"Freedom" thread or something

Equality 7-2521 wrote: If government does a good job, then people should be willing to pay for it.

Edited by stonebeard - December 05 2012 at 01:01

stonebeard wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: If government does a good job, then people should be willing to pay for it. I think that holds in a similar way. If a government does badly now, people begrudge having their taxes go to it. If a government does well, people view their taxes as doing good work. I get that private sector capitalist practices are good for the free market nature of the private sector, but I have yet to be convinced for essentially privatizing government. As it is now, it is fundamentally the opposite of what government is and has been in most circumstances. I think some you may underestimate how much convincing you have to do here.

People view their taxes as doing good work if government does a good job? How low does your self worth have to be to derive value from the final outcome of money which was taken from you, filtered through a thousand channels, and used for something good that had absolutely nothing to do with you?

I understand it would be the opposite of a historical government. However, that's not an argument against it. It's merely an valueless observation.

I gave up trying to convince people of things.

What kind of thinking is that?

What exactly are you trying to understand? 

http://www.heritage.org/research/projects/taxmageddon-interactive-map

King of Loss wrote: http://www.heritage.org/research/projects/taxmageddon-interactive-map Look at your state and the average tax increase projected by the Heritage foundation

Hey! Surprise of the century, NJ is among the highest.
Wait....did I confuse surprise with predictable again?
Even better, looks like my district is one the higher ones in the state to boot!

JJLehto wrote: I say again Drew, these aren't you're run of the mill libertarians. Hell, they make Ron Paul look statist! Von Mises was a bit much for me as well. They seem too far out there for me, usually near the anarchist zone, and I don't like their combative style I tend to see. I recommend you give Cato Institute a try. They were very influential for me. Also more educational than aggressive, and they make fair well stated points (even occasionally conceding things!!!). They have an agenda (who doesnt), but it's one of the better done ones I've seen.

Or you could just ask me, your friendly neighborhood libertarian who really does try very hard not to be combative or rude.

The Doctor wrote: @JJ.  From a comment you made to me awhile back.  Just now getting to it.  I actually have no problem saying "redistribution of wealth" or believing in it.  I am somewhat of a socialist.  All economics involves redistributions of wealth.  And to me, our whole economy seems to be based on a much more insidious form of redistribution of wealth.  Every time a rich executive ships jobs overseas so that he can increase his own bonus, he is redistributing wealth from the workers to himself.  Every time my landlords raise rent, there is a redistribution of wealth from the tenants to the landlords.  But we call this a "free" market and applaud it when the redistribution is from the bottom to the top.  But when it goes from top to bottom, somehow it becomes evil.  As for the anarchy discussion, I'm more of an anarchist than any of the libertarians on this board.  Because libertarians still believe in privately based social hierarchies based on how much wealth one has managed to redistribute from the rest of society to himself.  They believe your boss, your landlord, your bank, the credit reporting agencies, etc., etc., etc. deserve to have power over you.  I do not believe those structures are either just or appropriate.  Nor do they have a positive societal effect.  I believe more than they do in no hierarchical system, with a government in the equation to protect the powerless from the powerful.

No that's true. Doc, my comment was more of a generality...I know you embrace it, and I admire that. Like I said, we should big enough to stand by what we mean.

You are also right, there are many forms of redistribution. Subsidies almost always go from less off to well off, and I am against them as well.
Here's a fun one: Social Security. Again, its masked with various words but it is of course re distribution, from the working to the not. Federal loans? Well isn't that redistribution from those without college education to with? It's a sticky wicket!

A lot of the points you make can't really be debated because they are going outside the realm of capitalism, and that's fine just it won't really make any sense in debating. I will say though I hate it as much as you. The rich exec, the greedy, all of it. I just came to the painful acceptance that it will happen regardless...I'd rather have less government (which is a use of force) so the rich and powerful have less chance to work the system for themselves. After all, the rich and powerful run our government.

And I used to pitch the whole "well yeah but we just need a "true" government that's fair and simple governs etc" but we're in way too deep. Our mess can't be fixed. Maybe better to reduce its scope, in my opinion.
Oh and I am sincerely curious. What do you personally mean by wealthy? You do seem to think that "they" have made it there through evil means, and by taking it from the lesser off (which government enables). I only ask because I use to feel the EXACT same way. I later realized I meant "wealthy" as the fat cats. The real big sh*t.
That's a tiny fraction of the US though. Most affluent, wealthy, even some in that infamous 1% truly have earned their wealth.

The few people I've ever met who are over that 250k line certainly busted their ass up and down the street to get there, and probably hate the fat cats much as you.



Edited by JJLehto - December 05 2012 at 19:09

The Doctor wrote: @JJ.  From a comment you made to me awhile back.  Just now getting to it.  I actually have no problem saying "redistribution of wealth" or believing in it.  I am somewhat of a socialist.  All economics involves redistributions of wealth.  And to me, our whole economy seems to be based on a much more insidious form of redistribution of wealth.  Every time a rich executive ships jobs overseas so that he can increase his own bonus, he is redistributing wealth from the workers to himself.  Every time my landlords raise rent, there is a redistribution of wealth from the tenants to the landlords.  But we call this a "free" market and applaud it when the redistribution is from the bottom to the top.  But when it goes from top to bottom, somehow it becomes evil.  As for the anarchy discussion, I'm more of an anarchist than any of the libertarians on this board.  Because libertarians still believe in privately based social hierarchies based on how much wealth one has managed to redistribute from the rest of society to himself.  They believe your boss, your landlord, your bank, the credit reporting agencies, etc., etc., etc. deserve to have power over you.  I do not believe those structures are either just or appropriate.  Nor do they have a positive societal effect.  I believe more than they do in no hierarchical system, with a government in the equation to protect the powerless from the powerful.

I have no problem with redistribution of wealth. What I object to is involuntary redistribution of wealth.

On the topic of programs for "good" that are not really so...


I don't agree 100% with him but Friedman was perhaps the biggest influence on my conversion. Man crush enabled <3


Edited by JJLehto - December 05 2012 at 19:42