For Libertarians

[Labor Shall Rule]

I have been paying attention to Ron Paul by watching his interviews whenever I deem it necessary; as so, I have watched the Daily Show and Colbert Report, and have discovered that he is a crude character. But moreover, his political aspirations of libertarianism had left me befuddled. Ron Paul on the Daily Show explained to John Stewart that while "corporatism" is bad, Bill Gates' massive wealth is alright, because we all "pay for his services". So when the government actually does interfere in the economy to bust up the Microsoft monopoly, according to libertarians, that is "tyrannical" and "statist". He also went on to discuss the crimes of NAFTA, the World Trade Organization, and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. So, what is to be done? What should we do with the corporations? What is the solution?

[Dimentio]

Actually, why be angry? Ron Paul is apparently disliked by the media, to the point that MySpace (owned by Fox) is killing adverts positive for him.

I really abhorr libertarianism, but it won't make a paradise. Actually, by libertarian policies, most workers would quickly become more radicalised. It is quite hard to be "objective", "sober" and "civilised" when healthcare costs are soaring and the budget shrunk to the size of a midget.

[CornetJoyce]

The only interesting thing about the "libertarians" is that they had the media power to appropriate the honorable term "libertarian" from the actual Libertarians such as Barto Vanzetti.

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 11:08 pm
The only interesting thing about the "libertarians" is that they had the media power to appropriate the honorable term "libertarian" from the actual Libertarians such as Barto Vanzetti.
Let them have it. It is an ugly word.

[IcarusAngel]

Yeah, that video is right here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAHUHDoZWQY

Stewart asked him if his libertarian beliefs trust corporations... over the people (?) and Ron Paul said he was opposed to corporatism, Halliburton, military-industrial complex, etc. but not opposed to Microsoft which simply sells services to the government. He didn't mention of course that many of the great inventions in computer science and technology came from government funds, like the internet, which helped M$ get rich, and the fact that even during the 90s the government (Clinton) was pouring money into the computer industry. If you go back to it, all corporate property comes at the expense of public benefit in one way or another.

Of course, he didn't answer the question directly, just pandered to the audience. That doesn't address Stewart's question about if free-markets is trusting corporations over government (the people). Of course it is, and if you want things really fucked up, just wait until everything is privatized.


Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 10:59 pm
Actually, why be angry? Ron Paul is apparently disliked by the media, to the point that MySpace (owned by Fox) is killing adverts positive for him.

That's probably because the ron paul supports spam endlessly.

However, it is true that he has upset the system: The media hates him (probably because he's against corporate welfare and is not your typical political elitist I supposed), the other candidates hate him, most republicans despise him, and so on.

Still, I don't think I could ever vote for a Libertarian.


And yeah, Libertarians did steal the word. The word "libertarian" originally was used as an adjective to describe various forms of leftism, like libertarian-socialism or libertarian-anarchism and so on, and the non-marxist variants of communism etc.

[Dimentio]

Actually, theoretically, I could lend support to libertarian opposition to the corporates, as long as it don't grow out of control. Moreover, since Paul wants to end the Iraq debacle and deconstruct the US empire, he is smashing taboo after taboo. That would clearly bring some renewed debate outside of the corporate framework up to mainstream level. That is positive.

Of course, Paul is not good, but he is at his present state not a tactical adversary.

[Dr Mindbender]

lol :lol: '' you pay for me therefore I = good''

I also pay for my bosses and asshole government through taxes and stolen labour value so they must 'equal good' too.

Fucked up logic. :lol:

[CornetJoyce]

Originally posted by Serpent+July 05, 2007 11:22 pm--> (Serpent @ July 05, 2007 11:22 pm)
[email protected] 05, 2007 11:08 pm
The only interesting thing about the "libertarians" is that they had the media power to appropriate the honorable term "libertarian" from the actual Libertarians such as Barto Vanzetti.
Let them have it. It is an ugly word. [/b]
Well, it was to Judge Thayer and other progressives.

[wtfm8lol]

over government (the people).

right, the government = the people :rolleyes:


I also pay for my bosses and asshole government through taxes and stolen labour value so they must 'equal good' too.

you dont voluntarily pay taxes, so the assertion that those situations are similar is wrong, and clearly your labor is not being stolen if you agree to give it to your bosses.

