For my Libertarian friends

Oh come on Robert you're now going down to technicalities... Of course I understood... 

Equality 7-2521 wrote: Dean wrote: thellama73 wrote: Wrong again. There are roughly 15% of Americans below the poverty line, and roughly the same amount earning more than $100,000 a year. Roughly 22% of Americans are in the lowest fifth or earners, and roughly 22% are in the highest fifth. No matter how you count it, that is not "oodles more." And since the highest fifth consume vastly more than the lowest fifth, they will pay the majority of taxes. Also, I am actually using data in my analysis, instead of vague suppositions. I think you may have misread the data (or I have) - surely 20% of Americans are in the each fifth?   No. Why would you think that?

Because it's the top and bottom fifth of earners, not earnings.

Edited by Dean - September 27 2010 at 20:47

Brian you're confused. I'm not for a change... 

Dean wrote: At which point in the manufacturing process does consumption tax begin or end?

ExittheLemming wrote: Epignosis wrote: Epignosis wrote: No liberal has addressed my issue of the government being one massive screw up after another. Why should the government be trusted with health care or any other facet of business after we've seen what havoc its initiatives have wreaked on the housing industry (just to name one)- what good reason is there to trust the US government? Let me put this another way.  If you were an investor, would you continue to invest in a company that brought in 5000 billion dollars a year yet carried a massive 13.5 trillion dollar debt that grows by the day and must borrow money to pay the interest on this debt? Would you invest in a company that ran many of its businesses as Ponzi schemes? I have previously suggested that you emigrate if you find certain aspects of the USA so intolerable. That way you wouldn't have to use any of their goods and services. However, I ain't no liberal, so you still have no takers.

Equality 7-2521 wrote: ExittheLemming wrote: Epignosis wrote: Epignosis wrote: No liberal has addressed my issue of the government being one massive screw up after another. Why should the government be trusted with health care or any other facet of business after we've seen what havoc its initiatives have wreaked on the housing industry (just to name one)- what good reason is there to trust the US government? Let me put this another way.  If you were an investor, would you continue to invest in a company that brought in 5000 billion dollars a year yet carried a massive 13.5 trillion dollar debt that grows by the day and must borrow money to pay the interest on this debt? Would you invest in a company that ran many of its businesses as Ponzi schemes? I have previously suggested that you emigrate if you find certain aspects of the USA so intolerable. That way you wouldn't have to use any of their goods and services. However, I ain't no liberal, so you still have no takers. To where would he go? And why should he have to leave? If someone came into your house and forced you into submission, you wouldn't respond saying well if I don't like this I guess I can just leave my house.

His destination is his choice (Somali's nice this time of year I hear and AFAIK they have no taxes - but the reality of this anarchic haven is that Rob must choose carefully which guerilla fighters he chooses to judge the least efficient - after a few beers they tend to bequeath their own property in yer head)
He does not HAVE to leave:
He is at liberty to do so to seek his happiness - although unless he renounces his US citizenship,
Uncle Sam will still attempt to 'steal' taxes from his (global) income.
Your analogy with a home owner (US citizen) being forced into submission
(emigration) by a guest/intruder (said citizen's estimation of his elected Government's effectiveness) to vacate his property must be the deluxe flagship of 'straw man' (the scarecrow)

Why is it that even a casual trawl through the internet unearths a roll-call of leading right wing libertarians who are almost exclusively american?:

Roderick Long, David Boaz, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Henry David Thoreau, Israel Kirzner, Murray Rothbard, Ayn Rand, Rose Wilder Lane, Isabel Paterson, Barrty Goldwater, Karl Hess, William F. Buckley, David Nolan, Robert Nozick, Roy Childs, Milton Friedman et al (of course the sources could be US centric)

It must have occurred to those who endorse their ideas that just maybe one of the prerequisites for such extreme ideas to proliferate and gain legitimacy is a stricken democracy where the following ailments apply:

No credible left wing representation
A duopoly of two main right oriented parties
Ineptly managed healthcare and social security provision schemes
(and the belief that withholding tax, like hiding the ball makes for better team sports)
A belief in the free market as a self regulating device that obeys fictional 'natural laws' (and to hell with the consequences if it doesn't.)

Clearly the USA does not have a monopoly on all these traits but I can't detect any such abundance of right wing libertarian ideas in the rest of the world. (Plenty of feral left wing libertarian critters yes )

I have the flu so forgive my delirious prose



Edited by ExittheLemming - September 28 2010 at 01:35

^ I think you know I was being sarcastic re Somalia  and Rob's many posts in this thread would make most us believe he endorses many libertarian ideas.

Goldwater and Buckley were both described as influential to the libertarian movement from my source, but I accept you will know their credential much better than I. (BTW it's the flu not the medication speaking)

I don't understand how a lack of a left wing genuine political contender is caused by government distortions of the free market (are you saying that the voters in the US are so incapable of thinking for themselves that conditioning by the duopoly makes them believe there are only 2 valid choices? - ain't there a libertarian party in the US? If Rob is so angry at the state can't he either vote for them or run for them?)

Yes you are right, and I have admitted same in this thread several times, I know squat about economics

Leming, you're the one calling it a duopoly (probably accurately) and then ask why? Monopolies (and near monopolies) work very hard to perpetuate themselves.

Negoba wrote: Leming, you're the one calling it a duopoly (probably accurately) and then ask why? Monopolies (and near monopolies) work very hard to perpetuate themselves. Right now the amount of money required to run a viable campaign in the U.S. is staggering. One must be part of the system of pay to play or be independently wealthy and even then VERY wealthy. Most of our so-called democracy is a show, make the people think they have choices.   This is by design. Those in power have alot at stake, and spend their resources to stay in power.

All valid points Jay and yes, most businessmen and politicians overtly espouse competition as 'healthy' but covertly desire above all else a monopoly. What are the main reasons then for the Libertarian Party which must include amongst its members some of the wealthiest individuals in the US to bankroll any campaign, not doing better in the polls?