Asunto: »Political & economic ideologies (communism, capitalism et

If you ask me, this is the main point of economics.

lol

I don't argue with stupidity or religion. Stopped that a long time ago. So in this case stupidity.

I don't argue when I'm losing.

FYP

It can justify taxation (economically) on the grounds that the costs of social turmoil can be higher than the costs of giving people money to prevent that turmoil from happening. But then you keep the problem that you have to impose things on others. But you're right that it only justifies a taxing state economically and not morally.

Edit: not morally if you take an individual moral perspective. From a collectivist point of view you can be considered morally wrong if you are not willing to contribute to the greater good.
(editado)

You cannot deny that the extent of government intervention is a main issue within economics.

Well, actually, you can, just like you can deny heliocentrism.

But then you keep the problem that you have to impose things on others.

We don't. We solely forbid people to impose their opinion on others (force others to pay for their system). If you call that imposing things on others, I'm okay with that ;-)

From a collectivist point of view you can be considered morally wrong if you are not willing to contribute to the greater good.

Well, libertarians don't have a collectivist point of view, do they? ;-)

Your example of the riots of poor people is 'funny', I was planning on reading 'Atlas Shrugged' (in which the opposite happens) very soon ;-)

Stop thinking you're the only one who knows about this. Your support of the big government is rather weak itself.

It seems I am.
You read some sidelines of a theory which is not bad I admit. But the sidelines are complicated and not at all correct (to some parts) under mathematical projection, just read that up, took me 15 minutes.

I am leaving this thread now. Things that get on my nerves because of one sided view and desperate defense of complications most ppl can't overview I stopped waisting my time in.

Just for your information:
I have more than one degree; taxlaw, business, economics and so on.
I worked with a professor for months who is a major distributor to nowadays economics in Germany.
I worked for 2 big companies in auditing, tax law, accounting and consulting over years now.

And of course I am fed up with the governments but to change the whole system like you want to, I know from where my family comes from and I don't want to see friends who were given not the mind I have leaning towards poverty because everyone should look out for themselves. That is not the kind of world I want to live in, besides several other worlds I don't want to live in.
Questions, solutions, improving solutions.
Not any other way.

I actually meant that 'thinking about the unseen' is the main issue of economics. Of course, government intervention is a great issue too. Economics is the science of human action, so intervening within human action is important too (see for example Rothbard, writing a huge book on economics: Man, Economy and State with Power and Market -> Power and Market entails a huge part of the combined book, because it is indeed of great importance).

'think out of the box'

Please, don't even go there with a set ideology as yours, based completely on ideas of others. What you do has nothing to do with this phrase. And another thing, believing in an utopia isn't equal to thinking outside any box as the box still has to be not only creative but also realistic.

I don't argue when I'm losing.

FYP

bs
I simply don't argue with idiots because they take you down to your level and beat you with experience.

I like to argue, but if I have to argue with onesided and minded people who do not see the obvious flaws in their theories religions and arguments I stop and leave them alone.

I think that only counts if you are an utilitarian (Bentham style), and not if you are a libertarian per se (or have a different moral philosophy than utilitarianism)

I did not base all my ideas on other peoples ideas, in fact, I thought of some of these ideas independently, while I took ideas from other people (I don't see what's wrong with it), while applying a great degree of criticism.

And another thing, believing in an utopia isn't equal to thinking outside any box as the box still has to be not only creative but also realistic.

I don't believe in utopia. Before there was any form of nation state, there were historical examples of libertarian-like societies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism#Historical_precedents_similar_to_anarcho-capitalism

I think it is very strange that libertarians are accused of believing in an utopia, while a well functioning, moral, uncorrupted government is (IMO) the greatest utopia of all times.

And of course I am fed up with the governments but to change the whole system like you want to, I know from where my family comes from and I don't want to see friends who were given not the mind I have leaning towards poverty because everyone should look out for themselves.

Is this supposed to be criticism on libertarianism? 'Cause what you're saying there (everyone for himself) has nothing to do with libertarianism.

We don't. We solely forbid people to impose their opinion on others (force others to pay for their system). If you call that imposing things on others, I'm okay with that ;-)
I would have to impose things, not you. So that is fine. Whatever we discuss, we always end up at the collectivism/individualism divide, where it has to be noted that in my opinion certainly not everything is a collective moral responsibility.

Nice, some economists clashing their heads about some of their utopias in here *popcorn* :D