[black magick hustla]

why are libertarians souless nerds

[wtfm8lol]

why are libertarians souless nerds

all people are soulless, as far as we know

[funkmasterswede]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 12:38 am

over government (the people).

right, the government = the people :rolleyes:


I also pay for my bosses and asshole government through taxes and stolen labour value so they must 'equal good' too.

you dont voluntarily pay taxes, so the assertion that those situations are similar is wrong, and clearly your labor is not being stolen if you agree to give it to your bosses.
I am not going to get into value, because the marxian labour theory of value was a response to classical economics.


Let's look at an example and I will show you why it is wrong to sell one's labour as a commodity and why the wage for labour time complex is inconsitent with any sort of principle of law.

For example, say we have two bankrobbers. One hires the other for his labour time. The one doing the hiring obviously will decide how much the other gets of the loot. The reason why the second robber agrees to give control is because if they are caught the first will take the fall for the entire crime, as the wage labourer has transferred his capacities into commodities to the hiring bank robber. This makes the second robber (the hired one) into an entity that does not fall under the law. The second robber is merely another form of means for the first to use.

So therefore, if the two are caught, we cannot hold the second accountable for his actions. Even if we could prove he intentionally acted to rob the bank, while doing that act he became a different sort of legal entity. But intuitively we would hold him accountable to his actions.

This accountability goes both ways, if a person assumes the status of a commodity and commits a crime they will be punished. They will be held accoutable for their actions. However, in the market, the owner can appropriate all of the products because of the commodification of the workers. He has already payed for the means of production. This is the problem, we would not accept that a robber not be held accountable to his crime if he was a wage labourer, we would not accept that he even recieve a small sentence because he was a wage labourer. We would hold him accountable to his actions. Therefore capitalist exploitation is very real, and labour managed firms are necessary in order to realize that all participate in production and thus all those who participate should have a say in the appropriation of the product.

[red team]

you dont voluntarily pay taxes, so the assertion that those situations are similar is wrong, and clearly your labor is not being stolen if you agree to give it to your bosses.

Any sort of boss and not administrator, but boss in the truest sense of a tyrant relies on a simple accounting trick that most dumb sheeple still can't figure out.

Take money used for purchasing ownership for instance. Is this a valid trade for physical resources or consumed services? A service is consumed once it's been performed and a physical resource is traded for use and also get's consumed over time with some getting consumed faster than others (like food for instance). During this trade where money changes hand for the service or physical resouces that money is supposedly traded value-for-value with does the money disappear as a cancellation of debt that is paid for labour in making that resource or performing that service? The answer is no. Money lasts forever in the hands of the bearer even when the thing or service that was supposedly backing up the value of that money has already been exchanged and is in the hands of the person that used that money for purchase. Why do you think the workers have hard earned money, but the rich "earns" your money after you give it back?


why are libertarians souless nerds

Their not anymore "souless" than overly emotional dumbasses are not able to logically see through their crude trick with permanent money purchasing temporary labour and consumable goods.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by [email protected]July 06, 2007 12:38 am
you dont voluntarily pay taxes, so the assertion that those situations are similar is wrong, and clearly your labor is not being stolen if you agree to give it to your bosses.
I pay taxes more voluntarilly than I sell my labour.

Libertarians claim that selling ones Labour is voluntaryas we choose our employers and sign a contract, yadda, yadda, yadda. Never mind the fact that if you prefer having a roof over your head and food on your table you have to do that. Theoretically it is chosen, and as far as Libertarians (who don't care about practical implications) are concerned that is good enough.

Let's take Libertarians at their word for a moment and apply the same rules to taxes. We could say they are voluntary as we don't pay them unless we either earn or spend money, and according to Libertarians both thopse things are voluntary.

Secondly the reason we pay taxes is because that's one of the conditions for living in any particular country. Well there is no law against leaving, is there? Some parts of the world won't let you leave, but Western countries do. YOu can choose to leave and live elsewhere, go to another country, some of them don't even have taxes (the Emirates for example). You might not want to leave the country, but you are free to do so. That is at least as much freedom as you have to choose your employer.

