Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
¡¡¡Tema cerrado!!!
Asunto: »Political & economic ideologies (communism, capitalism et
I agree with everything you say and I share the sense of annoyance with that. Only, I don't agree that somebody else is doing that to those people. They are "obeying" by their own free will so it's more of a chicken and egg situation. If nobody would "obey", there would not be anyone to be obeyed. Most conspiracy theories are just pure attempts of rationalization of human imperfections. People are stupid by themselves. There is no mastermind that has people hypnotized. Well, there is actually. But he's not a human. ;)
The commies also didn't give a shit about economic efficiency.
Also? Also? With 'in principle', I meant that libertarians want a free society, and only then care about efficiency.
No evil intentions here I swear.
I'm not saying you have evil intentions (as you can't see taxation is theft). Look at the 75% rate tax for rich people in France. People know they won't be affected by this, while others will.
Also? Also? With 'in principle', I meant that libertarians want a free society, and only then care about efficiency.
No evil intentions here I swear.
I'm not saying you have evil intentions (as you can't see taxation is theft). Look at the 75% rate tax for rich people in France. People know they won't be affected by this, while others will.
I can not say this with enough emphasis- If 'pay as you need' services were offered, then primarily this would be services for the rich.
Even if so, what's the problem with that?
Second, ALL governments (that collect taxes) are socialist in that they redistribute wealth. That is the nature of government.
No it's not. At least Americans should know there's a different approach to the government. Founding Fathers, anyone?
If you do not like that, then blame your forefathers.
I can blame whoever I want, I want to change it. Blaming dead people will not help that.
Even if so, what's the problem with that?
Second, ALL governments (that collect taxes) are socialist in that they redistribute wealth. That is the nature of government.
No it's not. At least Americans should know there's a different approach to the government. Founding Fathers, anyone?
If you do not like that, then blame your forefathers.
I can blame whoever I want, I want to change it. Blaming dead people will not help that.
this is a BUNCH OF CRAP. you are just typing words with no basis of fact or truth.
See the French 75% tax rate.
See the French 75% tax rate.
Also? Also? With 'in principle', I meant that libertarians want a free society, and only then care about efficiency.
Yes. And this has the same effect on economic efficiency as communism does. We are talking about what is good for the economy here and not which ideology is more fair. Even though, in principle, the ideology which is best for the economy in the long run, i.e. which is the most sustainable, is also the most fair one. Because distribution is more equal in communism than what it is in market economies. But the products are shit, people become slobs and eventually the whole bloody thing collapses and leaves you with a half of century of necessary transition.
I'm not saying you have evil intentions (as you can't see taxation is theft). Look at the 75% rate tax for rich people in France. People know they won't be affected by this, while others will.
Well, I am not worried for the rich of this world. I think that they will manage despite the 75%. They should not complain about fairness. They should invest their money into the economy or else it should come back to the economy through taxes. if the economy gets clogged by the accumulation of wealth of a greedy bunch of people, then taxation of them is a legitimate means to restore balance within the economy. Ever heard of a Gini coefficient? For me this is the 2nd most important economic indicator and it should be kept below 30 by any economic means necessary. This is an indicator of the extent of what you call "slavery".
Yes. And this has the same effect on economic efficiency as communism does. We are talking about what is good for the economy here and not which ideology is more fair. Even though, in principle, the ideology which is best for the economy in the long run, i.e. which is the most sustainable, is also the most fair one. Because distribution is more equal in communism than what it is in market economies. But the products are shit, people become slobs and eventually the whole bloody thing collapses and leaves you with a half of century of necessary transition.
I'm not saying you have evil intentions (as you can't see taxation is theft). Look at the 75% rate tax for rich people in France. People know they won't be affected by this, while others will.
Well, I am not worried for the rich of this world. I think that they will manage despite the 75%. They should not complain about fairness. They should invest their money into the economy or else it should come back to the economy through taxes. if the economy gets clogged by the accumulation of wealth of a greedy bunch of people, then taxation of them is a legitimate means to restore balance within the economy. Ever heard of a Gini coefficient? For me this is the 2nd most important economic indicator and it should be kept below 30 by any economic means necessary. This is an indicator of the extent of what you call "slavery".
