good standard of living miles away from what the saudi people are used to even though saudi arabia has a lot more oil. I don't think that the norwegians are the way they are simply because of oil.