[wtfm8lol]

Never mind the fact that if you prefer having a roof over your head and food on your table you have to do that. Theoretically it is chosen, and as far as Libertarians (who don't care about practical implications) are concerned that is good enough.

if you dont want to sell your labor, take a couple of your like-minded buddies and start a commune. i dont understand how you can expect anything from people if you aren't willing to give anything to them. no one owes you a roof over your head and no one owes you food on your table unless they agree to give you it when you give them something.


Let's take Libertarians at their word for a moment and apply the same rules to taxes. We could say they are voluntary as we don't pay them unless we either earn or spend money, and according to Libertarians both thopse things are voluntary.

you must pay property taxes even if you don't work. anyway, while paying taxes is voluntary in that sense, i do not think taxes should be mandatory under any circumstance aside from fines.


Secondly the reason we pay taxes is because that's one of the conditions for living in any particular country.

and we seek to change that condition. or perhaps you think all conditions should remain the same forever?


Well there is no law against leaving, is there? Some parts of the world won't let you leave, but Western countries do. YOu can choose to leave and live elsewhere, go to another country, some of them don't even have taxes (the Emirates for example). You might not want to leave the country, but you are free to do so. That is at least as much freedom as you have to choose your employer.

there is somewhat of a major practical difference between changing your employer (or making yourself your employer) and moving to a different country. of course, since you've assumed we don't care about practicality, you will just call me a hypocrite for pointing this out, even though i do take practicality into consideration.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 02:12 pm
if you dont want to sell your labor, take a couple of your like-minded buddies and start a commune. i dont understand how you can expect anything from people if you aren't willing to give anything to them. no one owes you a roof over your head and no one owes you food on your table unless they agree to give you it when you give them something.


Nobody is arguing that you get something for nothing. Rather that you have ownership of your own work. By the US Government's own reckoning, workers in America only gain about 25% of the wealth they create. The average worker in America has 75% of the wealth he creates syphoned off. You call this freedom to choose your own employer. I say what is the point of choosing your own employer, when they arte all doing that? However takibng you at your word that that is freedom, I am simply applying the same principle to taxation.
you must pay property taxes even if you don't work. anyway, while paying taxes is voluntary in that sense, i do not think taxes should be mandatory under any circumstance aside from fines.Again property taxes are voluntary as owning property is volunatary (by your standards).

Of course, we both know that this argument really has nothing to do with freedom, and choosing your work and where your money goes and all that. It is just a tantrum about taxes. Which does require we take a small tangent to discuss how a capitalist society is going to work without taxes. Certainly all the study of economics I have ever done indicates it is imposible, so do enlighten me, how are we going to do it?

and we seek to change that condition. or perhaps you think all conditions should remain the same forever?Hardly, if I remember correctly, I am the revolutionary. You are the reactionary who calls all change, initiation of force.

there is somewhat of a major practical difference between changing your employer (or making yourself your employer) and moving to a different country. of course, since you've assumed we don't care about practicality, you will just call me a hypocrite for pointing this out, even though i do take practicality into consideration.Well if practical problems are to be taken into account (which kind of shoots down your dream of tax free capitalism), then I am justified in pointing out the practical problems in your talk of choosing your employer, am I not?

[wtfm8lol]

Nobody is arguing that you get something for nothing. Rather that you have ownership of your own work. By the US Government's own reckoning, workers in America only gain about 25% of the wealth they create. The average worker in America has 75% of the wealth he creates syphoned off. You call this freedom to choose your own employer. I say what is the point of choosing your own employer, when they arte all doing that? However takibng you at your word that that is freedom, I am simply applying the same principle to taxation.

How, exactly, did they come up with that? Perhaps by counting only the money that goes into his pocket as his share of the wealth he created while ignoring that the rest directly benefits him, since without his company he couldn't have made that wealth to begin with?


Certainly all the study of economics I have ever done indicates it is imposible, so do enlighten me, how are we going to do it?

are you referring to the Keynesian idea that the government must regulate the growth of the economy through budget surpluses and deficits? or are you referring to the belief that the government is necessary in order to provide "public goods"?


Hardly, if I remember correctly, I am the revolutionary. You are the reactionary who calls all change, initiation of force.

laughable. i call initiation of force initation of force. if the change is to reduce the use of force, why would i oppose it?