Even though, in principle, the ideology which is best for the economy in the long run, i.e. which is the most sustainable, is also the most fair one.
I agree on that. Economic classical liberalism is in the long run the best option. And the most fair.
Well, I am not worried for the rich of this world. I think that they will manage despite the 75%. They should not complain about fairness.
That's not the point. The point was that people vote for people proposing taxes they know won't affect them.
They should invest their money into the economy or else it should come back to the economy through taxes. if the economy gets clogged by the accumulation of wealth of a greedy bunch of people, then taxation of them is a legitimate means to restore balance within the economy
Did they ever sign a contract or anything similar in which they promise to invest their money in the economy? No. So why is taxation a legitimate mean to 'restore the balance'. (A government restoring the balance. Communism tried that. Didn't work out.)
Ever heard of a Gini coefficient?
No. I have a Master's in Economics, but I've never heard of that before.
For me this is the 2nd most important economic indicator and it should be kept below 30 by any economic means necessary. This is an indicator of the extent of what you call "slavery".
No, it most certainly isn't. My claim of slavery has nothing to do with socio-economic inequality. I don't give a shit about inequality. Inequality is good nor bad. The main economic indicator is entrepreneurial freedom. By a mile.
I agree on that. Economic classical liberalism is in the long run the best option. And the most fair.
Well, I am not worried for the rich of this world. I think that they will manage despite the 75%. They should not complain about fairness.
That's not the point. The point was that people vote for people proposing taxes they know won't affect them.
They should invest their money into the economy or else it should come back to the economy through taxes. if the economy gets clogged by the accumulation of wealth of a greedy bunch of people, then taxation of them is a legitimate means to restore balance within the economy
Did they ever sign a contract or anything similar in which they promise to invest their money in the economy? No. So why is taxation a legitimate mean to 'restore the balance'. (A government restoring the balance. Communism tried that. Didn't work out.)
Ever heard of a Gini coefficient?
No. I have a Master's in Economics, but I've never heard of that before.
For me this is the 2nd most important economic indicator and it should be kept below 30 by any economic means necessary. This is an indicator of the extent of what you call "slavery".
No, it most certainly isn't. My claim of slavery has nothing to do with socio-economic inequality. I don't give a shit about inequality. Inequality is good nor bad. The main economic indicator is entrepreneurial freedom. By a mile.
i have a questions for you (all) if a state guarantee the right of propriety until death why the state not guarantee a better life for every man, no matter what he do ? why ? because some are slaves and some are stupids and not deserve a life...it's not right
if a state guarantee the right of propriety until death why the state not guarantee a better life for every man, no matter what he do ?
Because everything a state gives to a man, it must first take from somebody else. So if a state wants to give something to a poor man, it must violate the right of property of someone else.
Apart from that ideological reason, there is also a pragmatic reason. If the state guarantees a good life for everyone, and everyone relies on the state, who will pay for that? There would be no incentive to work, no incentive to excel.
Because everything a state gives to a man, it must first take from somebody else. So if a state wants to give something to a poor man, it must violate the right of property of someone else.
Apart from that ideological reason, there is also a pragmatic reason. If the state guarantees a good life for everyone, and everyone relies on the state, who will pay for that? There would be no incentive to work, no incentive to excel.
capitalist propaganda, but never tried anything else because it's rational ( i admit ) and this is the human nature
I can not say this with enough emphasis- If 'pay as you need' services were offered, then primarily this would be services for the rich.
Even if so, what's the problem with that?
again, I can not disagree more- EVERYTHING would be wrong with 'pay as you go' government that would primarily benefit the wealthy.
Even if so, what's the problem with that?
again, I can not disagree more- EVERYTHING would be wrong with 'pay as you go' government that would primarily benefit the wealthy.
Because everything a state gives to a man, it must first take from somebody else. So if a state wants to give something to a poor man, it must violate the right of property of someone else.
you are conflating the argument- government taxing does not 'violate the right of property of someone else'.
again, you are just making crap up.