Well if practical problems are to be taken into account (which kind of shoots down your dream of tax free capitalism), then I am justified in pointing out the practical problems in your talk of choosing your employer, am I not?

sure, but there really isn't a practical problem. if you wish to start a commune, no one will stop you. if you choose to become your own boss, some might even help you.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 05:00 pm
How, exactly, did they come up with that? Perhaps by counting only the money that goes into his pocket as his share of the wealth he created while ignoring that the rest directly benefits him, since without his company he couldn't have made that wea]

Why precisely is the firm needed to create the wealth? The reason we have private firms is becaue capitalists have a near monopoly on non human factors of production. There is no reason beyond that for having capitalist owned firms.

are you referring to the Keynesian idea that the government must regulate the growth of the economy through budget surpluses and deficits? or are you referring to the belief that the government is necessary in order to provide "public goods"?
And the very least a capitalist Government is going to need some form of power to maintain itself. A police force and army. If it is also going to have the nice Libertarian fairy tale things of equality before the law and protection of rights it will need a court system and law making body. If it is going to pay attention to economic reality it is at the very least going to need to correct market failure and provide public goods. All of that needs to be paid for.
aughable. i call initiation of force initation of force. if the change is to reduce the use of force, why would i oppose it?YOu simply call things you don't like initiation of force even if they are not and deny things you like are initiation of force when you do like them. You aren't concerned with freedom at all. This is just a tantrum about taxes.

sure, but there really isn't a practical problem. if you wish to start a commune, no one will stop you. if you choose to become your own boss, some might even help you.But we are not advocating lifestylist vanities like communes, nor are we wanting to simply become the bosses. The practical problem which is clear for anyone to see is that no matter how nice it is in theory, in economic terms a society of people freely buying and selling labour can not exist when one group of society has a near monopoly on non human factors of production.

[wtfm8lol]

Why precisely is the firm needed to create the wealth? The reason we have private firms is becaue capitalists have a near monopoly on non human factors of production. There is no reason beyond that for having capitalist owned firms.

well the firm is necessary because cooperating workers can produce more than individual workers. the capitalist owned firm is not necessary, but it survives because it can make decisions more quickly than a firm in which the workers make all of the decisions democratically. decisions must be made rapidly in order for any economic system to survive. it is perfectly possible and not entirely uncommon to have firms that are run by their workers, but they are generally less capable of growing rapidly.


And the very least a capitalist Government is going to need some form of power to maintain itself. A police force and army. If it is also going to have the nice Libertarian fairy tale things of equality before the law and protection of rights it will need a court system and law making body. If it is going to pay attention to economic reality it is at the very least going to need to correct market failure and provide public goods. All of that needs to be paid for.

Sure. Let's work out how much this would cost the average person:

Cops: salary = 60k per year
Number of cops per person: (based on NYPD, 40,000/8,200,000 = about 1/200, based on LAPD, 10,000/3,850,000 = about 1/380, based on Tokyo 42000/12,570,000 = about 1/300) approximately 1/300 based on some big cities, but far more than a society would need if it did not wish to occupy itself with drug laws and prostitution busts, so I will estimate about 1 officer is necessary for 1000 people.
Price per person: 60 dollars per year, 5 dollars per month. I would gladly donate twice that per month to my local police force if they weren't a bunch of twats in the interest of keeping me safe. also, there are many who would say the majority of funds for a police force should be taken from lawbreakers, without whom the force would be unnecessary.

Army: Should be militia based, will cost a negligible amount per person except in time of war. At war time, it should be funded by donations, which helps to keep an unpopular war from occurring. No need for a tax here.

Courts: What do you need, 1 judge per 10,000 people? Why not just make the participants in any civil case pay the judge?

Law making body: being that there shouldnt be too many laws being made, i dont see any reason for this to be a full time job. no payment for them.

will continue this later...

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 08:49 pm

well the firm is necessary because cooperating workers can produce more than individual workers. the capitalist owned firm is not necessary, but it survives because it can make decisions more quickly than a firm in which the workers make all of the decisions democratically. decisions must be made rapidly in order for any economic system to survive. it is perfectly possible and not entirely uncommon to have firms that are run by their workers, but they are generally less capable of growing rapidly.

I am not denying people working together is better. My objection is that three quarters of the value of their work is being leached off them.

Sure. Let's work out how much this would cost the average person:

Cops: salary = 60k per year
Number of cops per person: (based on NYPD, 40,000/8,200,000 = about 1/200, based on LAPD, 10,000/3,850,000 = about 1/380, based on Tokyo 42000/12,570,000 = about 1/300) approximately 1/300 based on some big cities, but far more than a society would need if it did not wish to occupy itself with drug laws and prostitution busts, so I will estimate about 1 officer is necessary for 1000 people.
Price per person: 60 dollars per year, 5 dollars per month. I would gladly donate twice that per month to my local police force if they weren't a bunch of twats in the interest of keeping me safe. also, there are many who would say the majority of funds for a police force should be taken from lawbreakers, without whom the force would be unnecessary.

Army: Should be militia based, will cost a negligible amount per person except in time of war. At war time, it should be funded by donations, which helps to keep an unpopular war from occurring. No need for a tax here.

Courts: What do you need, 1 judge per 10,000 people? Why not just make the participants in any civil case pay the judge?

Law making body: being that there shouldnt be too many laws being made, i dont see any reason for this to be a full time job. no payment for them.

will continue this later...Now you are just being naive. How are you going to pay for the recruitment, training and equipping of policemen? What abut administration? As for your courts, in America they will be dealing with millions of cases each year, especially as in Libertopia, people will have to go before the courts all the time to address their grievances, not to mention the fact that the inevitable societal breakdown will lead to much greater crime. How is all this going to be paid for. What about the prisons?

As for the military, it should be militia based, should it? Who is going to force the people who don't want to take part into it. Voluntary militias won't get too many signing up, expecially if they aren't paid well.

Look at the current costs for things like police and courts to give you an idea of how much all that is ging to cost. In Libertopia it will actually be a bit higher as crime rates will certainly be higher.

Now, how are we going to deal with market failure? Ignore it? Enjoy watching America's economy crumple. Correct it? That is a great deal more money needing raised.

Rather a lot of money needing to be raised for someone who is against taxes to have a good solution to, isn't there?

[wtfm8lol]

I am not denying people working together is better. My objection is that three quarters of the value of their work is being leached off them.

while it's true that there are some corporations that allow their leaders to pocket the money, the majority of the corporations take the rest of the money and use it to invest in new technologies or to expand or to advertise or to develop new products. if they did not do this, they would quickly find that themselves out of business and the workers would lose their jobs.


Now you are just being naive. How are you going to pay for the recruitment, training and equipping of policemen? What abut administration? As for your courts, in America they will be dealing with millions of cases each year, especially as in Libertopia, people will have to go before the courts all the time to address their grievances, not to mention the fact that the inevitable societal breakdown will lead to much greater crime. How is all this going to be paid for. What about the prisons?

another solution to this problem is to simply fund the police force with a property tax on land. i'm not opposed to this sort of a tax, since it is run at the city level so ordinary citizens have a good amount of power over it as well as the ability to pick up and move to another city if they decide the tax is too high or low. this move is far easier than changing states or countries, and so the practical aspect is not a problem.


As for the military, it should be militia based, should it? Who is going to force the people who don't want to take part into it.

no one. do you think people should be forced to fight for causes they disagree with?


Voluntary militias won't get too many signing up, expecially if they aren't paid well.

the united states military is volunteer based, and they're certainly not paid very well, but that hasn't stopped hundreds of thousands of people from joining.


Look at the current costs for things like police and courts to give you an idea of how much all that is ging to cost. In Libertopia it will actually be a bit higher as crime rates will certainly be higher.

maybe you can give a reason for this assertion so i'll have something to argue against next time.


If it is going to pay attention to economic reality it is at the very least going to need to correct market failure and provide public goods. All of that needs to be paid for.

why do you keep assuming a government is necessary to correct for market failure? i know about keynes' analysis, and i'm unconvinced the government needs to regulate the economy through surpluses and deficits. also, what specifically are you talking about when you say public goods? i know the liberal economic definition of a public good (use can't be restricted easily, one person using it doesnt stop another from using it, some other qualification i dont care about), but i want you to give some examples.


You aren't concerned with freedom at all. This is just a tantrum about taxes.

great, now you're telling me what i'm concerned with.


Rather a lot of money needing to be raised for someone who is against taxes to have a good solution to, isn't there?

certainly less than the 30% of everyone's income thats been taken right off the bat as it is now.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 10:53 pm

while it's true that there are some corporations that allow their leaders to pocket the money, the majority of the corporations take the rest of the money and use it to invest in new technologies or to expand or to advertise or to develop new products. if they did not do this, they would quickly find that themselves out of business and the workers would lose their jobs.