(editado)
you are conflating the argument- government taxing does not 'violate the right of property of someone else'.
again, you are just making crap up.
(editado)
You can continue saying that, but there are other approaches. I know you'll say they're nonsense, but nevertheless: natural law. Hobbes for instance had an interesting view on that.
Also, the Declaration of Human Rights is based on that concept. That's nonsense too, probably?
LOL,
natural ritghts is a tale.
In fact you can't have a right without a rule and someone that make that rule working.
I can claim to have any natural right I imagine (I have the naturale right to have Canada for my own!!! for example!) but reality is that I have no rights until there are some (real) strenght to avoid it.
So yes, the declaration of Human Rights is nothing more than a recomandation for countries.. in fact you see that there are no problems for those states that doesn't respect them.
i see you confuse an ideal wordl with the real one..
Also, the Declaration of Human Rights is based on that concept. That's nonsense too, probably?
LOL,
natural ritghts is a tale.
In fact you can't have a right without a rule and someone that make that rule working.
I can claim to have any natural right I imagine (I have the naturale right to have Canada for my own!!! for example!) but reality is that I have no rights until there are some (real) strenght to avoid it.
So yes, the declaration of Human Rights is nothing more than a recomandation for countries.. in fact you see that there are no problems for those states that doesn't respect them.
i see you confuse an ideal wordl with the real one..
No, you're wrong. The people that don't want to belong to any country may have a point that the government is actually stealing from them. Their problem is that they don't understand that the majority has a valid right to enforce the need for some forms of public/state property as well and the necessary taxing to support it. And also, the fact that they are relatively free to go to another country completely disqualifies taxation as form of slavery. North Koreans are slaves.
No,
people are no belonging a country because of that stupid thing of nationality.
They belong to countries because contries can apply them their rules. (principle of effectiveness).
Italy jail people only because they cross mediterrean sea.. why? Because Italy can do it. No other question guys. And that is the freedom "right" Italy take away. So..
And that's the same for every other rights. States creates them, states take away them.
So if property is state createn, there are no stealing in taxation.
(there are another 2 points why taxation is not stealing in reality, but this is the focal point, none can steal something he owns and rule..)
No,
people are no belonging a country because of that stupid thing of nationality.
They belong to countries because contries can apply them their rules. (principle of effectiveness).
Italy jail people only because they cross mediterrean sea.. why? Because Italy can do it. No other question guys. And that is the freedom "right" Italy take away. So..
And that's the same for every other rights. States creates them, states take away them.
So if property is state createn, there are no stealing in taxation.
(there are another 2 points why taxation is not stealing in reality, but this is the focal point, none can steal something he owns and rule..)
you are conflating the argument- government taxing does not 'violate the right of property of someone else'.
again, you are just making crap up.
That depends on how you define the right of property.
Calling it crap doesn't change the real situation.
again, you are just making crap up.
That depends on how you define the right of property.
Calling it crap doesn't change the real situation.
I have the naturale right to have Canada for my own!!! for example!
Do you even know what natural right means? Natural rights are inalienable rights of ALL human beings. Not all human beings can own Canada, so that can never be a natural right.
but reality is that I have no rights until there are some (real) strenght to avoid it.
Wrong. The rights are there, even if they are not enforcable. They are useless then, but they still exist.
in fact you see that there are no problems for those states that doesn't respect them.
You really don't understand the concept of natural rights. Of course those rights are being violated all over the world. In Syria or Afghanistan, but also in Belgium and Italy.
Do you even know what natural right means? Natural rights are inalienable rights of ALL human beings. Not all human beings can own Canada, so that can never be a natural right.
but reality is that I have no rights until there are some (real) strenght to avoid it.
Wrong. The rights are there, even if they are not enforcable. They are useless then, but they still exist.
in fact you see that there are no problems for those states that doesn't respect them.
You really don't understand the concept of natural rights. Of course those rights are being violated all over the world. In Syria or Afghanistan, but also in Belgium and Italy.