The money is paid to the shareholders as dividends. Money re-invested for research is not what I am talking about. There is no reason why workers cannot vote to re-invest some and keep the rest. THe problem is the capitalists who did not earn this income are taking the whole lot of it and deciding what should be done with it.
another solution to this problem is to simply fund the police force with a property tax on land. i'm not opposed to this sort of a tax, since it is run at the city level so ordinary citizens have a good amount of power over it as well as the ability to pick up and move to another city if they decide the tax is too high or low. this move is far easier than changing states or countries, and so the practical aspect is not a problem.I thought we would get to this. So taxes are really all right, so long as they are regressive?
no one. do you think people should be forced to fight for causes they disagree with?Certainly not, but I am not suggesting a militia. A country having a militia as it's army implies service in the militia is compulsory.

the united states military is volunteer based, and they're certainly not paid very well, but that hasn't stopped hundreds of thousands of people from joining.It is full time employment. YOu seem to be hoping people will sign up to an unpaid or poorly paid militia that will offer no full time employment simply because it will make your system work.
maybe you can give a reason for this assertion so i'll have something to argue against next time.
The greater the inequality in society, the higher the crime rate, andf what you want will lead to disastrous inequality
why do you keep assuming a government is necessary to correct for market failure? i know about keynes' analysis, and i'm unconvinced the government needs to regulate the economy through surpluses and deficits. also, what specifically are you talking about when you say public goods? i know the liberal economic definition of a public good (use can't be restricted easily, one person using it doesnt stop another from using it, some other qualification i dont care about), but i want you to give some examples.The market can only base the price it sets for each good or service on internal costs and benefits. It ignores externalities. The Governmment needs to correct this otherwise the market fails. An example would be education. The benefit to society from having an educated population is very high, but because the market does not take account of this external benefit, less education will be supplied than is economically optimum so the Government provides free education to correct this. Under your system, education will be under provided and everyone will lose out. The market simply can not provide education efficiently.
great, now you're telling me what i'm concerned with.
Are you denying this? Every ex-libertarian I have ever encountered has confirmed this to me.

certainly less than the 30% of everyone's income thats been taken right off the bat as it is now.Maybe, but then people will have to pay for all the things currently paid for out of taxation themselves and in many cases the overall cost will be greater (as can be seen from healthcare). What precise reason is there for wanting people to have less disposable income than they have now?

[wtfm8lol]

There is no reason why workers cannot vote to re-invest some and keep the rest.

no there isn't, and it happens sometimes, but it takes longer and the average worker isn't as knowledgeable as the average manager, so it doesn't happen often.


I thought we would get to this. So taxes are really all right, so long as they are regressive?

i would prefer that they don't exist, but if they're necessary in this instance, then they're necessary. they're probably not necessary, however, so i won't advocate them.


Certainly not, but I am not suggesting a militia. A country having a militia as it's army implies service in the militia is compulsory.

i apologize, i used the wrong term then. i would prefer that the army is entirely volunteer based and is not a standing army.


It is full time employment. YOu seem to be hoping people will sign up to an unpaid or poorly paid militia that will offer no full time employment simply because it will make your system work.

how often are developed countries invaded? out of curiousity, how much were the militiamen paid in the US revolutionary war?


The greater the inequality in society, the higher the crime rate, andf what you want will lead to disastrous inequality

i disagree; unnecessary government regulations hinder competition in the market, and that is what leds to inequality.


It ignores externalities.

externalities don't really exist. they're an invention of the keynesians to make it look like the market has problems.


An example would be education. The benefit to society from having an educated population is very high, but because the market does not take account of this external benefit, less education will be supplied than is economically optimum so the Government provides free education to correct this. Under your system, education will be under provided and everyone will lose out. The market simply can not provide education efficiently.

bullshit. education is one of the poorest attempts at an example of an externality. do you think a society left to fend for itself without a nanny government would just ignore the massive benefits of education and allow it to go underfunded, or do you think they would recognize this and take it into account? if the market can't provide education efficiently, the government sure as fuck can't either.


Are you denying this? Every ex-libertarian I have ever encountered has confirmed this to me.

taxes don't hurt me that badly personally, so i dont really have much of a gripe with them yet. my reason for becoming a libertarian was mainly that i realized the size of a government will keep increasing as the people become more and more dependent on it, which is why the US government is so large now. it also bothers me how a government has gotten to the size where it thinks it has some say in my personal affairs that don't affect anyone else.


Maybe, but then people will have to pay for all the things currently paid for out of taxation themselves and in many cases the overall cost will be greater

i've seen very, very few examples where the government offers a better product at a lower price than the market when the two are allowed to compete. one example : USPS vs UPS/all of the other delivery services.


as can be seen from healthcare

that's a poor example, since the health care industry is so heavily regulated.


What precise reason is there for wanting people to have less disposable income than they have now?

they will inevitably have more disposable income.

[Dimentio]

Private education by loans means that the students would need to take loans. On primary education, it would mean that the parents would have to take loans. Given that there is a huge problem with parents not caring for their kids, we will begin to see illiteracy sprout.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 12:11 am
no there isn't, and it happens sometimes, but it takes longer and the average worker isn't as knowledgeable as the average manager, so it doesn't happen often



The average manager very knowledgeable? :lol: Joking aside, I would like to see some evidence for this. At any rate, I am not particularly talking about managers, because that is a different debate for a different day. I am talking about owners.
i would prefer that they don't exist, but if they're necessary in this instance, then they're necessary. they're probably not necessary, however, so i won't advocate them.They won't be neccessary? :lol: You seem to be hoping everything will work out wonderfulyl and we will have a wonderful utopia where everything necessary is provided for at no cost. That's what we commies sometimes get accused of here, but I think our accusers might want to look in the mirror. To quote Milton Friedman: "there is no such thing as a free lunch". You are going to have to pay taxes if you want the law and order that is required for capitalism.


i apologize, i used the wrong term then. i would prefer that the army is entirely volunteer based and is not a standing armyFair, enough but this is going to bring its own problems...

how often are developed countries invaded? out of curiousity, how much were the militiamen paid in the US revolutionary war?Well developed countries are rarely invaded, but a country following your ideals will not stay developed for very long. Anyway I don't see external invasion as being the major threat to your society. I see internal unrest being the proble. Your society will make some people very rich and others very poor. Indeed taken to it's logical conclusion, it could even look like Somalia (a country some Libertarians actually want to emulate). People are not going to like that. Youare going to have to have some way of putting down dissent. Countries that have followed a more Libertarian path, have had a solution to internal unrest of course. Gun down the leftists in Soccer stadiums in Santiago and proceed to arrest the rest of them, torture, rape them and make them "disappear". Who is going to do such grissly necessities in your society? Or perhaps the lefties will be left free to rise up and take control. Because in a capitalist dystopia without any means of putting us down, we will be rather keen to do so.

i disagree; unnecessary government regulations hinder competition in the market, and that is what leds to inequality.Why let the facts get in the way of a good argument? It has been conclusively shwn that absence of Government regulation in a capitalist society leads to much greater inequality. Also the larger the welfare state, the greater the social mobility.
externalities don't really exist. they're an invention of the keynesians to make it look like the market has problems.And now you are resorting to conspiracy theories. Externalities are empirically verifiable fact. You seem to want them to cease existing simply because you find them inconvenient.

bullshit. education is one of the poorest attempts at an example of an externality. do you think a society left to fend for itself without a nanny government would just ignore the massive benefits of education and allow it to go underfunded, or do you think they would recognize this and take it into account? if the market can't provide education efficiently, the government sure as fuck can't either.And again you are simply making things up. The reason the Government provides education is because the market is incapable of doing so. Firms in a capitalist society work to maximise profit. They do not act out of the goodness of their hearts. It is impossible to maxcimise profit (maybe even to make a profit) in education by educating everyone. They will have to leave millions uneducated and give many more an inferior education as they cannot pay for full education. This is not me speaking theoretically. i am simply pointing out what has always happened when the market has been left to deal with education. If you can find any example, any at all of the market providing education as well as the state does for everyone I will be astounded. In your system you will have perhaps the majority of people barely educated and consequently the economy will suffer.

taxes don't hurt me that badly personally, so i dont really have much of a gripe with them yet. my reason for becoming a libertarian was mainly that i realized the size of a government will keep increasing as the people become more and more dependent on it, which is why the US government is so large now. it also bothers me how a government has gotten to the size where it thinks it has some say in my personal affairs that don't affect anyone else.Yet whenever any Government with a leaning towards Libertarianism has come to power they have clamped down on civil liberties and interfered in people's lives more. A hundred years ago when capitalism was allowed to do it's own thing, the Government interfered in people's lives extremely closely indeed. If you are interested in the Government respecting people's privacy you ought to oppose capitalism.
've seen very, very few examples where the government offers a better product at a lower price than the market when the two are allowed to compete. one example : USPS vs UPS/all of the other delivery services.When they privitised the postal service here, prices went up, indeed so much that the way international postage works it is often cheaper to send post abroad to somewhere with state owned post (even the far east) than it is to send it domestically. When they privitised the railways, not only did prices shoot up, but they decided to save on costs by cutting down on safety and dozens of people were killed until the Government regained control of that. Also many of the railway companies went bankrupt. When they privitised the energy companies, prices shot up again. Indeed in just about every case, the market provided an inferior and more expensive service than the state did. I know that doesn't suit your ideology, but those are the plain facts.
that's a poor example, since the health care industry is so heavily regulated.Is America the only country in the world? Find me an example of healthcare past and present that is unregulated and show that it worked, go on.

they will inevitably have more disposable income.Why? Because you say so? Again empirical evidence shows that people in countries with higher tax rates actually have more disposable income. If you want to claim your system will give people more disposable income, show some evidence?

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 02:08 pm
I have been paying attention to Ron Paul by watching his interviews whenever I deem it necessary; as so, I have watched the Daily Show and Colbert Report, and have discovered that he is a crude character. But moreover, his political aspirations of libertarianism had left me befuddled. Ron Paul on the Daily Show explained to John Stewart that while "corporatism" is bad, Bill Gates' massive wealth is alright, because we all "pay for his services". So when the government actually does interfere in the economy to bust up the Microsoft monopoly, according to libertarians, that is "tyrannical" and "statist". He also went on to discuss the crimes of NAFTA, the World Trade Organization, and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. So, what is to be done? What should we do with the corporations? What is the solution?
stop protecting them from the market

[Labor Shall Rule]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 08:45 am
stop protecting them from the market
If they "stop protecting them from the market", then wouldn't they simply dominate it altogether? Since they are ready-made juggernauts, wouldn't they simply stand strong?

[red team]

Originally posted by RedDali+July 10, 2007 03:00 am--> (RedDali @ July 10, 2007 03:00 am)
[email protected] 08, 2007 08:45 am
stop protecting them from the market
If they "stop protecting them from the market", then wouldn't they simply dominate it altogether? Since they are ready-made juggernauts, wouldn't they simply stand strong? [/b]
They would be not protected by "competition" that has no scruples about using slave labour. For example, Chinese brickworks that rely on kidnapped slave labour would be able to out compete them with a lower cost to output ratio.

The "cost" being what?

Worker's wages! :lol:

See how competition works in the free market.

Who wins in this game? What are they competing over? A better life for everyone?

Workers are the game pieces not the game players.

[freakazoid]

Ron Paul seems to have a huge internet fan base.

On the topic of taxation, an interesting conversation http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=284103

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by RedDali+July 09, 2007 10:00 pm--> (RedDali @ July 09, 2007 10:00 pm)
[email protected] 08, 2007 08:45 am
stop protecting them from the market
If they "stop protecting them from the market", then wouldn't they simply dominate it altogether? Since they are ready-made juggernauts, wouldn't they simply stand strong? [/b]
only if you assume that the current forms of interventionism really hurt corporations, which isn't really true

[red team]

Ron Paul seems to have a huge internet fan base.

On the topic of taxation, an interesting conversation http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=284103

It sounds so good though doesn't it: liberty!

It's like a brand label: nike, adidas...

Marketing is everything for the stupid consumer cows.

Libertarian! It does have a certain lofty, uplifting ring to it doesn't it?

Democracy! Freedom! and Stuff! (http://youtube.com/watch?v=J1LWg1jFp4E)

What more can you ask for?

[Red Tung]

Corporations are bad, evil, sociopathic organizations. :angry:

They must be thrown into the trash bin of history where they belong!